Jump to content

Thoughts on National Black Voters Day


Recommended Posts

It is not something Black people in the past created , it is something from pure modernity. By the national urban league, which has produced no results for the black urban league.

I asked in the post below what I will ask here. Can any one black show me anything that came from black voting? Show me something? 

The 13th amendment to end enslavement was the result of war. Show me something that Black votes earned the Black community in the USA. I Can't think of anything. Can you? 

And some of you will say, that is not the point of voting and I oppose that view. In NYC, the vote of various white groups led to things in their community for them. 

More information or my thoughts

https://aalbc.com/tc/profile/6477-richardmurray/?status=2079&type=status

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on what you are looking for...

For instance most black men and women in The US Congress today hold their position largely as a result of Black Voters.....That includes President Obama.

Any Bill Sponsored  by an African American  Congresswoman or man that has Passed and become Law is largely a result of black voters....Congressional Black Caucus

The Affordable Care Act (Obama care) is the most highly publicize one lately...I am sure they are many more.

If you are looking for something that benefits Non-whites only then The Crown Act  should be sufficient.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@frankster only two  issue I call incorrect with your reply , the first is the opening statement, the second is the closing statement. I will speak to the first and end my prose reply speaking to the second. You are wrong to say it depends on what you are looking for. My question asked for physical evidence of a return to something of value to the vote of the black community, throughout usa history.

The black elected officials are members of the black community. They are physical evidence on a return to black votes, as the elected officials themselves are black, and are present because of Black voters. From a pure historical perspective, none or extremely few Black elected officials ever won a seat without a Black voting populace supporting them. 

 

In Black government districts in the USA , < I define Black as a person regardless of ancestry/immigration status/gender/religion/language whose phenotype is in the range of appearance I define as Black > I define as a: city district/city/town/county/state/federal district in the USA that has a Black populace over seventy percent, the Black vote has control over who gets elected. In all other districts in the USA or the USA itself, Black elected officials, like former president Barack Obama, still can use or need the Black vote to win a seat; but only the white vote as a block can guarantee a win in non Black districts or the USA itself. What you said wasn't incorrect but the way you said it gives a false allusion. A Black Elected official like Barrack Obama or David Dinkins or Eric Adams , a former or the current mayor of NEw York City, required black votes to win, but the seat they obtained can only be won by the white vote as a black. The black vote as a block alone can not win the mayoral seat of New York City or the presidency of the United States of America. Sequentially, relating their success as equal to the same to a Ray Nagin, former mayor of New Orleans or Kwame Brown, former mayor of DEtroit, at the time, two cities that are Black districts, is untrue. Similar but not equal scenarios and in voting, the variance between a Black voting block guaranteeing a seat and the Black voting block only empowering the path to a seat is huge. And your prose suggest a much smaller variance than the truth displays. 

 

The Affordable Care act is mostly from Nancy Pelosi. Barack Obama is on the public record as giving up on the bill, it was Pelosi who convinced him she will get the house and senate to get it done. Yes, Obama signed it, but in truth, the Affordable Care act came through the federal legislative branch in the United States, commonly called the Congress. So much so, Pelosi lost the House and cost her Senate peers the senate getting the Affordable care act. As the president of the USA is still needed to sign anything from the Congress, all president's have a role in each law, but the way you side other's call it Obama care is a lie. He merely signed it. It is Pelosi-care, Pelosi is the real generator of that law. 

 

my query side your reply is key to the problem when it comes to black people in the usa and the usa government, historically. 

You make two perfectly good answers to the question of what physical returns of the Black vote to empower the Black community : Black elected officials, laws that come from Black elected official policy, whether to the Black communities sole need or to a general need which includes black people but also non blacks, like the crown act of California or the affordable care act.

The problem is, a Black elected official isn't bound by either of the White parties of governance of the legal code in the USA to produce policy or make effect law that serves their phenotypical race exclusively. The USA legal code doesn't make racial exclusive policy or law illegal, if it doesn't inhibit or harm other races, may they be phenotypical or gender or age or religious or other. Sequentially, all Black elected officials to my knowledge have never created a Black policy agenda solely, even if they were elected in a Black district. Ala like the South Carolina Senate post War between the States who had in majority Black elected officials , where each Black elected official was elected by a Black district. But the policy from the majority Black South Carolina Senate post war between the states was unquestioningly omniracial in purpose: public schools/taxes/financial initiatives. But, omniracial policy didn't serve the Black community in South Carolina well at all. It can be argued, with the aid of the Federal Army, the era of Majority Black Senators in the South Carolina senate wasted an opportunity, one that no State had since, to  provide for the Black community in a state, without harming whites, but for the purpose of empowering Blacks in said state first or foremost, not merely in the short term but the long term. 

And this goes to Black voters day. The heritage of Black descended of enslaved elected officials in the USA is omniracial policy. I don't say that is wrong or right, but it has positives or negatives. The positives is that it has created a framework of policy creation from various types in races, from women in gender, to latino or sino in language, to asian or arab or african in descendency, to young or old in age, that even if they are elected by a particular group in majority, their policy even if it doesn't aid most that led to them being elected is sufficient to retain their seats, and be deemed by majority of their voting base adequate, even if they lose voters for lack of effective law to their majority. The negatives is that over time, the voters who represent the subraces <phenotype/age/language/or similar> of the official, yes all humans are human, become  correctly disenfranchised to their policy and sequentially to the system itself. Trump to be historically blunt, utilized this truth in the party of Abraham Lincoln to great effect. Correctly, because omniracial policy by default is centrist and centrist policy by default requires groups , regardless of their voting power in a district to accept lesser opportunity or potency from policy , as the policy is meant to serve all. Monoracial policy by default aids the one race it is purposed for at a higher rate than the same race can be aided by any omniracial policy. 

And this is the environment the Black voting populace, aside others, finds itself in modern USA. All groups want more from policy, but when policy can't provide, they disconnect. Some elected officials and those who have still benefited suggest people need to have patience side resilience, but other elected officials correctly use the impotency of omniracial policy to gain seats and criticize to their voting base the ineffectiveness of the omniracial policy.

 

 

The second incorrect  < and @ProfD I offer you read this as well >  is your allusion that the crown act is solely to the benefit of the Black community. The crown act came from Holly Mitchell, a black elected representive, who served California's 30th state senate district. Said district is not majority Black, it is majority Yella. Yella folk I define as a phenotypical range between Black and White. They include people who are of African/Indigenous/Asian descent as well as anglo/latino/sino speakers or mestizos/mullatoes of mixed geographic descendency.  And the Crown Act serves all humans whose hair styles are not common into the White european mold which includes not only Blacks but Yella folk as well. So, the Crown Act is insufficient as a Black only law for it correctly, doesn't apply to Black people alone as the hair of many who are not Black does not suit the white european heritage of labor etiquette. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, richardmurray said:

@frankster only two  issue I call incorrect with your reply , the first is the opening statement, the second is the closing statement. I will speak to the first and end my prose reply speaking to the second. You are wrong to say it depends on what you are looking for. My question asked for physical evidence of a return to something of value to the vote of the black community, throughout usa history.

The black elected officials are members of the black community. They are physical evidence on a return to black votes, as the elected officials themselves are black, and are present because of Black voters. From a pure historical perspective, none or extremely few Black elected officials ever won a seat without a Black voting populace supporting them. 

Your Question is and here I quote you "I asked in the post below what I will ask here. Can any one black show me anything that came from black voting? Show me something?"

Then There your opening question has been answered and that is an admission of it by you in bold.

 

1 hour ago, richardmurray said:

 

In Black government districts in the USA , < I define Black as a person regardless of ancestry/immigration status/gender/religion/language whose phenotype is in the range of appearance I define as Black > I define as a: city district/city/town/county/state/federal district in the USA that has a Black populace over seventy percent, the Black vote has control over who gets elected. In all other districts in the USA or the USA itself, Black elected officials, like former president Barack Obama, still can use or need the Black vote to win a seat; but only the white vote as a block can guarantee a win in non Black districts or the USA itself. What you said wasn't incorrect but the way you said it gives a false allusion. A Black Elected official like Barrack Obama or David Dinkins or Eric Adams , a former or the current mayor of NEw York City, required black votes to win, but the seat they obtained can only be won by the white vote as a black. The black vote as a block alone can not win the mayoral seat of New York City or the presidency of the United States of America. Sequentially, relating their success as equal to the same to a Ray Nagin, former mayor of New Orleans or Kwame Brown, former mayor of DEtroit, at the time, two cities that are Black districts, is untrue. Similar but not equal scenarios and in voting, the variance between a Black voting block guaranteeing a seat and the Black voting block only empowering the path to a seat is huge. And your prose suggest a much smaller variance than the truth displays. 

It is a "Given" Blacks are not a majority in the US and as such will need white votes.

Black Votes  are crucial and pivotal without which most black elected officials  would not gain office.

 

1 hour ago, richardmurray said:

 

The Affordable Care act is mostly from Nancy Pelosi. Barack Obama is on the public record as giving up on the bill, it was Pelosi who convinced him she will get the house and senate to get it done. Yes, Obama signed it, but in truth, the Affordable Care act came through the federal legislative branch in the United States, commonly called the Congress. So much so, Pelosi lost the House and cost her Senate peers the senate getting the Affordable care act. As the president of the USA is still needed to sign anything from the Congress, all president's have a role in each law, but the way you side other's call it Obama care is a lie. He merely signed it. It is Pelosi-care, Pelosi is the real generator of that law. 

Charles Rangel sponsored the Affordable Care Act...He is from a majority black district....thats black vote in action - undeniably.

 

1 hour ago, richardmurray said:

 

my query side your reply is key to the problem when it comes to black people in the usa and the usa government, historically. 

You make two perfectly good answers to the question of what physical returns of the Black vote to empower the Black community : Black elected officials, laws that come from Black elected official policy, whether to the Black communities sole need or to a general need which includes black people but also non blacks, like the crown act of California or the affordable care act.

Thank you

 

1 hour ago, richardmurray said:

The problem is, a Black elected official isn't bound by either of the White parties of governance of the legal code in the USA to produce policy or make effect law that serves their phenotypical race exclusively. The USA legal code doesn't make racial exclusive policy or law illegal, if it doesn't inhibit or harm other races, may they be phenotypical or gender or age or religious or other.

As it should be

 

1 hour ago, richardmurray said:

 

Sequentially, all Black elected officials to my knowledge have never created a Black policy agenda solely, even if they were elected in a Black district. Ala like the South Carolina Senate post War between the States who had in majority Black elected officials , where each Black elected official was elected by a Black district. But the policy from the majority Black South Carolina Senate post war between the states was unquestioningly omniracial in purpose: public schools/taxes/financial initiatives. But, omniracial policy didn't serve the Black community in South Carolina well at all. It can be argued, with the aid of the Federal Army, the era of Majority Black Senators in the South Carolina senate wasted an opportunity, one that no State had since, to  provide for the Black community in a state, without harming whites, but for the purpose of empowering Blacks in said state first or foremost, not merely in the short term but the long term. 

To me it shows that they were ahead of their time...They did not behave in a omni-racial manner but in a Non-racial manner.

Why would they reinforce the idea that Races exist.

 

1 hour ago, richardmurray said:

And this goes to Black voters day. The heritage of Black descended of enslaved elected officials in the USA is omniracial policy. I don't say that is wrong or right, but it has positives or negatives. The positives is that it has created a framework of policy creation from various types in races, from women in gender, to latino or sino in language, to asian or arab or african in descendency, to young or old in age, that even if they are elected by a particular group in majority, their policy even if it doesn't aid most that led to them being elected is sufficient to retain their seats, and be deemed by majority of their voting base adequate, even if they lose voters for lack of effective law to their majority. The negatives is that over time, the voters who represent the subraces <phenotype/age/language/or similar> of the official, yes all humans are human, become  correctly disenfranchised to their policy and sequentially to the system itself. Trump to be historically blunt, utilized this truth in the party of Abraham Lincoln to great effect. Correctly, because omniracial policy by default is centrist and centrist policy by default requires groups , regardless of their voting power in a district to accept lesser opportunity or potency from policy , as the policy is meant to serve all. Monoracial policy by default aids the one race it is purposed for at a higher rate than the same race can be aided by any omniracial policy. 

Any policy based on race only serves to divide citizen and nationals and further institutionalize racism.

 

1 hour ago, richardmurray said:

And this is the environment the Black voting populace, aside others, finds itself in modern USA. All groups want more from policy, but when policy can't provide, they disconnect. Some elected officials and those who have still benefited suggest people need to have patience side resilience, but other elected officials correctly use the impotency of omniracial policy to gain seats and criticize to their voting base the ineffectiveness of the omniracial policy.

It is great politics and policy that benefits all......even when redressing  past wrongs to particular groups - A rising tide lifts all boats.

As a Minority blacks has to be mindful of appearing blameworthy or hypocritical....instead must find their source of remedy in higher ethics - more Martin less Malcolm.

 

1 hour ago, richardmurray said:

 

 

The second incorrect  < and @ProfD I offer you read this as well >  is your allusion that the crown act is solely to the benefit of the Black community. The crown act came from Holly Mitchell, a black elected representive, who served California's 30th state senate district. Said district is not majority Black, it is majority Yella. Yella folk I define as a phenotypical range between Black and White. They include people who are of African/Indigenous/Asian descent as well as anglo/latino/sino speakers or mestizos/mullatoes of mixed geographic descendency.  And the Crown Act serves all humans whose hair styles are not common into the White european mold which includes not only Blacks but Yella folk as well. So, the Crown Act is insufficient as a Black only law for it correctly, doesn't apply to Black people alone as the hair of many who are not Black does not suit the white european heritage of labor etiquette. 

If you read carefully I said it benefits non-whites......Not only blacks.

11 minutes ago, ProfD said:

The Crown Act was enacted to ban discrimination against black students and employees over their natural hairstyles.  Like most laws, it will benefit others too. 😎

 

True....hence the term non-whites.

It's like "Affirmative Action" it seems to benefit white women etc more than blacks.... even though the spirit of its original intent was to redress employment discrimination against  blacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@frankster I apologize, my prose confused you. 

 

Your opening statement was 

Quote

It depends on what you are looking for...

 

That is what I found incorrect plus the ending statement 

Your ending statement was

Quote

If you are looking for something that benefits Non-whites only then The Crown Act  should be sufficient.

 

There is no depend, the question was answered by you, but it isn't on a dependable basis. The qualities in any valid answer depend on perspectives? yes. but the answers themselves either fit or don't. your answer did. I didn't say it didn't. 

 

 

 

Yes, it is true, but the issue of blacks in government isn't merely the federal level. NEwark, a city across the hudson river from NYC , is a black city, based on my definitions. And it has a relatively long history of Black mayors, especially compared to the white city, NYC. But, the black mayors of Newark prove my point about omniracial policy. Family before me who knew the first and sequent black mayors all concur that no newark black mayor has ever had a black agenda. The question is to what benefit has that been to the majority populace in NEwark? I argue, said Black mayors have stymied that city, whose neighbor has made many financial mistakes in the last fifty years. Notice I said financial mistakes. You are 100% correct, it is a given Blacks are not the majority in the USA, but it is not  a given that blacks are not the majority in parts of the usa and to the black vote, those black parts ,are not getting what I think is even remotely fair let along adeqaute for their votes.

 

YEs, from my district, Charles Rangel. Black votes placed him in , as a black man that was black voting power in action, and Charles Rangel gave vote to the affordable care act, which is black voting power giving a return to a multiracial group which includes black people. But, it must be said, charles rangel, did far less than Adam Clayton Powell jr in providing pro black legislation, or even, pushing the black elected representatives of HArlem to do so at the local level. Inez Dickens, robert jackson, Keith wright, all black, all from harlem. none with a black policy agenda. And I Am not saying they must have it, but what returns do the black vote get. and what quality are they really?

 

Your welcome:) The goal for me in this forum isn't to argue, or to proselytize or to change anybody's mind. I speak my peace. In the end, I can oppose or disagree with positions or words, but I can also concur or stand with. 

 

We stand opposed to what should be. for me, it is more partisan. I think the black community in the USA historically has a problem with accepting its own internal tribes. I repeat, Black people fought to create the united states of america while Black people fought to stop the united states of america from being born while most Black people when the united states of america was being born were unable to have a say in the creation of the usa but wanted betterment for their lives from either or of the two scenarios mentioned before. 

And I think black people in the usa, become trapped in making one of those three right, or wrong. I have heard black people who want to kill all the whites say the majority of blacks are lazy. I have heard black people who are proud and dedicated and financially fruitful citizens of the usa say the majority of blacks are lazy. but whether you love or hate the usa, it isn't unfair for most blacks to be descended of those enslaved people who want betterment from those who are more opportune in the black community. I hear a majority of blacks say, to the black millionaires, black members of the POAL or POAJ , we want more. but the black majority have to realize those blacks though a minority in the black community in leadership position, believes in the usa as a place where the individual has the right to rise or fall and fight, albeit even through unfairness, to maintain a level of human equality. I hear a majority of blacks say to the black militants, black garveyites, black nationalists, give us somewhere to go, give us something to do. But the black majority have to realize those blacks, though another minority, in the black community in a leadership position, have a huge hurdle to overcome to offer the potential black nation outside the usa or black region in the usa, and it will take time and even more time than in past years. 

You say it should be, I say it is for some black people, but not for others, and I think all black peoples in the usa have earned what they truly want.

 

I don't see those black elected representatives as ahead of their time, cause the black people who fought for the usa to be created thought likewise. This country always had and has  black people who believe in the , as you say, non racial possibilities in the USA. but, those elected representatives betrayed their voting body. they knew fully well, many black people didn't see our community in the usa that way. and to use their position to force how they see the black community  on the whole was a betrayal for me. I can accept a black person being nonracial but i can't accept a black person being nonracial using their influence to reject the idea that another black person has to be nonracial too. That is unfair. All black people know our relationship to whites , during the thirteen colonies or the usa itself, has alot of negativity. Is usually negative. And, to have policy that ignores the other two choices that the black community had when the usa was founded is consistent with black elected representatives in the future, but equally dysfunctional for Black people. At the end of the day, it is cheap hindsight , but I argue that that Black south carolina legislature is the primary cause of the deaths of so many black people in south carolina. People can say whites acted illegally in south carolina, but the black elected representatives had one chance to get this right and history proves for the black people in south carolina, who voted for them above ninety percent, they got it wrong. It is that simple. And maybe, maybe, the legacy of the black south carolina senate is black elected representatives have gotten it wrong for black people ever since. Defending their philosophy and applying it on the whole when the black community needed another type of governance. 

 

your 100% correct, any racial elements in any legal code lead to positive or negative biases that harm or hurt but go against the operation of any applied collective as a whole. That is true. The problem though is, in governing absent respect to race, the inequalities inherent in human communities based on race :) mutate or fester , and don't go away. IF anything, the USA in modernity is the proof. HEre is a collection of humans where many racial groups abused by another had leadership that led abused peoples absent racial consideration and it has helped some of the abused but clearly not the majority. And if a governor isn't aiding a majority then they can't be called effective can they?

 

Ohhhhh more martin less malcolm... Your talking to a member of House MAlcolm. but... that is the philosophical debate, it goes back to the blacks who fought against the usa being created versus the blacks who fought for the usa to be created. ... It is . a long battle:) I personally don't think there is a right or wrong. I don't know how you feel to the philosophical history of blacks in the usa, but I find the malcolm /martin philosophical battle less potent than the booker t washington/web dubois/garvey philosophical battle. And I find those battles less potent, than the crispus attucks versus colonel tiye when the usa was born. For me, MAlcolm side MArtin were two religious clerics who both died not in the position they warranted. the other black pastors wouldn't let martin lead the southern black christian leadership conference <I think I got that title slightly wrong:)> cause they feared he would clean up their act. Which he would had and needed to happen.  MLK walked the walk. not just talk the talk. In the same token, the other ministers in the nation of islam wouldn't allow Malcolm his rightful place as leader while elijah muhammed was alive cause he was going to clean up their act. Which he would had and was needed and to his credit trying to do so while not the leader was a legendary act of leadership for me. Both Malcolm side MLKjr walked the walk, that is why they were both murdered. And the preachers or ministers around them, were not. I find the only true variance is tone. But I am fair to both men. I had a fortunate upbringing. I got to know my male forebears,  or clan in general, in peace like MArtin Luther King jr. My family wasn't under assassination like Malcolm's. I comprehend why it took the trip to mecca for malcolm to change his tone. For me, MAlcolm's message never changed, cause it didn't need to change,  but his tone did. Malcolm told black people to defend themselves, not be naive to what you see commonly, be willing to struggle through hurdles, as did Martin. Martin told black people to educate themselves, know the law, be kind to fellow blacks, live positively while wisely in the usa or elsewhere, as did Malcolm.  I think the HBCU, Talented tenth Black employed, Back to Africa are more interesting philosophical frictions in the black community and have more relevance in the black community today. For me, the only true variance in Martin side Malcolm is Martin was always willing to embrace the USA while Malcolm was always willing to let the USA fall. And while that is a major point, I think it yields as potent a discussion. 

 

YEs, I should had emphasized. My reply in that sector was to the purpose of aiding blacks. I am flying through the internet. 

 

@ProfD fair enough, we agree to the goals of the law, our disagreement on intent is for scholarly study or philosophical review only. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, richardmurray said:

Sequentially, all Black elected officials to my knowledge have never created a Black policy agenda...

To date, Black folks have not created an agenda or list of special interests  for our greater good to which any politicians can be held accountable.  😎

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/21/2022 at 9:10 PM, richardmurray said:

Show me something that Black votes earned the Black community in the USA. I Can't think of anything. Can you? 

Black Elected Officials and all the jobs they provided for other black Americans.

On 9/22/2022 at 3:59 PM, ProfD said:

date, Black folks have not created an agenda or list of special interests  for our greater good to which any politicians can be held accountable.  😎

This shows your political history ignorance. I would recommend you read a few more history books.9206BB17-3022-4C8F-85F1-0AC00A653D96.thumb.jpeg.1191558d9f90c87212220ede2edd02e8.jpegD54C6150-7859-4931-A23B-475A67A9BC73.jpeg.96eb78c41e2da8d6632ee660cbb9076b.jpegC56EA10B-5B6E-4190-9259-9272A43CC744.jpeg.668b1a307b5a8d91a94fd2def802abcd.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, daniellegfny said:

This shows your political history ignorance. I would recommend you read a few more history books.

False. 


Instead of pulling up articles from the 1970s, I'll wait for to you list the current AfroAmerican special interest agenda to which they can hold politicians of both parties accountable.  

 

BTW, Newark is still considered one of the most dangerous cities in New Jersey.  😎

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@daniellegfny you are the second to reply with black elected officials...you add jobs they give to black people... 

As the prior commentor who said similar, your answer is correct. The problem is only one sector of the black community has ever found this satisfactory or to their purpose, and the other sectors have not and do not and the other sectors combined represent a majority of the black populace in the usa. And their unsatisfactory position to the return investment on voting of black elected officials explains the voting response , from blacks who do not vote to blacks who do vote but expect nothing of value.

Sequentially, the NAtional Urban LEagues, Black Voters Day is missing the point altogether. The Black people who are satisfied are not right or wrong, the black people who are not, are not right or wrong. The black people disconnected are not right or wrong. People talk about heritage in the USA alot but miss the truth. Some Black people, most free blacks, fought against the creation of the usa when the usa was being created. Some black people, a minority of free blacks, fought for the creation of the usa when the usa was being created. Most black people , the enslaved to whites,were disallowed by white power to make a choice when the usa was being created. The heritage of black people in the usa has three prongs, the urban league, as those in its prong have always done,  disrespects the other two prongs with their position. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

ProfD

I WOULD say I'm tired of agreeing with you.......lol.....but that wouldn't "sound" right regardless of the intent behind it.

 

 

 

 


richardmurray

 

 

 Can any one black show me anything that came from black voting? Show me something? 

The 13th amendment to end enslavement was the result of war. Show me something that Black votes earned the Black community in the USA. I Can't think of anything. Can you? 

 

I don't think we need a "National Black Voters Day" to exercise our right to vote.
We need to have an AGENDA and push it until it's accomplished.

 

However, to answer your question.....

I think the Black vote helped give us Obama, the first "AfroAmerican" President.
Not to mention a host of other Black politicians like Mayors, Congressmen/women, local leaders, ect...

 

This was also mentioned by frankster and I'm seeing you two go back and forth so I'm sure there's been some detail and discussion on this but that would be my first thought on what the Black vote accomplished in the U.S.A.

 

 

The Black vote also helped put Biden in office.
I don't think that was too much of a benefit for our community but it showed how effective the Black vote is.

 

 

 

 

 

you add jobs they give to black people... 

As the prior commentor who said similar, your answer is correct. The problem is only one sector of the black community has ever found this satisfactory or to their purpose, and the other sectors have not and do not 

 

That sounds like the sector of our community who don't WANT jobs anyway, lol.


They could care less who's providing jobs for our people because they don't plan on working on them anyway.  They're looking to mooch off of someone or engage in the illegal/underground economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1 I concur that no voting day is needed but my reasoning is not yours. It isn't for a lack of agenda but for the composition of the black community in the USA. 

As you are the third person to mention black elected officials as a resultant to the betterment of the black community it is clear, that black elected officials , regardless of their quality are deemed a worthy result for the black vote by many black people. but, what is also clear, is the black people who value positively the result of the black vote being black elected officials don't seem to recognize that the other two parts of the Black statian heritage are not comforted by said results to the black vote. 

What are the three parts of Black Statian Heritage?  Blacks who fought against the creation of the usa at the usa's founding, Black who found for the creation of the usa at the usa's founding, Blacks who were unable to choose their path through white domination at the usa's founding.

Crispus Attucks will concur 100% to you Pioneer or Frankster or Danielle. But will the Black loyalists? no. Will the Black enslaved? no. And that is the problem I have with the urban league's strategem. The Black American in the USA has three heritages, and two of those are to be blunt, anti-statian. One is clearly anti white of the USA.

The Black loyalists said the usa, its declarations, its legal code, the white people in it, the not enslaved black people who fight or live side the white people in the usa are enemies. I think many black people have a similar thinking in the usa today. maybe they can not articulate it, but I think they exists in greater number than 2 :)

And the Black enslaved had one common factor, they all didn't want to be enslaved. No, not all wanted to kill whites, some though extremely few loved whites, but none would choose slavery over freedom if a path to freedom was guaranteed. Not a hope or a wish or a dream, but guaranteed.  And I think many black people are very willing to do for something certain that is free of the usa or the white people in it, but not willing to gamble.  

Your correct, the Black loyalists nor the Black enslaved wanted a job did they? Those groups together represented over ninety percent of the black populace when the usa was founded and neither wanted to be president of the usa, vote in the usa, be in the usa, and definitely not a laborer living aside the white populace in the usa. 

My point being is black people who are statian, represent the spirit of crispus attucks could do the entire village a favor by realizing that a large percentage of the black community in the usa wasn't when the usa was founded and still isn't of a similar mind and trying to speak ill of the other two heritages or delegitimize them is dysfunctional and to be blunt, simply hasn't worked. From crispus attucks through frederick douglass, to barack obama, it hasn't worked. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


richardmurray

 

Man you get deep....lol

 


As you are the third person to mention black elected officials as a resultant to the betterment of the black community it is clear, that black elected officials , regardless of their quality are deemed a worthy result for the black vote by many black people. 

 

This is true, especially in the case of Obama.
Because the VISUAL of seeing another Black person in office gives one needed hope and confidence that others can pursue and achieve the same position.

 

 


Crispus Attucks will concur 100% to you Pioneer or Frankster or Danielle. But will the Black loyalists? no. 

 

But I AM a Black loyalist.


A true one, who wants to see the improvement and betterment of Black people.

Some of these people don't really care about Black people or want to leave the system of the United States; they don't want ANY rules and don't respect ANY government.
If they left America and you put them in another land or territory....they'd still go through the same problems they're going through in this one.

 

 

 


Will the Black enslaved? no. 

 

I'm not so sure most enslaved Black people would NOT have agreed to their descendants rising to the heights of power and law making in the land they were held captive and oppressed.

Infact, I'd be willing to be that was a DREAM for many of our enslaved Ancestors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Black loyalists said the usa, its declarations, its legal code, the white people in it, the not enslaved black people who fight or live side the white people in the usa are enemies.


Not necessarily.
Some do, but many if not most Black loyalists don't.
The fact that most Black loyalists continue to LIVE in the United  States without seriously seeking residence and citizenship elsewhere is proof of where they loyalty REALLY resides.

 

 

 


And the Black enslaved had one common factor, they all didn't want to be enslaved. 

 

Well, you'd be surprised that SOME enslaved Black folks actuallyw wanted to be enslaved because they felt it was their divine destiny to suffer that fate because of some "Curse of Ham" belief.
Others didn't think they could make it on their own without the assistance and support of Whites.

 

 

 

 

 

Your correct, the Black loyalists nor the Black enslaved wanted a job did they?

 

SOME Black loyalists wants jobs....inf act MOST do.
I think most....like myself...want their own businesses INDEPENDENT of White institutions.

 

Most Black folks who don't want to work and want to live criminal lives are NOT Black loyalists however.
They aren't loyal to Black folks or even their own families and children.  They are only loyal to THEMSLEVES and will carry that same selfish mentality where ever they go.

They are dead weight to the community and need to be abandoned for the health of the over all community.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, ProfD said:

Instead of pulling up articles from the 1970s, I'll wait for to you list the current AfroAmerican special interest agenda to which they can hold politicians of both parties

I see you just want to gripe. If you can’t see the self evident you just don’t want to. The answer is the same today as it was in the 70’s and earlier. But enough of me arguing with a donkey.

20 hours ago, richardmurray said:

correct. The problem is only one sector of the black community has ever found this satisfactory or to their purpose, and the other sectors have not and do not and the other sectors combined represent a majority of the black populace in the usa. And their unsatisfactory position to the return investment on voting of black elected officials explains the voting response , from blacks who do not vote to blacks who do vote but expect nothing of value.

You just don’t want to see. Your lifestyle is a result of black votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2022 at 3:21 PM, richardmurray said:

@frankster I apologize, my prose confused you. 

It is still confusing me....

 

 

On 9/22/2022 at 3:21 PM, richardmurray said:

 

Your opening statement was 

 

That is what I found incorrect plus the ending statement 

Your ending statement was

 

There is no depend, the question was answered by you, but it isn't on a dependable basis. The qualities in any valid answer depend on perspectives? yes. but the answers themselves either fit or don't. your answer did. I didn't say it didn't. 

Still don't see what i got wrong....Maybe i need some  highgrade

 

 

On 9/22/2022 at 3:21 PM, richardmurray said:

 

 

 

Yes, it is true, but the issue of blacks in government isn't merely the federal level. NEwark, a city across the hudson river from NYC , is a black city, based on my definitions. And it has a relatively long history of Black mayors, especially compared to the white city, NYC. But, the black mayors of Newark prove my point about omniracial policy. Family before me who knew the first and sequent black mayors all concur that no newark black mayor has ever had a black agenda. The question is to what benefit has that been to the majority populace in NEwark? I argue, said Black mayors have stymied that city, whose neighbor has made many financial mistakes in the last fifty years. Notice I said financial mistakes. You are 100% correct, it is a given Blacks are not the majority in the USA, but it is not  a given that blacks are not the majority in parts of the usa and to the black vote, those black parts ,are not getting what I think is even remotely fair let along adeqaute for their votes.

True...fair and (in)adequate

 

On 9/22/2022 at 3:21 PM, richardmurray said:

 

YEs, from my district, Charles Rangel. Black votes placed him in , as a black man that was black voting power in action, and Charles Rangel gave vote to the affordable care act, which is black voting power giving a return to a multiracial group which includes black people. But, it must be said, charles rangel, did far less than Adam Clayton Powell jr in providing pro black legislation, or even, pushing the black elected representatives of HArlem to do so at the local level. Inez Dickens, robert jackson, Keith wright, all black, all from harlem. none with a black policy agenda. And I Am not saying they must have it, but what returns do the black vote get. and what quality are they really?

 Am I then correct in saying that what You are asking for is:-  Proclamation of Aims and Goals  and then a quantitative  and qualitative analysis of Results and Successes. 

 

On 9/22/2022 at 3:21 PM, richardmurray said:

 

Your welcome:) The goal for me in this forum isn't to argue, or to proselytize or to change anybody's mind. I speak my peace. In the end, I can oppose or disagree with positions or words, but I can also concur or stand with. 

And I concur

 

 

On 9/22/2022 at 3:21 PM, richardmurray said:

 

We stand opposed to what should be. for me, it is more partisan. I think the black community in the USA historically has a problem with accepting its own internal tribes. I repeat, Black people fought to create the united states of america while Black people fought to stop the united states of america from being born while most Black people when the united states of america was being born were unable to have a say in the creation of the usa but wanted betterment for their lives from either or of the two scenarios mentioned before. 

Black self hate is mainly the Result of  Racism and Colonialism

 

On 9/22/2022 at 3:21 PM, richardmurray said:

And I think black people in the usa, become trapped in making one of those three right, or wrong. I have heard black people who want to kill all the whites say the majority of blacks are lazy. I have heard black people who are proud and dedicated and financially fruitful citizens of the usa say the majority of blacks are lazy. but whether you love or hate the usa, it isn't unfair for most blacks to be descended of those enslaved people who want betterment from those who are more opportune in the black community. I hear a majority of blacks say, to the black millionaires, black members of the POAL or POAJ , we want more. but the black majority have to realize those blacks though a minority in the black community in leadership position, believes in the usa as a place where the individual has the right to rise or fall and fight, albeit even through unfairness, to maintain a level of human equality. I hear a majority of blacks say to the black militants, black garveyites, black nationalists, give us somewhere to go, give us something to do. But the black majority have to realize those blacks, though another minority, in the black community in a leadership position, have a huge hurdle to overcome to offer the potential black nation outside the usa or black region in the usa, and it will take time and even more time than in past years. 

You say it should be, I say it is for some black people, but not for others, and I think all black peoples in the usa have earned what they truly want.

Right and Wrong is Ethics.... a Cultural Compass 

It tells us where we are going....thereby untwining the Confusion of Direction of Purpose and Will.

 

On 9/22/2022 at 3:21 PM, richardmurray said:

 

I don't see those black elected representatives as ahead of their time, cause the black people who fought for the usa to be created thought likewise. This country always had and has  black people who believe in the , as you say, non racial possibilities in the USA. but, those elected representatives betrayed their voting body

True..

Leadership demands decision making.....Ethics or Expediency.

 

On 9/22/2022 at 3:21 PM, richardmurray said:

. they knew fully well, many black people didn't see our community in the usa that way. and to use their position to force how they see the black community  on the whole was a betrayal for me. I can accept a black person being nonracial but i can't accept a black person being nonracial using their influence to reject the idea that another black person has to be nonracial too. That is unfair.

Unfortunately Leadership is not a Popularity Contest....but politics most definitely Is.

Political Leadership is a strange brew...

 

On 9/22/2022 at 3:21 PM, richardmurray said:

 

All black people know our relationship to whites , during the thirteen colonies or the usa itself, has alot of negativity. Is usually negative. And, to have policy that ignores the other two choices that the black community had when the usa was founded is consistent with black elected representatives in the future, but equally dysfunctional for Black people. At the end of the day, it is cheap hindsight

A Decision was taken...

 

On 9/22/2022 at 3:21 PM, richardmurray said:

 

, but I argue that that Black south carolina legislature is the primary cause of the deaths of so many black people in south carolina. People can say whites acted illegally in south carolina, but the black elected representatives had one chance to get this right and history proves for the black people in south carolina, who voted for them above ninety percent, they got it wrong. It is that simple. And maybe, maybe, the legacy of the black south carolina senate is black elected representatives have gotten it wrong for black people ever since. Defending their philosophy and applying it on the whole when the black community needed another type of governance. 

I cannot comment on the " in particulars"

Generally One  should not hold a "minority" responsibly for the acts of the "majority"...when it's the Majority that Rules

 

On 9/22/2022 at 3:21 PM, richardmurray said:

 

your 100% correct, any racial elements in any legal code lead to positive or negative biases that harm or hurt but go against the operation of any applied collective as a whole. That is true. The problem though is, in governing absent respect to race, the inequalities inherent in human communities based on race :) mutate or fester , and don't go away. IF anything, the USA in modernity is the proof. HEre is a collection of humans where many racial groups abused by another had leadership that led abused peoples absent racial consideration and it has helped some of the abused but clearly not the majority. And if a governor isn't aiding a majority then they can't be called effective can they?

Arising Tide raises  all boats....Should one boat be taking on what a rising tide will be of Nought - 

 

On 9/22/2022 at 3:21 PM, richardmurray said:

 

Ohhhhh more martin less malcolm... Your talking to a member of House MAlcolm. but... that is the philosophical debate, it goes back to the blacks who fought against the usa being created versus the blacks who fought for the usa to be created. ... It is . a long battle:) I personally don't think there is a right or wrong. I don't know how you feel to the philosophical history of blacks in the usa, but I find the malcolm /martin philosophical battle less potent than the booker t washington/web dubois/garvey philosophical battle. And I find those battles less potent, than the crispus attucks versus colonel tiye when the usa was born. For me, MAlcolm side MArtin were two religious clerics who both died not in the position they warranted. the other black pastors wouldn't let martin lead the southern black christian leadership conference <I think I got that title slightly wrong:)> cause they feared he would clean up their act. Which he would had and needed to happen.  MLK walked the walk. not just talk the talk. In the same token, the other ministers in the nation of islam wouldn't allow Malcolm his rightful place as leader while elijah muhammed was alive cause he was going to clean up their act. Which he would had and was needed and to his credit trying to do so while not the leader was a legendary act of leadership for me. Both Malcolm side MLKjr walked the walk, that is why they were both murdered. And the preachers or ministers around them, were not.

A prophet is rarely accept at home...

 

On 9/22/2022 at 3:21 PM, richardmurray said:

 

 

I find the only true variance is tone. But I am fair to both men. I had a fortunate upbringing. I got to know my male forebears,  or clan in general, in peace like MArtin Luther King jr. My family wasn't under assassination like Malcolm's. I comprehend why it took the trip to mecca for malcolm to change his tone. For me, MAlcolm's message never changed, cause it didn't need to change,  but his tone did. Malcolm told black people to defend themselves, not be naive to what you see commonly, be willing to struggle through hurdles, as did Martin. Martin told black people to educate themselves, know the law, be kind to fellow blacks, live positively while wisely in the usa or elsewhere, as did Malcolm.  I think the HBCU, Talented tenth Black employed, Back to Africa are more interesting philosophical frictions in the black community and have more relevance in the black community today. For me, the only true variance in Martin side Malcolm is Martin was always willing to embrace the USA while Malcolm was always willing to let the USA fall. And while that is a major point, I think it yields as potent a discussion. 

They  spoke Truth to Power on behalf of the Oppressed....And Walk the Path of Liberty whilst Marching us to Freedom.

 

On 9/22/2022 at 3:21 PM, richardmurray said:

 

YEs, I should had emphasized. My reply in that sector was to the purpose of aiding blacks. I am flying through the internet. 

Cool we appreciate all the help.....feel free to fly by anytime

 

On 9/22/2022 at 3:21 PM, richardmurray said:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1 

 

Quote

This is true, especially in the case of Obama.
Because the VISUAL of seeing another Black person in office gives one needed hope and confidence that others can pursue and achieve the same position.

maybe because harlem had a black elected official, a legendary one, long before I was born I grew up seeing black elected officials regularly so I don't value their presence. I value their effectiveness to the community. Thus I don't see obama as you are others. but I do comprehend that other black people needed to see a black president.

 

Quote

But I AM a Black loyalist.


A true one, who wants to see the improvement and betterment of Black people.

I apologize, by black loyalist, I meant the name given to black people in white history books who fought for themselves aside the whites of britain and against the creation of the usa or the whites of the usa or blacks of the usa, I call black statians. I wasn't suggesting anyone in this forum is disloyal or traitorous to the black community in the usa or elsewhere. Said black loyalist, the historic group, would oppose you or the others as they did crispus attucks. 

I oppose your position on those who want to leave being unchanged by the process of leaving. The different environment will change them. You use later in your reply the term Black loyalist referring to Black Statians who seek to empower themselves in the context of the usa. But just to reassert,  when I mean black loyalist I am referring to that historic community and later the black people in the USA who enacted and enact their historical position of opposing the usa, opposing whites in the usa, opposing blacks statians, who by default support the usa. 

 

Quote

I'm not so sure most enslaved Black people would NOT have agreed to their descendants rising to the heights of power and law making in the land they were held captive and oppressed.

Infact, I'd be willing to be that was a DREAM for many of our enslaved Ancestors.

And thus my point in this forum post. You say that most enslaved black folks will want black participation/citizenship/striving or thriving in the usa as part of it. I oppose that position. But the point is Black people have key disagreements. When one black person says our enslaved forebears in majority wanted to be of the statian dream, while another says opposite, that is not something a bridge or center position can be made out of. And thus, when either black person makes a point, their is a natural friction. I will not say any black person is wrong in the usa for where they feel the black populace in it needs to go to, cause history gives creedance to all positions , but the entire black community in the usa has to realize its variance internally are unlike whites. Whites in the usa, have variance but it isn't the same. The white protestants who can't stand the whites jews is not the same as the black people who despise the usa aside the black people who do. Are all humans human? yes. But, in the usa, the black community doesn't respect its internal variance and that goes back to my point about the urban league and this voting agenda. 

 

Quote

Well, you'd be surprised that SOME enslaved Black folks actuallyw wanted to be enslaved because they felt it was their divine destiny to suffer that fate because of some "Curse of Ham" belief.
Others didn't think they could make it on their own without the assistance and support of Whites.

Well :) I apologize if I said all black people enslaved didn't want to be enslaved but I am 100% certain most enslaved black people, meaning over 90% wanted to be free. And simply because 90% of all enslaved humans throughout human history want to be free from their human enslavers. 

 

 

@daniellegfny You say I don't see. And then you specify, the black vote dictates black lifestyles. You don't know me so I took out your allusion to me.  ... Part of me would love to go to a small black town in mississippi and tell the impoverished black people there, who never had any opportunity of value whatsoever, the black vote dictates your lifestlye. I wonder what they will do.  will they laugh at me? What do you think?

 

 

@franksteryou said It depends on what you are looking for...

Quote

It depends on what you are looking for...

that is what you said wrong. The question can't be answered like that. The answers are many, the qualities of the answers is where their rank resides. It doesn't depend. 

 

You said 

Quote

Am I then correct in saying that what You are asking for is:-  Proclamation of Aims and Goals  and then a quantitative  and qualitative analysis of Results and Successes. 

No. This post started with an action by the national urban league that I felt and feel ignored the truth of the black community in the usa. Said truth, to sum up my point in crude language... Some Black folks in the usa dont give an F about the USA or the white people in it or the black people who want to be part of it, but the Black people who love the USA can't seem to accept that.  Consensus in the black community in the USA is impossible, but the reason isn't negative or false, it goes back to the beginning. Again, we are not a peoples who wanted to be here, that truth can not be ebbed by time or laws or black individual achievements. From the USA's beginnings to today, a large set of black people have always wanted to have nothing to do with the usa plus the whites in it. And I Think all black people's /groups/ organizations in the usa have to accept that and emit that truth in their actions. And the Urban League like so many black organizations in the usa isn't. They , like many black people in this forum, have a way and don't accept the honesty in other black people fitting another way and having no need to change. Even if said other black folk can't articulate it or explain it. 

 

Quote

Right and Wrong is Ethics.... a Cultural Compass 

It tells us where we are going....thereby untwining the Confusion of Direction of Purpose and Will.

And the point is, the black community has always been a set of WE's, not one we:) the only thing all black people in the usa should know is that the black populace in the usa is a set of We's. Initially three, even more today. And each we wasn't and isn't going to the same place. And I think all black people should be able to accept that as right. and the urban league in their agenda doesn't. 

 

Quote

Unfortunately Leadership is not a Popularity Contest....but politics most definitely Is.

 

Not unfortunately:) LEadership can't be a popularity contest... but governing results is a popularity contest.  One can be disliked as a governing agent, in any system of government, but your quality as a government agent isn't in how many people like you but in how many people you actually help, and that means results and that is the issue with voting and the various black groups. If we are each elected officials to two black communal districts in a city in the USA. And You are disliked while I am liked. but you get more results while I don't. You know who the people will respect? it will not be me, even though I am liked. I think the original three black communities in the usa, side the others in the future, demand results, not liking. but the black elected officials historically in the usa, going back to south carolina, failed in getting results to the majority phenotypical voting populace in south carolina at the time, which was black. they failed badly. 

The actions of the people can be controlled they can be manipulated by media, but the actions of the people when given government that is effective is far stronger than anything that media can manipulate. It says more about any country when the governing officials are unwilling to use results to influence the actions of the people and will rather media tricks.

 

Quote

A Decision was taken...

 

yes, and it was ineffectual and is still being upheld by many black elected governing agents today, though it clearly didn't help the larger black populace.

 

Quote

Generally One  should not hold a "minority" responsibly for the acts of the "majority"...when it's the Majority that Rules

Not generally, always. but south carolina's majority was black. That is the point. The black elected officials decisions were poor, and cost the black majority in south carolina, to be blunt. Now, you can argue that the black elected officials in South Carolina wanted the black populace to be the minority in south carolina. Maybe they didn't care.  I have read a few of their speeches in the south carolina legislature. They are not the speeches of elected officials who are trying to empower a majority in a state in the usa. but that goes back to my points and , goes into many a prose concerning black elected officials in the usa, that I am not giving. 

 

Quote

Arising Tide raises  all boats....Should one boat be taking on what a rising tide will be of Nought - 

 

The thing about a rising tide in the sea is it never raises all boats similarly, even if the boats are shaped the same,  so each boat's qualities or situations has to be considered individually. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, daniellegfny said:

I see you just want to gripe. If you can’t see the self evident you just don’t want to. The answer is the same today as it was in the 70’s and earlier. But enough of me arguing with a donkey.

No  gripe or argument. I just asked for the current AfroAmerican agenda to which politicians can be held accountable. That GOP Commitment to America is not it.😎

Link to comment
Share on other sites


richardmurray

 

 

maybe because harlem had a black elected official, a legendary one, long before I was born I grew up seeing black elected officials regularly so I don't value their presence. I value their effectiveness to the community. Thus I don't see obama as you are others. but I do comprehend that other black people needed to see a black president.

 

Similar to your experience, I grew up in Detroit which was a Black city operated by Black politicians from the Mayor down to the city Council and police force.  
I was used to seeing Black people in charge.

However as I got older and traveled through out the nation, I realized how lacking Black leadership is in most of America and how "rare" it was for most places to see Black people in positions of power.

 

 

 

I apologize, by black loyalist, I meant the name given to black people in white history books who fought for themselves aside the whites of britain and against the creation of the usa or the whites of the usa or blacks of the usa, I call black statians. I wasn't suggesting anyone in this forum is disloyal or traitorous to the black community in the usa or elsewhere. Said black loyalist, the historic group, would oppose you or the others as they did crispus attucks. 

 

Ok, I gotcha....lol.

Those are relatively unfamiliar terms for me so I'm glad you're somewhat clarifying them.  I think you are the first person I heard the term "black statians" from.

But based on what you've said, if they're fighting WITH the Whites of Britain against the Whites of America or against the Blacks of the USA...they don't sound like they're very loyal to the "Black" community, but loyal to themselves and THEIR own cause.

 

Kind of like the Black Muslims in Africa fighting along side the Arabs against the Black Christians and Traditionalists.

Or like the Black Conservatives fighting along side the White Republicans against Black people of other political ideologies.

They aren't loyal to "Blackness" so much as they are loyal to their own special interests with a Black flavor to it.

 

 

 


when I mean black loyalist I am referring to that historic community and later the black people in the USA who enacted and enact their historical position of opposing the usa, opposing whites in the usa, opposing blacks statians, who by default support the usa. 

 

Ok....LOYALISTS and STATIANS stand opposite of eachother.
Am I understanding that correctly???

 

 

 

 

And thus my point in this forum post. You say that most enslaved black folks will want black participation/citizenship/striving or thriving in the usa as part of it. I oppose that position. But the point is Black people have key disagreements. When one black person says our enslaved forebears in majority wanted to be of the statian dream, while another says opposite, that is not something a bridge or center position can be made out of. And thus, when either black person makes a point, their is a natural friction. I will not say any black person is wrong in the usa for where they feel the black populace in it needs to go to, cause history gives creedance to all positions


I think we can both agree that SOME of our Ancestors wanted total freedom and separation from Whites while SOME of our Ancestors wanted to remain under the control and dependent on Whites.
What the exact percentage and combination was or which held the majority...I'm not prepared to say because I don't know of any accurate stats for this.
Obviously the FIRST Africans to be enslaved wanted nothing to do with it, but as time went by and generations passed...clearly many of our people became "institutionalized" in the system of slavery having known nothing else except their lives under that system.


Taking them out of slavery would be almost like taking a fish out of water.

 

 

 

 

 

but the entire black community in the usa has to realize its variance internally are unlike whites. Whites in the usa, have variance but it isn't the same.

 

Absolutely!

Most of our disagreements in our community are over the best ways to achieve power as a people; while most of their disagreements are about how to USE the power they already have.

Also, a lot of so-called "arguments" and "fights" that White folks engage in are for SHOW.
They are merely PRETENDING to conflict with eachother to give an illusion to the people of color they are governing that they are somehow "opposing" eachother when in reality behind closed doors they both share the same position.
 

I used to see this in school.
Two White boys would wait until they got around some Black kids and then start cussing at and shoving eachother like they were really angry.....but would never throw actual blows. 🤔

 

White folks are always PRETENDING to fight and disagree with eachother but actions speak much louder than words.

I like that term you used though......Black Statians.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, richardmurray said:

Part of me would love to go to a small black town in mississippi and tell the impoverished black people there, who never had any opportunity of value whatsoever, the black vote dictates your lifestlye. I wonder what they will do.  will they laugh at me? What do you think?

You are so full of it. You are supposed to be a made man. You don’t think about Poot blacks in Mississippi. If you did you would have said this is what I am doing to improve their condition. I have a problem with the Slavery going on in the Sudan so I donated money to help free the slaves. Solution speak louder that jive talking. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fable: DON'T ARGUE WITH DONKEYS, Democrats or Radicals.

The donkey said to the tiger:

- "The grass is blue".

The tiger replied:

- "No, the grass is green."

The discussion heated up, and the two decided to submit him to arbitration, and for this they went before the lion, the King of the Jungle.

Already before reaching the forest clearing, where the lion was sitting on his throne, the donkey began to shout:

- "His Highness, is it true that the grass is blue?".

The lion replied:

- "True, the grass is blue."

The donkey hurried and continued:

- "The tiger disagrees with me and contradicts and annoys me, please punish him."

The king then declared:

- "The tiger will be punished with 5 years of silence."

The donkey jumped cheerfully and went on his way, content and repeating:

- "The Grass Is Blue"...

The tiger accepted his punishment, but before he asked the lion:

- "Your Majesty, why have you punished me?, after all, the grass is green."

The lion replied:

- "In fact, the grass is green."

The tiger asked:
- "So why are you punishing me?".

The lion replied:

- "That has nothing to do with the question of whether the grass is blue or green. 

The punishment is because it is not possible for a brave and intelligent creature like you to waste time arguing with a donkey, and on top of that come and bother me with that question."

The worst waste of time is arguing with the fool and fanatic who does not care about truth or reality, but only the victory of his beliefs and illusions. Never waste time on arguments that don't make sense... 

There are people who, no matter how much evidence and evidence we present to them, are not in the capacity to understand, and others are blinded by ego, hatred and resentment, and all they want is to be right even if they are not.

When ignorance screams, intelligence is silent. Your peace and quiet are worth more. ❤️

PS https://www.facebook.com/BlexitBGT/videos/2862115187431621/ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:) Anyone who may read this comment. You know, so many Black leaders were and are financially penniless. If black leaders in the usa are to be judged on how they improved the condition of the black masses, then most black leaders or black people i consider black leaders were and are failures.  But I do wonder how many Black people in the usa honestly believe every black person should be a millionaire today. for the record most whites in the usa have always been poor too.  Well... 

I end with a simple truth. I will love to help black towns in the usa, they deserve more help than they have ever received. and I admit with no shame that I have no money to help them. But I will continue speaking to their betterment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1

 

Quote

Ok, I gotcha....lol.

Those are relatively unfamiliar terms for me so I'm glad you're somewhat clarifying them.  I think you are the first person I heard the term "black statians" from.

But based on what you've said, if they're fighting WITH the Whites of Britain against the Whites of America or against the Blacks of the USA...they don't sound like they're very loyal to the "Black" community, but loyal to themselves and THEIR own cause.

 

Kind of like the Black Muslims in Africa fighting along side the Arabs against the Black Christians and Traditionalists.

Or like the Black Conservatives fighting along side the White Republicans against Black people of other political ideologies.

They aren't loyal to "Blackness" so much as they are loyal to their own special interests with a Black flavor to it.

 

Well, at the end of the day, the Blacks who fought to help create the USA or the Blacks who fought to stop the USA from being created or the Blacks who enslaved to whites were unable to make a choice, all wanted Black betterment, were all loyal to Black betterment. they merely didn't concur or have a middle ground, as the point of this forum posts, on what Black betterment shall look like tomorrow.  The Blacks who fought for britain wanted what they were promised by britain before they joined, legally accepted land ownership, cause those blacks knew slavery was never going away no matter who won. The Blacks who fought for the USA wanted their freedom and they knew slavery was never going away no matter who won. The blacks who were enslaved, could only hope slavery would end no matter who won and that was never going to end, no matter who won. 

Now, barring intentions. History displays a simple truth. The blacks who fought for the losing whites side got land. It wasn't land in the usa but in what is commonly called canada today. While the blacks who fought for the winning white side didn't retain their freedom. Most of the blacks who fought for the usa, were reenslaved. so based on merely a fair deal, the blacks who fought for the creation of the usa were treated quite negatively. And that explains why in the war of 1812 most free blacks in the usa fought against the usa:) like in the was of secession.

 

As for the terminology no big deal, not trying to preach.   I prefer statians cause when I say Black Americans I am referring to all Black people in the American continent without allegiance to any country in the american continent.  I think many black people forget the only country in the american continent where the black populace had a majority say in its creation was haiti. All other countries: usa/brasil/mexico/chile black people were present, no doubt, many historical figures, but the black community was enslaved at the genesis of all the countries in the usa continent save haiti, that were not still part of white european empires by the late 1800s and early 1900s.  So for me, Black people are free to be attached to the USA but we are also free not to be:) 

 

Quote

Ok....LOYALISTS and STATIANS stand opposite of eachother.
Am I understanding that correctly???

 

  I must specify, stand opposite of each other in terms of the usa, in terms of the usa. Both black groups want black betterment. but one feels the usa is a path to that, the other doesn't. And I think all black people in the entire history of the usa can say we know somebody else black who fits either bill.

Now I speak for myself, I don't think anything is wrong with that too. I don't think anything is wrong with a black person becoming president of the usa, as well as a black person looking to blow up the usa. 

 

Quote

I think we can both agree that SOME of our Ancestors wanted total freedom and separation from Whites while SOME of our Ancestors wanted to remain under the control and dependent on Whites.
What the exact percentage and combination was or which held the majority...I'm not prepared to say because I don't know of any accurate stats for this.
Obviously the FIRST Africans to be enslaved wanted nothing to do with it, but as time went by and generations passed...clearly many of our people became "institutionalized" in the system of slavery having known nothing else except their lives under that system.


Taking them out of slavery would be almost like taking a fish out of water.

 

yes , all I want to add is, remember that most of the black people on the oceanic journey died on the way. So, if you consider a population near 300% of the black people who survived that journey would had been opposed too:) So yes, over time environment changes any people but even the white man admits, most of us died on the way. 

 

 

Quote

I like that term you used though......Black Statians.

the following may make you feel even better:) coming from someone like myself. As a writer I study various literary things and I came across the term statian being first used by a white man. YOu may know him as the author of huckleberry fin. He didn't say white or black statian, that is me. he just used the term to represent all in the usa, from the ancient native american to the recent naturalized immigrant and all the others in between.  And his reasoning made sense, cause I thought that myself before I read it. American is canada to argentina. But I think in the black community in the USA, needs the statian label to say the black people who believe in the usa, have faith in it. Not a label to comdemn, but I think to order efficiently, cause the reality is, many black people don't like , believe, have faith in the usa. and all black people know why, even if we don't like to admit it. Black people in the usa who are not statians are not always anti statian. Some are the nationalists,some are militants, some are garveyites,  the back to africa folk <who are still around>. Yes, quantities change throughout time, but its more than meets the eye. 

 

I end with a wish. I wish black people in the usa who I deem Black sTatians, spent less time trying to get other black people to join them, stop preaching or proselytizing to blacks who don't share their views on the usa, and spend more time, making themselves a stronger group not merely in the black community in the usa, but in the usa itself. at the end of the day, white jews are white but they are a group within white community in the usa right? I think black statians in the black community in the usa can be as potent or efficient as white jews  in the white community in the usa or the larger usa itself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, richardmurray said:

 

@franksteryou said It depends on what you are looking for...

that is what you said wrong. The question can't be answered like that. The answers are many, the qualities of the answers is where their rank resides. It doesn't depend. 

Okay

 

23 hours ago, richardmurray said:

 

You said 

No. This post started with an action by the national urban league that I felt and feel ignored the truth of the black community in the usa. Said truth, to sum up my point in crude language... Some Black folks in the usa dont give an F about the USA or the white people in it or the black people who want to be part of it, but the Black people who love the USA can't seem to accept that.

True,,,,

Some black people do not care about the US and the peoples in it.

 

23 hours ago, richardmurray said:

Consensus in the black community in the USA is impossible, but the reason isn't negative or false, it goes back to the beginning. Again, we are not a peoples who wanted to be here, that truth can not be ebbed by time or laws or black individual achievements. From the USA's beginnings to today, a large set of black people have always wanted to have nothing to do with the usa plus the whites in it. And I Think all black people's /groups/ organizations in the usa have to accept that and emit that truth in their actions. And the Urban League like so many black organizations in the usa isn't. They , like many black people in this forum, have a way and don't accept the honesty in other black people fitting another way and having no need to change. Even if said other black folk can't articulate it or explain it. 

A Consensus can be reach by a vote and the majority used as the General Agreement

 

23 hours ago, richardmurray said:

And the point is, the black community has always been a set of WE's, not one we:) the only thing all black people in the usa should know is that the black populace in the usa is a set of We's. Initially three, even more today. And each we wasn't and isn't going to the same place. And I think all black people should be able to accept that as right. and the urban league in their agenda doesn't. 

The Consensus will allow us to achieve Functional Unity 

 

23 hours ago, richardmurray said:

 

 

Not unfortunately:) LEadership can't be a popularity contest... but governing results is a popularity contest.  One can be disliked as a governing agent, in any system of government, but your quality as a government agent isn't in how many people like you but in how many people you actually help, and that means results and that is the issue with voting and the various black groups. If we are each elected officials to two black communal districts in a city in the USA. And You are disliked while I am liked. but you get more results while I don't. You know who the people will respect? it will not be me, even though I am liked. I think the original three black communities in the usa, side the others in the future, demand results, not liking.

Politics is a popularity contest....People may respect you - respect do not always translate into votes

And in the example given above if you are liked, your base will always vote for you regardless of the fact that you are fleecing them

Electoral Politics (electioneering/campaigning) is not about achieving result but gaining Votes...People vote for who they like

 

23 hours ago, richardmurray said:

but the black elected officials historically in the usa, going back to south carolina, failed in getting results to the majority phenotypical voting populace in south carolina at the time, which was black. they failed badly. 

The actions of the people can be controlled they can be manipulated by media, but the actions of the people when given government that is effective is far stronger than anything that media can manipulate. It says more about any country when the governing officials are unwilling to use results to influence the actions of the people and will rather media tricks. yes, and it was ineffectual and is still being upheld by many black elected governing agents today, though it clearly didn't help the larger black populace.

Media influence Voter decisions....Voting is a emotional action based on Party Affiliation and on Candidates Likability.

 

 

23 hours ago, richardmurray said:

Not generally, always. but south carolina's majority was black. That is the point. The black elected officials decisions were poor, and cost the black majority in south carolina, to be blunt. Now, you can argue that the black elected officials in South Carolina wanted the black populace to be the minority in south carolina. Maybe they didn't care.  I have read a few of their speeches in the south carolina legislature. They are not the speeches of elected officials who are trying to empower a majority in a state in the usa. but that goes back to my points and , goes into many a prose concerning black elected officials in the usa, that I am not giving. 

Politics is a game of strange bedfellows.

 

23 hours ago, richardmurray said:

The thing about a rising tide in the sea is it never raises all boats similarly, even if the boats are shaped the same,  so each boat's qualities or situations has to be considered individually. 

When A wrong has been recognized then a Class Action must be taken...Compensation or Indemnification 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@frankster

 

Quote

Politics is a popularity contest....People may respect you - respect do not always translate into votes

And in the example given above if you are liked, your base will always vote for you regardless of the fact that you are fleecing them

Electoral Politics (electioneering/campaigning) is not about achieving result but gaining Votes...People vote for who they like

 

You are correct about respect, but results isn't about respect or being liked. 

In the example I gave, if someone provides satisfactory results they will defeat anyone who is liked in an election.

I will give two historical examples.

Boos tweed was hated in NYC, he was a schemer  a trickster and publicly derided alot, but he got results. when businesses wanted something he got it for them and opponents, who spoke more positively or had a better manner couldn't top that. He was of scottish descent and routinely spoke ill of the irish immigrants at that time. but, he got the entire irish communities vote when he gave the irish community the NYPD. The irish still hated him but he gave them what no one else did, he gave them an entire industry which in terms of NYC profited the irish community in the NYC is immeasurable ways. The irish still don't speak good of him , but he always earned their vote by results. 

 

Nancy pelosi as a child was a child of the d'alesandro ruling family of baltimore. do you know what she did as a child in the d'alesandro home? she kept up,  what I Call, the begging book. People in Baltimore would come to the d'alesandro home and beg for things. D'alesandro would do these things... for a price. Was d'Alesandro loved or liked? hell no. Many people in BAltimore today spit on her father's grave, but they always got the most votes and why... results. 

 

History has proven time and again, getting results will earn you more votes than being liked in media , even if you are hated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, richardmurray said:

@frankster

 

 

You are correct about respect, but results isn't about respect or being liked. 

In the example I gave, if someone provides satisfactory results they will defeat anyone who is liked in an election.

I will give two historical examples.

Boos tweed was hated in NYC, he was a schemer  a trickster and publicly derided alot, but he got results. when businesses wanted something he got it for them and opponents, who spoke more positively or had a better manner couldn't top that. He was of scottish descent and routinely spoke ill of the irish immigrants at that time. but, he got the entire irish communities vote when he gave the irish community the NYPD. The irish still hated him but he gave them what no one else did, he gave them an entire industry which in terms of NYC profited the irish community in the NYC is immeasurable ways. The irish still don't speak good of him , but he always earned their vote by results. 

 

Nancy pelosi as a child was a child of the d'alesandro ruling family of baltimore. do you know what she did as a child in the d'alesandro home? she kept up,  what I Call, the begging book. People in Baltimore would come to the d'alesandro home and beg for things. D'alesandro would do these things... for a price. Was d'Alesandro loved or liked? hell no. Many people in BAltimore today spit on her father's grave, but they always got the most votes and why... results. 

 

History has proven time and again, getting results will earn you more votes than being liked in media , even if you are hated. 

Boss Tweed was a corrupt political insider and criminal....who used his elected office to dole out jobs in return for votes....Pork Barrel Politics. 

In short he used taxpayers money to pay for all those votes....The voters who took the cash I assume were happy he paid for their votes - Those voters loved him.

 

I know little of the d'Alesandro family but based on your description of their (Pelosi) activities..it seems to be swapping favors for patronage - pork barrel

I am sure those swapping favors for patronage  were grateful for what they received and happy to exchange their vote in return.

 

Pork Barrel Politics is a way of buying favors or likes...if it works then that individual is liked

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, richardmurray said:

@frankster pork barrel:) History proves being elected has more than one way and at least one way doesn't involve being liked it all. 

What other way is that?

Politics is a popularity contest which means being liked....especially electoral politics.

The best way to get people to vote for you and gain popularity is by buying their vote....Boss Tweed was not hated by the Voters or the Irish - They were bought and paid for.

It was the journalist who investigated his activities and the peoples whose resources he illegally misdirected to his voters that hated him....not those who voted him in

 

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...