Jump to content

Tom Wood, the First Black Person to Take Their Company Public


Recommended Posts

Video: 94 year-old Tom Wood, the first Black person to take their company public and the first be a on a major U.S. bank’s board of directors.

 

I had the pleasure of meeting Tom a couple of weeks ago.  The video I created really does not do the man and his accomplishments justice, but people like Tom have to be recognized more and this video is my small part. Tom also published his memoir, Anna’s Boy, this year. 

 

Tom Wood

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You and I share that characteristic.  Tom and his 90+ year old wife presented like lively 80-year-olds.  The house was decorated like someone who still had kids at home.  Check out the video I posted and judge for yourself: https://aalbc.com/authors/author.php?author_name=Tom+Wood#video

 

I sat with Tom by his pool and he wife made us a tasty lunch. He had a ton of stories. A professional videographer and editor could have created something really nice.  i would love to visit people this and record their stories. 

 

I asked him about the Boule, he said it used to be secret, but you can find everything about it on the web now. That is the reason he listed his membership. There are a number of clubs where business leaders and the wealthy network with each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troy

Yeah, I like talking to people at that advanced 80s and 90s (even 100+ if I can find them) age because I figure if you're Black and have managed to live for THAT lone in THIS society..you can't be a fool!
You must have learned a thing or two...lol.
I even liked hearing Cynique's stories from her childhood.

 


Man, you mean to tell me his WIFE is also in HER 90s too????
And still walking around fixing food??
I bet his current wife is one of the main inspirations of his high achievement.
What CAN'T a man do with a good woman by his side.

The brother seems to be divinely favored.
He reminded me of ANOTHER brother I knew of here in Michigan named John Barfield:

 

image.jpeg.20b7f23ae6e118842b10551950145d78.jpeg

        John Barfield


He started off as a janitor  and ended up becoming a Billionaire.
He died recently after his wife did, and BOTH lived to be in their 90s!


As far as what he was talking about.........................

 



I think his advice is good for people who don't have the option to build their own community and are forced to live in this one, but we have a choice today.
We as AfroAmericans have MANY OPTION and don't have to try twice and thrice as hard to make it in institutions that have been established by and for Caucasians like most Universities and corporations.  We have the ability today to create our own.

Following his advice is good for those who are smart enough and determined enough, but most of our people right now are AVERAGE and many are below average and stupid.
We need a society where atleast the AVERAGE person can be successful.  This society will not do it for them.

He has some valid points about the police force also, but the same principle applies.
AfroAmericans are in a position where we can actually establish our own police departments around the nation if we were motivated to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Pioneer1 said:

I even liked hearing Cynique's stories from her childhood.

 

Yeah I miss Cynique's stories as well. But home boy has more than a decade on even Cynique. The other interesting thing is that he grew up in Harlem and attended one of the three specialized high schools in NYC, Stuyvesant High School -- just like I did.  But the Harlem of his youth was Heaven compared to the Harlem of my youth.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We when I was coming up Puerto Rican's were already here. There is no causal effect between the arrival of Puerto Ricans and the decay of Harlem. They were victim of it like the Black people here before them.  I'm old enough to remember when the projects were a nice place to live.  White people even lived in the one I grew up in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troy

I don't remember the projects being nice....lol.
I remember being a whole lot better than they are today (the few that still exist).

You DO know Canada has housing projects too, right?
And the public housing in Canadian cities are BIGGER and NICER than the ones in the United States!
Blocks and blocks of tall well maintained sky scrapers with thousands of poor people packed in them.

But as far as projects in the United States go.............
I found out that projects were rough all over America.
I remember going down south on vacation as a little kid and we'd go to some housing projects in the rural area near a lagoon where some of our relatives were and as rural and country as it was it was STILL wild with children running around acting a fool and tearing up.....lol.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think all public housing projects started out nice, but eventually degenerated. My complex was built in the 40's and provided affordable housing for employeed married couples while they saved money to buy a house.

 

Today people live in them for generations, because housing in NYC is so expensive. The projects I grew up in is not nearly as dangerous as it was in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, but the city as a whole is not nearly as dangerous.

 

The apartments are poorly maintained today. Residents biggest fear is that they will be torn down or sold to developers. Of course Harlem gentrifiers would love for this to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember when some Whites were living in the projects also.....but a very very few.
As I look back on it now, usually something was "wrong" with them and prevented them from living with other Caucasians and they were STUCK in the hood.

But I didn't live in the projects, I just had a lot of family who did.

We would go visit THEM to keep them from visiting US....lol.


Remember the old saying?   "Don't call ME.....I'll call YOU!".....lol.

 

 

 


Like Chris Tucker told that fat girl in Friday....

 

 

image.jpeg.27104fed5ed66b0fdab4b86c822887bc.jpeg


"Listen girl....tell me where you live and 
I'll come to see YOU.  But don't you EVER...
ever...ever...ever...come around HERE!!
Understand???"



We (the Black people of my neighborhood) weren't rich or even upper middle class, but we weren't poor or ghetto either and didn't want a lot of ghetto people with crazy out of control kids coming into the neighborhood to mess it up.
That's how a LOT of Black people thought in those days.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troy, is right and nailed the biggest fear of NYC project residents.

Because Crain's Business reported on Feb. 13, 2020, that the New York City Public Housing Authority signed an agreement that will turn 5,902 units over to private developers and raise over $1.5 billion for much-needed repairs. 

In 2018, NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio announced plans to convert 62,000 apartments by 2028 and has so far converted over 7,000 units. 

Included in the deal are five complexes: Linden Houses and Boulevard Houses in East New York, Williamsburg Houses in East Williamsburg and Audubon Houses and Harlem River Houses 1 and 2 in Harlem. The long list of selected developers includes major builders like L+M Development and Hudson Cos. and some smaller players.

A lot of folks may be unaware that HUD has sold many foreclosed homes and repossessed buildings to NYCHA. The agency now has a program to sell single family homes to folks. I am just hoping no family gets evicted during this Pandemic.


Troy, you went to Stuyvesant High School?

Congratulations! That was THEE hardest school to get into for decades and probably still is.

I went to Brooklyn Tech. But I hated it and switched to one closer to me (and which has girls) in my second year.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the benefits of being less educated (academically atleast) is that you can still think on more simple terms and ask simple questions.
For example........

I did some very brief research on both of those high schools (Stuyvesant & Brooklyn Tech) and found that both are supposedly PUBLIC schools designed for high achieving smart students (which made me wonder how Troy got in - he doesn't even know that different races exist.....lol).  In my experience of living in different parts of this nation I found that MOST major cities have these type of "public" schools that have been designed to SUCK the "smartest" children from all over the metropolitan area into centralized locations and concentrate them into a hand full of schools with the best teachers and academic programs.
In Detroit you had (have?) 2 well known ones:  Renaissance and Cass Tech.

My question is why don't they keep the neighborhood schools of their respective communities relevant by formulating a curriculum in their own schools as effective as those in these magnate schools designed for high achievers so that they don't have to travel many miles out of their own communities just to get a decent education that keeps up with their intelligence and potential?
But that's more of a rhetorical question because I THINK I already know the answer to that question.

While private schools were designed for students WITH wealth....
These elite "public" schools were designed to attract intelligent and promising students who come from poor and working-class background who couldn't afford private schools.  It was designed to pool and exploit their intelligence.

Without having set foot in either one of those schools,  I'm willing to wager that just like  Renaissance and Cass Tech in Detroit....those schools you two mentioned were MUCH more structured and disciplined and MUCH safer with effective security than over 95% of the other public schools in the city!   
Would I be wrong?
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pioneer1,

You would not be wrong. But Troy is much younger than I. While Brooklyn Tech seemed safe to me, a couple of the teachers were intractably racist. That is part of the reason why I and my best friend, an incredible math and science genius, left. (He's White and is still a math genius).

Not everyone who went to Brooklyn Tech came from impoverished backgrounds. Some came from families that owned profitable businesses and these kids lived in big homes.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stefan

 

I'm sure most of the non-AfroAmerican teachers there were racist like most of them tend to be in school all over the the nation in both good and bad schools.
Some are just better at concealing it than others.

Infact, the racism of many of the teachers and other staff is another part of the reason why these magnate schools were established in the first place.
Since they worked in public schools they probably were and are in teacher's unions, which gives them a lot of leverage and options.

Under a fair and just system good teachers (racist or not) would be evenly spread to all public schools in proper proportion through out the ENTIRE school district despite the zip-codes and poverty levels of each particular neighborhood.  This would ensure that ALL schools had the same amount or atleast a proportionate amount of good teachers (again....racist or not) to reach and teach all those students who are willing and able to learn despite their background and poverty level.

Ofcourse the most common argument of these teachers would be that it's not racism that makes working in ghetto neighborhoods so undesirable for them....it's crime and safety.
But continuing with my example of a fair and just system......
Ideally every school would have adequate security for staff and student regardless of the environment outside.
 

 

 

Not everyone who went to Brooklyn Tech came from impoverished backgrounds. Some came from families that owned profitable businesses and these kids lived in big homes.

I'm sure they didn't.
Some people who send their children to these schools aren't poor, just not wealthy enough to send their children to prestigious private schools but....like their wealthy counterparts...still recognize their children's high intelligence and potential and want them to receive the best education and  future opportunities that come with going to these specialized institutions.

On the flip side of the coin....
I went to public schools and met a few kids who weren't so smart but came from wealthy backgrounds and could have went to private schools but their wealthy parents didn't want to "shelter" them and wanted them to get used to interacting with people of less privileged backgrounds!   
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the teachers I knew from Junior High to High School were not so much racist as indifferent to the plight of Black students. 

I taught Writing for five years as well as a few other subjects. You have to really love teaching because it is a difficult career that will not make one rich. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the problems is that most AfroAmerican children learn DIFFERNTLY than Caucasian children (especially the boys) and most teachers are trained on how to teach Caucasian children, not children of other races.

There was a school in Chicago (I forgot the name of it) which was a special academy of all AfroAmerican children nearly ALL of them turned out to extemely high achievers not only academically but well rounded in music and other fields and I think nearly all of them were able to learn several languages and qualify for prestigious colleges.

AfroAmerican children can learn and EXCEED Caucasian children in academics and all other fields and disciplines when taught in the proper environment by the proper teachers.  They know this, which is why they keep the educational system the way it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/25/2020 at 8:14 PM, Stefan said:

I went to Brooklyn Tech.

 

I knew there was something special about you; I'm BTHS '80. @Mel HopkinsHopkins graduated from Tech too.

 

 

On 12/24/2020 at 9:47 AM, Pioneer1 said:

As I look back on it now, usually something was "wrong" with them and prevented them from living with other Caucasians and they were STUCK in the hood.

 

I'm surprised as this is where you usually say something like; "These are race soldiers, who chose to stay in the hood willing to sacrifice themselves to help maintain white racism."

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

One of the problems is that most AfroAmerican children learn DIFFERNTLY than Caucasian children (especially the boys) and most teachers are trained on how to teach Caucasian children, not children of other races.

 

Any observed differences in the way students learn can be explained by a numbers of factors, none of which would include what you understand as "race."

 

I'm sure despite the racism the teachers and schools were superior in Stefan's generation than mine. The single worse teacher I even had was at Brooklyn Tech. This so called teacher (a retired engineer) allowed us to shoot dice and drink beer in the back of the classroom. All the kids were smart, but we just continued to push boundaries until it became clear there were none. Our "teacher" would read the paper while we gambled.

 

In Stefan's generation, and earlier, teaching was a respected profession today teachers are treated like blue collar workers, as a result teaching is not the first job that comes to mind for our brightest people.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troy

 


Mel Hopkins graduated from Tech too.

Lol....she graduated???
 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm surprised as this is where you usually say something like; "These are race soldiers, who chose to stay in the hood willing to sacrifice themselves to help maintain white racism."

Lol, thanks for reminding me because this is actually true but not in ALL cases.
In some cases they are genuinely poor or stupid (or both) and have no where else to go.

You can't always tell.

But there are others like Jeffery Dahmer who weren't stupid and weren't really poor but purposefully stayed in AfroAmerican neighborhoods in order to be close to their victims.  He chopped up and ate negro meat.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sure despite the racism the teachers and schools were superior in Stefan's generation than mine. The single worse teacher I even had was at Brooklyn Tech. This so called teacher (a retired engineer) allowed us to shoot dice and drink beer in the back of the classroom. All the kids were smart, but we just continued to push boundaries until it became clear there were none. Our "teacher" would read the paper while we gambled.

It's funny you said that because I had a couple teachers who let us (not me I didn't shoot dice) do the same thing.
Well, to keep it real no teacher let us "knowingly" drink alcohol but they would let us gather in corners and drink drinks that clearly affected our behavior and they also let us openly gamble and "cap" on eachother.......without saying a word.

Part of me wonder whether they were doing it for their own safety.
Meaning, if they didn't have any security in the building (as my highschool didn't) and couldn't rely on other teachers successfully being able to come to their rescue when one of the boys or girls commenced to whooping on that ass...lol....which actually happened SEVERAL times, perhaps they made the best decision.

As I told Stefan, in an ideal world you would have ADEQUATE security in every school for both the students and the staff. 

 

 

 

 

 

In Stefan's generation, and earlier, teaching was a respected profession today teachers are treated like blue collar workers, as a result teaching is not the first job that comes to mind for our brightest people.

Teachers were considered part of the "Professional class" by reason of their high education, but most of them aren't making Professional Class money unless they are teaching in a college or university.
Like Stefan said, it has to be something you REALLY want to do.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troy,

First, thank you for your compliment. They do not just let anyone into Stuyvesant.  You have to be the best of the best. So, kudos to you as well. 

I don't believe sticking it out in a neighborhood with a high rate of shootings and gang violence is the right move. Especially if one has children.  

When I taught, it was for extra money at first. Then when I saw I was making a difference, I threw myself into it even though I had a steady day job as a Senior Editor. 

Eventually, I realized that was the profession I should have chosen instead of Journalism.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/28/2020 at 8:43 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Part of me wonder whether they were doing it for their own safety.

 

No, that so-called teacher simply did not care about us kids. He should not have been anywhere near a classroom. None of the guys in the back of the classroom were bad, or dangerous, (again I was one of them) one is a financial supporter of the site today. It is called classroom management and that teacher had no concept of what that is, but again he didn't give a s**t.

 

The idea that gambling and drinking in the classroom was allowed in your school tells me that this sort of thing is probably not unusual at all, and that is depressing.

 

@Stefan you missed what I wrote; I graduated from Brooklyn Tech too 🙂

 

On 1/3/2021 at 12:34 AM, Stefan said:

I don't believe sticking it out in a neighborhood with a high rate of shootings and gang violence is the right move. Especially if one has children.  

 

I don't think so either, but the Harlem I lived in as an adult with my kids was not the Harlem I grew up in. Black middle and upper middle class people could have ruled Harlem if they chose to do so, but that would have taken organization and commitment from large groups of people and that is something which is in short supply.

 

Harlem is not unique, as I move around the country I see the same thing wherever I go.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Troy

 

 

The idea that gambling and drinking in the classroom was allowed in your school tells me that this sort of thing is probably not unusual at all, and that is depressing.

 

Come on man, that was happening in schools all over the city.
Students were getting drunk, gambling, fighting, and even having sex in different spots of school in nearly EVERY public high school and junior high school in the city. 
Some schools were worse than others.

 

 


Black middle and upper middle class people could have ruled Harlem if they chose to do so, but that would have taken organization and commitment from large groups of people and that is something which is in short supply.

 

They DID rule Harlem (as much as the Caucasian Dominists allowed) right up to the mid to late 60s.  But like most AfroAmerican communities all over the nation, once they were allowed to "integrate" into Caucasian society most of the wealthy and professional AfroAmericans LEFT  for Caucasian neighborhoods.  
That's when the AfroAmerican neighborhoods began collapsing since the only people left in them were poor people and criminals.

 

 

 


Harlem is not unique, as I move around the country I see the same thing wherever I go.

 

Harlem is just ONE of the Black Wall Streets.  One that wasn't destroyed like Greenwood.  Most major cities had a Black section where poverty and wealth swirled together.

In Detroit it was called Black Bottom/Paradise Valley.

Harlem wasn't destroyed because it was in the middle of a major cosmopolitan city and the entire world would have reacted.
But MOST Black sections were either burned down or had freeways built through them. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Students were getting drunk, gambling, fighting, and even having sex in different spots of school in nearly EVERY public high school and junior high school in the city. 

 

Yeah, but not on the classroom on front of the "teacher."

 

23 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

They DID rule Harlem

 

When? Harlem was on loan; a community of renters not owners. 

 

23 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Harlem wasn't destroyed because it was in the middle of a major cosmopolitan city and the entire world would have reacted.

 

Come on man do YOU of all people really believe that? 

 

Look at the people now? Who is reacting? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Troy

 

 

When? Harlem was on loan; a community of renters not owners. 

 

There's a difference between OWNING and RULING.
They often go hand-n-hand, but not always.

 

It is my understanding that even though most of the buildings were owned by Caucasians, the majority (or atleast a very large portion) of the actual businesses in Harlem from the 20s up to the early 70s were AfroAmerican owned like most of the residents.

Similarly, though much of the criminal activities were supplied by Caucasian gangs...most of the groundwork and distribution controled by AfroAmerican crime lords and gangsters.

 

 

Come on man do YOU of all people really believe that? 

 

Yes.
It's speculation because I'm not in the minds of the Caucasian Dominists (my new term to replace "White Supremacy"..lol) but based on my research and logic that seems to explain why most "harlems" in other major cities were destroyed but THAT Harlem and a few others were allowed to remain.

The casualty count would be too high and too noticeable.





 

Look at the people now? Who is reacting? 
 

Harlem isn't being destroyed, just gentrified and re-formed.
That's different than physically destroying a place and bulldozing it over like Greenwood and many other AfroAmerican districts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why you keep saying that Harlem wasn't destroyed?  I lived through it.  Maybe our definition of destroyed is not the same.  This was the Harlem I grew up in.  This scene was three blocks from where I grew up.

 

I could have easily been one of those boy.  The cases two are carrying are trumpets.  Back when public schools had musical instruments they would let you take them home to practice.

 

One time this older kid stole mine from me.  I chased him and inexplicably he turned around and retuned it to me, patted me on the shoulder and said he was just playing.  I later found out that an adult he knew saw what he was doing.  The person knew my mother and my mother told me. She told me never to fight someone robbing you. Of course in the streets it is not that simple. No kid in America should have to worry about getting robbed, when I grew up it was a constant threat.

 

Harlem defined urban decay.  It was destroyed Brother trust me.

 

vergara-7.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troy

 

When I say destroyed I mean LITERALLY.

I mean they literally went into the neighborhood and either burned it down (as in the case of Greenwood) or bulldozed it (as in the case with Black Bottom) and GOT RID OF IT!
People, building, trees, infrastructure....everything.
 

Harlem was RUINED.
Harlem was allowed to DETERIORATE.

But it wasn't literally DESTROYED.


The fact that it's STILL THERE is proof of my point.


You grew up there....because it was THERE.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

The fact that it's STILL THERE is proof of my point.


You grew up there....because it was THERE.

 

It is still there in name only.  The Harlem people like Tom Wood (R.I.P.) grew up in is long gone -- I never witnessed that Harlem.

 

I'm typing this while in the Greenwood section of Tulsa OK (AKA Black Wall Street).  It is "still here" by your definition.

 

Parts of the Bronx were destroyed too like Mott Haven (part of the South Bronx across the bridge from East Harlem),today I could not afford to live there.

 

BTW who is that gentleman you are using as your Avatar now?

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Troy
 


Oh no.

Man o man, I'm sorry to hear that about the brother.
He lived a long (in this day and age) and successful life.
I'm sure he had FEW regrets in his final conscious hours.


I wonder how is his wife holding up.

Often times when it comes to couples at that age who've been together with eachother for that long, the surviving spouse.......




BTW who is that gentleman you are using as your Avatar now?

Ordinarily I'd give you a smart-ass answer before giving up the name but after hearing the news about our brother, nah.....

He's one of the wealthiest and most successful AfroAmerican men during the pre-Civil Rights era.

The Black Titan himself......
 

 

 

A.G. Gaston: From Log Cabin To Funeral Home Mogul : NPR

             Mr.   A.G. Gaston


 

 

He owned hotels, restaurants, construction companies, insurance companies, ect....

The brother had the Midas Touch and everything he touched turned to gold.

MLK used to stay at his hotels.

You probably have heard of him but if not I'm almost sure Daniel @daniellegfny knows who he is....lol.


He also lived a relatively long life....he actually made it OVER 100!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I heard of Gaston.

 

Yeah Woods loss was news worthy but this is 2020 and we are stupid and his passing escaped note.

 

I read the Black Enterprise articles shown in the opening post they were so much better than the promotional fluff they publish today. 

 

It is sad how much we have lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said earlier, back in those days most AfroAmericans believed in and practiced the old adage that you had to be TWICE as good as Caucasians in order to get the same credit.
I'm not sure when we stopped believing and practicing that.

 

Probably aver the 60s during the ILLUSION of inclusion when many felt they no longer had to try harder to be successful.

Also...talking about the school systems.....

The United States used to have one of the BEST public educational systems in the world right up until the 1970s....then they ALLOWED it to collapse and produce what you and I observed growing up.

 

If you think back in your life and your interactions AfroAmericans who graduated from highshcool before 1970 you'll notice that despite their educational achievement they have several things in common:

1. They have SUPERB hand writing.
2. When they recite how to spell a word they do it quickly.
3. They do math and calculate differently and more efficiently

 

Am I lying?
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe school were better prior to my generation. All things considered. 

 

Colleges were cheaper and better. The university system I teach in today used to be free. Today largest universities care more about athletics than teaching...

 

I suspect most people, 60 and older, with a high school education was better educated than someone with a college today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Troy

 

Are you STILL teaching along with your work with AALBC?


I've said before that they PURPOSELY sabatoged the public educational system with the intention of failing AfroAmerican and brown Latino students.  
As long as the public educational system was segregated where they could ensure that ONLY Caucasian children would get the best education....they kept up the system.  But when it allegedly "integrated" where it became harder to control who got what....they started playing all types of game.

-Dividing up the school districts.
-Based public school funding on the taxes of each district
-Promoting more Catholic and charter schools
-Allowing some schools to fail while others become top notch (Brooklyn Tech, Cass Tech, ect....)

 

Just playing typical White Supremacist  Caucasian Dominist games..lol.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-raising the price of tuition forcing millions of parents and students to go into debt.

-using biased admissions polices based upon wealth and nepotism

-getting rid of affirmative action for Black white keep in firm y in place for white

 

Specialized schools like Stuyvesant don't even let Black students in any longer the school has over 2,000 students but only lets a handful of Black students in each year.  Sure they have an admissions test, but most of the public middle schools in the segregated Black neighborhoods don't prepare students for schools like Stuyvesant or Brooklyn Tech. I used to speak and Brooklyn Tech at Career Day.  I would speak to several classrooms and not see a single Black male student.

 

Rich folks are immune to the poor public schools in urban centers because they send their kids to private schools.  Yes @Pioneer1 most of these people are white.

 

Again if these white folks were truly racist, why don't they do something about all these poor white people? Why are some white folks so unhappy they they would attempt to overthrow the government.  The poor and ignorant people are racist, rich white people are just massing wealth and an alarming rate.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Troy

 

 

 I would speak to several classrooms and not see a single Black male student.
 

I notice you said MALE student.
As an educator why do you think AfroAmerican females often do so much better than males in this educational system?

 

 

 


Again if these white folks were truly racist, why don't they do something about all these poor white people? 


Because most of these poor Caucasians aren't angry at the rich and don't want anything from them but LOYALTY.  That's why they love Trump who's a billionaire....because they think he's LOYAL to them and the cause of racist Caucasian Domination.

 

I've said it over and over again but you don't want to believe it....Caucasians don't think like us, they have a different psychological make-up.  YOU want wealth and comfort....Caucasians want to maintain Caucasian Domination and they recognize that in this system SOME of them must be rich and OTHERS must be poor and do the grunt work.  They understand that and don't mind.

 

If you notice, most of these poor rednecks didn't storm the Capitol over not getting $2,000 checks.  Money isn't their issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The society is much rougher on boys that girls -- especially in the classroom. 

 

The impact of single women raising boys can not be ignored either.  I believe boys need to be raised by men. Moms are great, but they are not men. Further I doubt boys raised without fathers are as good at fathering as they would have been if they themselves were raised with a mothers and father. 

 

Girls raised without fathers are at a disadvantage too.  Ask a woman about her relationship with her father, that will often explain a lot about them....

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

.Caucasians want to maintain Caucasian Domination and they recognize that in this system SOME of them must be rich and OTHERS must be poor and do the grunt work.

 

Sure some White (and Black) people believe this, but to assume all do is stereotyping.

 

There is more than enough wealth of everyone -- regardless of ability -- to live a comfortable life in the country.  Honestly if I were a multi-billionaire I could not amass so much wealth while so many around me were suffering.  Maybe because I've seen so much poverty and I know we have wasted so much human capital because of structural inequities in our culture.

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

If you notice, most of these poor rednecks didn't storm the Capitol over not getting $2,000 checks.  Money isn't their issue.

 

No, ignorance is.

 

I know my livelihood is dependent upon the world wide web, but I'm beginning to think society was better off without it, all things considered.  We need to figure the WWW technology out because it is killing us 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troy

 

 

I agree that boys should be raised by men, but especially by men who were properly raised to be ideal men THEMSELVES.

One of the reason there keeps being blow-back on your (and my) point is because they can easily point to examples of men who WERE raised with their fathers in the home but didn't turn out to be as successful as a lot of men who WERE NOT raised with fathers in the home.
Obama is a good example of a man who wasn't raised with his actual father but turned out to be pretty dog-gone successful.

 

Both sides fail to take into account that the purpose of having a father in the home isn't JUST to protect and help the mother provide for the children but to also TEACH boys how to grow up and be ideal men.  Something that many AfroAmerican men don't know how to be themselves let alone teach their sons.  

But the standard IDEAL man in the home is much much much better for the entire family INCLUDING the girls....than having no man (or a sorry ass man) in the home.

 

 

 

 

There is more than enough wealth of everyone -- regardless of ability -- to live a comfortable life in the country.  Honestly if I were a multi-billionaire I could not amass so much wealth while so many around me were suffering.  Maybe because I've seen so much poverty and I know we have wasted so much human capital because of structural inequities in our culture.

 

I agree.
If I had the money (and power) I would definately eliminate the suffering...except as punishment for extremely violent criminals.  I would make sure the 4 basic needs are met for everyone.

That would be a healthy foundation.
After that.....physically and mentally healthy people need to be motivated to improve their OWN lives.

 

 

 

 

I know my livelihood is dependent upon the world wide web, but I'm beginning to think society was better off without it, all things considered.

 

With the way things are going, I have a feeling that sometime this year people are going to find out whether or not this is true...lol.

I believe AfroAmericans would get MUCH more done as a society if our people didn't waste so much time beefing with eachother and clowing on social media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The man (or men) who raise a boy does not have to be the biological father.  Of course in this country most time it is not the biological father. 

 

I thought Obama was raised by a grandfather.  Yes he was very successful, but based upon your criteria, so was Donald Trump...  Any Black man who makes it through life, relatively happy, free of poverty, premature death, and without getting locked up has been pretty successful.

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

I have a feeling that sometime this year people are going to find out whether or not this is true...lol.

 

I think smart people can have a good debate about this, but I'm leaning toward more harm than good.  I doubt we would have had to deal with 4 years of 45 were it not for social media. Is the ability share memes with friends with the trade-off?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troy

 

 

The man (or men) who raise a boy does not have to be the biological father. 

 

No, absolutely not.
Infact, in the very near future (this year actually) when we begin to build our own communities we will be building new family structures and many if not most of the families will have father who are NOT the biological fathers of the children but will treat them as such.

 

 


I thought Obama was raised by a grandfather.  Yes he was very successful, but based upon your criteria, so was Donald Trump... 

 

Success is meeting goals.
Doing what you set out to do.
Both of them aspired to the highest office in this government and both of them achieved those goals.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I doubt we would have had to deal with 4 years of 45 were it not for social media. Is the ability share memes with friends with the trade-off?

Social media is a TOOL...and like most tools they can be used for good or bad.

For example.....

Besides giving the average person a platform to get their ideas out to the masses (something the average joe couldn't do 30 years ago), another good thing about social media is you have people who can give you more accurate and immediate details about an event as it unfolds BEFORE the mainstream media get's a chance to edit it and spin the story.

For the past 5 years or so people have been tweeting pictures and videos of things like unarmed AfroAmericans being killed by the police that in the old days would be covered up or spun in the editing room to make the brother look like the bad guy.  

If an innocent man is being gunned down on Facebook live and 20 million people see it....it's pretty balsy for Fox News or CNN to turn around and report that people didn't see what they all just saw.

 

 

This Is Why Fox News Viewers Really Hate Shep Smith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

Social media is a TOOL...and like most tools they can be used for good or bad.

 

Yes, I know but I'm questioning if the good out weights the bad

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

Besides giving the average person a platform to get their ideas out to the masses

 

Again I know, but why are the unsubstantiated musings of the average schmos a better?

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

people who can give you more accurate and immediate details about an event as it unfolds

 

It is funny the things you see as advances I see as problems. Accurate and immediate rarely occur unless it is accompanied by smart, expensive, and moral. 

 

Yes there are times when amateur videos have been a great aid and other times misleading.

 

Again, I make my living on the web. I understand the benefits -- better than most. Still I question whether this incredible tool has done more harm than good.

 

Certainly you must agree the web has failed, woefully, to realize its potential.

 

Look at our society man an tell how the web has helped any outcomes, cause I definitely tell you how it hurt. 

 

Have the videos you talked about resulted in fewer police killing or more prosecutions? Has the pandemic ranged any less, have we gotten better politicians, has wealth disparity lessened, have the population become better educated, have life expectancies increased, have opiod drug addiction been reduced? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Troy

 

 

Yes, I know but I'm questioning if the good out weights the bad

 

That's like asking does the good of MONEY outweigh it's bad.
Or does the good of ENERGY outweigh it's bad.

Tools are tools, it depends on HOW they're being used and WHO is using them.

 

Social media is good for me because it helps me get some of my ideas out and I get to meet people and exchange ideas.
I've known some people who've gotten into fights and have legal problems because of their interactions on social media.

But so far, despite how good it's been for me and many others....in my opinion social media has been bad for MOST AfroAmericans collectively because it causes to many to engage in un-productive and counter-productive behavior.

 

But again, it's not necessarily social media's fault but the MOTIVATION behind it's creators and it's users.

 

 

 

 

Again I know, but why are the unsubstantiated musings of the average schmos a better?

 

1. It's usually good for them as an individual (as long as they aren't calling for unjustified violence) to get their frustrations off their chest...kind of like therapy.  Sometimes it helps to just talk.

2. Following that previous point, verbalizing their frustrations to a listening audience will release some of that pint up frustration and MAY prevent them from going out and doing something reckless.

 

 

 

Still I question whether this incredible tool has done more harm than good.

 

It's highly individualistic.

A LOT of people are making money off of Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube...and not just the founders but a lot of average people who are in business who ordinarily wouldn't be in business or wouldn't be making AS much.  It has certainly benefited THEM.   While at the same time...as I said earlier some people have gotten into fights and legal problems over the content they shared on social media.

It's not about good or bad or good over bad it's about good for who AND bad for who.

 

 

 


Have the videos you talked about resulted in fewer police killing or more prosecutions? Has the pandemic ranged any less, have we gotten better politicians, has wealth disparity lessened, have the population become better educated, have life expectancies increased, have opiod drug addiction been reduced? 

 

Great question:  I don't know the answer to it.

 

I will say that I'm certainly glad that I'm able to get raw video in a lot of these cases that would ordinarily have been smothered in a lot of gravy and heavily edited if even talked about AT ALL on mainstream media.

Wouldn't you rather have the raw uncut TRUTH so that you can make up your own mind about what's happening in your environment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

That's like asking does the good of MONEY outweigh it's bad.
Or does the good of ENERGY outweigh it's bad.

Tools are tools, it depends on HOW they're being used and WHO is using them.

 

Yes! It is exactly like that. In my opinion;

 

Money has been a net good; and

Energy has also been a net positive (save fossil fuels).

 

11 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Social media is good for me

 

OK I see the problem you are looking at this from only your narrow self interest.  If I looked at the WWW is has been a great benefit to me.  It has allowed me to do something I think is relevant and given me some freedom an autonomy, but collectively I wonder if, net-net, society has been disserved by the WWW.

 

11 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

.in my opinion social media has been bad for MOST AfroAmericans collectively

 

I'd agree with this.

 

11 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

it's not necessarily social media's fault but the MOTIVATION behind it's creators and it's users.

 

I fail to see the distinction.

 

11 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

A LOT of people are making money off of Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube...and not just the founders but a lot of average people who are in business who ordinarily wouldn't be in business or wouldn't be making AS much.

 

Again, I'm talking about collectively.  If you took all the people who made money on twitter and factored all the damage it has done, was the trade off worth it to society collectively? 

 

BTW who are these average people who are making money on twitter?  Tell me how they are making money?

 

12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

verbalizing their frustrations to a listening audience

 

Is talking on Twitter really than just talking to friends or joining a club?  What about the kids holed up in the room swiping through tick-tock rather than going out to play..

 

12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

It's highly individualistic.

 

Again, that is not the question I'm pondering.  The WWW jhas obviously been good for me, but society, I'm not so sure.

 

12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Great question:  I don't know the answer to it.

 

Well I do, hence my concern about the overall benefit versus problem of the web.

 

12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Wouldn't you rather have the raw uncut TRUTH so that you can make up your own mind about what's happening in your environment?

 

No.  That is why we need good journalists and better reporting.  Some amateur video pushed out onto the web without context is not helpful at all.  We've seen many videos of situations that were very misleading, because they did not show everything that happened before.  Of course there is the issue of "deep fakes," which can not be ignored. I want the information I see vetted.  

 

One of the worse consequences of the WWW has been the gutting of journalism.  It has led the rose of deep fakes, misinformation, and alternative facts. "News" has became a revenue stream and society has definitely suffered as a result.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Pioneer has a tendency to fixate on minor details and fails to see the bigger picture.  Part of the reason I believe is that Pioneer struggles at conceptually thinking is that he focuses on the individual cases, personal experience, and the like. But most people do this, it is human nature, we are moved by personal stories.

 

I keep trying to get him to think about the society as a whole and he keeps brining it back to individual cases. I thought acknowledging the I have personally benefited from the WWW (including social media) might make the distinction clear, but that failed.

 

Maybe your pointing out the notion of conceptual thinking might help Pioneer look at this whole thing in another way.  

 

I have not given up on Pioneer 😉

 

Speaking of Cynique she is doing well, despite her profound loathing of 45...

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troy

 

 

OK I see the problem you are looking at this from only your narrow self interest.  If I looked at the WWW is has been a great benefit to me.  It has allowed me to do something I think is relevant and given me some freedom an autonomy, but collectively I wonder if, net-net, society has been disserved by the WWW.

 

What is societal interest....besides a collection of INDIVIDUAL interests?

 

Perhaps what you see is a pathology in society may be seen as entertainment and fun to those engaging in it.

I think Gangsta Rap is pathological and promotes violence, disharmony, and drug use.  However Ice Cube, Dr. Dre, T.I. and other Gangsta Rappers will differ with my opinion because what I see as a pathology made THEM rich.

 

 

 


I fail to see the distinction.

 

The difference between the TOOL called "social media" and the MOTIVATION behind creating that tool can be likened to the TOOL commonly known as gun powder that was developed by the Chinese for the MOTIVATION of celebration but Caucasians found it and used it to make weapons against the motives of the founders.

Tools aren't always used in agreement with the motives of those who invent them.

 

 

 

 

Again, I'm talking about collectively.  If you took all the people who made money on twitter and factored all the damage it has done, was the trade off worth it to society collectively? 

 

For society in general...I would say yes.
The good that social media offers the society IN GENERAL seems to outweigh the bad.

 

For AfroAmericans collectively...I would say no.
The bad of social media so far has outweighed the good.

 

 

 

 

Is talking on Twitter really than just talking to friends or joining a club?  What about the kids holed up in the room swiping through tick-tock rather than going out to play..

 

Perhaps with what's going on in the world today the kid IS better off in his room communicating on social media than being out exposing themselves to alcohol, abuse, or Covid.

 

 

 


No.  That is why we need good journalists and better reporting.  Some amateur video pushed out onto the web without context is not helpful at all.  We've seen many videos of situations that were very misleading, because they did not show everything that happened before.  Of course there is the issue of "deep fakes," which can not be ignored. I want the information I see vetted.  


You're talking about exceptions.
I'm talking about generally speaking.

 

Generally speaking when an amateur puts a video of a crime or shocking incident that happens in public out for the world to see they haven't "doctored" it to the point that you can't tell what's going on. You may not get the FULL context of exactly what transpired but if what you see is so shocking like a cop killing a 6 year old unarmed kid....how much context DO you need to see to make up your mind of what happened?

 

 

 

 


 

One of the worse consequences of the WWW has been the gutting of journalism.  It has led the rose of deep fakes, misinformation, and alternative facts. "News" has became a revenue stream and society has definitely suffered as a result.

 

Journalism was jacked up and manipulated long before the advent of social media....lol.
Society has been complaining about the editing and censorship of newsworthy material for DECADES.

 

I remember as a kid growing up I'd see something happen in my neighborhood and then run to the television to catch it on the 6 o'clock news and what they report is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from what me and my friends witnessed.  Now a days it's harder for them to do that because they never know when a video shot by a citizen on their cell phone might "surface" and blow a hole through their entire story.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, Pioneer has a tendency to fixate on minor details and fails to see the bigger picture.  Part of the reason I believe is that Pioneer struggles at conceptually thinking is that he focuses on the individual cases, personal experience, and the like. But most people do this, it is human nature, we are moved by personal stories.

 

Also relying on personal experiences and observations helps to guard you from being manipulated by those with agendas to control and steer your thinking.

If you put more faith in "data" being presented to you from the media than you do in what you've actually seen with your own two eyes...you are literally being GIVEN your reality instead of experiencing it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Delano  @Delano


Don't argue with a person that can't think conceptually. Since they can't understand what you are  saying.


Can you CLEARLY define "conceptual thinking"?
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

The bad of social media so far has outweighed the good.

 

I'm inclined to agree.

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

Journalism was jacked up and manipulated long before the advent of social media....lol.

 

That is an interesting perspective. I guess that is why 45 was so able to easily convince his followers that journalists are all liars and propagators of fake news.

 

Consider the video that you watched of the brother running from the mob who stormed the Congress, you felt the brother was running away in fear and worthy of ridicule. While the truth is that he is a hero, who led an angry mob away from the senators. 

 

The elimination of the last daily black owned newspaper I guess it's been over 30 years now was a tremendous loss. The remaining weekly newspapers are mere shell of what they used to be, lacking writers, investigators, photographers salespeople etc. Someone posting cell phone video on social media is a pathetic replacement for professional reporting.

 

@Pioneer1 would you just summarize what the brother did, to use social media in the meaningful way, as described in the video I listen to the first few minutes of it and it was really kind of hard, I can't tolerate a whole hour of that kind of content. Also explain how what he did could not have been done without social media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troy

 

 

Consider the video that you watched of the brother running from the mob who stormed the Congress, you felt the brother was running away in fear and worthy of ridicule. While the truth is that he is a hero, who led an angry mob away from the senators. 

 

NO...I don't think the brother should be ridiculed (not by me).
I don't know what I would do if I were in that brothers position (but then again....I'm not a trained police officer) so I'm not going to clown on him.

But the VISUALS of it makes it looks as if it's just another scared Black man running from White men.  Even when he has a uniform and weapons..he'll run.  


That's not MY attitude but those are the conclusions some will come to based on what they saw.

 

 

 


Someone posting cell phone video on social media is a pathetic replacement for professional reporting.

 

True.....
However I'd take an unsophisticated and raw TRUTH over a polished and well dressed LIE.

I don't care how professional and well polished a person is, if the information they're giving you is INCORRECT....how can you make proper decisions with it?

 

 

 

 

 


would you just summarize what the brother did, to use social media in the meaningful way, as described in the video I listen to the first few minutes of it and it was really kind of hard, I can't tolerate a whole hour of that kind of content.

 

LOL....what is it..too much cussing?
Or are the behavior of the men speaking too ghetto acting to tolerate?
You know the host is Willie D a pretty popular rapper from the Geto Boys of the late 80s and early 90s.


But the brother he was interviewing was basically saying how he used Facebook, Twitter, and other forms of social media to bring attention to and galvanize support for boycotting and shutting down a gas station that was disrepecting his community.
The focus of the show wasn't social media, but as I was listening to him the other night and he mentioned it a few times I thought about our conversation and decided to use it as an example of the POSITIVE aspects of social media.

 

 

 


Also explain how what he did could not have been done without social media.

 

It COULD have been done without social media.
Dr. King organized a much bigger boycott down in the Deep South back in 1955 before social media was a thought in the minds of most.

 

Social media didn't make it POSSIBLE for him to galvanize and organize, it just made it MUCH EASIER and more efficient (which is a plus).

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...