What is interesting in how this pseudo diaspora was constructed is how many people bring up racism as a unifying adhesive. 

The American variant of racism became a ready made, global language that other groups have utilized against melanated people. 

The reason Ifind this interesting is because the people being labeled “black” in those societies adopt the stereotypes.

One instance: An Afro British person might say “I’m not beating the allegations! I love fried chicken!”

Racist language travels indeed. Racism conflates us and it one of the pillars of white supremacy that must be broken. What matters is that the association between fried chicken and Blackness comes from American racist culture. The joke demonstrates how an American stereotype can migrate abroad and become recognizable to people whose local histories are different. In repeating it ironically, the speaker participates in a racial language imported from the United States.

When these symbols are adopted by foreign groups, they often lose the historical context that gave them meaning. The fried-chicken stereotype, for example, emerged from a specifically American history of minstrelsy, segregation, and the degradation of Black life after emancipation. Once exported, however, it may be treated as a universal fact about all “Black” people.

That loss of context makes the symbol easier to weaponize. It no longer appears as a product of a particular racist system; it begins to look like neutral evidence of a global racial type. People in different societies can then use the stereotype against local melanated populations, even when those populations have no connection to the history that created it.

Irony does not fully escape this process. Repeating the stereotype as a joke may weaken its sting, but it also helps circulate the association. What began as an American racial caricature can become part of a global vocabulary of Blackness.

Racism is more than prejudice; it is a language game. It teaches people which categories exist, what they supposedly mean, and how to interpret everyday behavior through those categories. Once the rules are learned, people begin to speak them fluently—even those placed at the bottom of the hierarchy.

This helps explain why American racial stereotypes travel so easily. An Afro-British person joking, “I’m not beating the allegations—I love fried chicken,” is participating in a shared racial vocabulary that originated elsewhere. The joke only works because everyone already knows the script.

In that sense, racism can create a kind of pseudo-diaspora. People with different histories, cultures, and national identities become linked by a common grammar of racialization rather than a common culture. Identity is produced through shared classification as much as shared ancestry. Understanding racism as a language game reveals how categories spread globally, shaping perception long after their original context has disappeared.

Imagine someone begins with the false claim, “All women are whores.” In response, another person rejects the insult by replacing it with a broader, more dignified category: “No—all women are working women.” But if the original framework remains intact, the conversation can still be captured by it. Someone then says, “Working women are from Vegas—that’s where it started,” and an entire history, identity, and set of assumptions are built around that new category. The label has changed, but the underlying logic of classification remains. My point is not that Pan-Africanism and white supremacy are equivalent ideologies—they are not—but that both can operate through expansive racial categories. White supremacy created and universalized the category of “Black” for purposes of hierarchy; Pan-Africanism often accepts that same category as the basis for solidarity. The question is whether reclaiming a category also risks preserving the conceptual framework that originally produced it.

Rethinking the Black American Timeline

Black American history is often presented as a sequence of clearly separated eras: slavery ended, Reconstruction began, segregation followed, civil rights arrived, and the country entered a supposedly post-racial age.

That structure is too neat.

These periods overlap. Older systems do not simply disappear when new ones emerge. They are modified, renamed, decentralized, or absorbed into new institutions. Enslavement gives way to neo-slavery. Racial occupation coexists with segregation. Integration weakens independent Black institutions while the carceral state expands around the communities those institutions once protected.

The timeline should therefore be understood as a series of layered conditions rather than isolated historical chapters.

I. The Progenitor Period

Before Black Americans existed as a distinct people, our ancestors lived among many different populations spread across the Americas, Africa, Europe, and parts of Asia.

They did not yet share a unified Black American identity. They possessed different ethnicities, languages, religions, political traditions, family structures, and relationships to the societies around them.

Some were Indigenous to the Americas. Some lived in Europe or Asia. Some reached the Americas before the full development of the Atlantic plantation system. Others were Indigenous Africans trafficked to the Americas who would later be absorbed into Black communities through kinship, enslavement, migration, and racial classification.

These various populations can be understood as the progenitors of Black America.

The term American Negro belongs to this stage and the later stages of development as these groups were amalgamated. It describes a people formed in the Americas through the convergence of multiple ancestral groups under particular historical conditions.

Black Americans were not simply transferred intact from one continent to another. A new people emerged through contact, displacement, intermarriage, coercion, cultural adaptation, resistance, and the creation of new communities.

The Progenitor Period is therefore not yet the history of Black America as a fully formed people. It is the history of the populations from whom Black Americans would eventually emerge.

II. Enslavement

European expansion into the Americas produced several interconnected systems of forced labor and human trafficking.

These systems included the enslavement of American Indians, Africans, and “Moorish” Europeans. Over time, enslavement became increasingly racialized, hereditary, commercialized, and central to the development of colonial economies.

The various Atlantic slave trades eventually formed a massive international network, most commonly identified through the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, or TAST.

The trade did more than move laborers. It reorganized populations across continents. It separated families, destabilized societies, expanded colonial wealth, transformed Indigenous territories, and created new populations throughout the Americas.

In British North America and later the United States, enslavement hardened into a hereditary racial caste. “Negro” ancestry became associated with permanent, inheritable bondage, while law increasingly defined whiteness as a protected political and social status.

Yet the enslaved did not remain culturally empty or socially disconnected. They formed families, developed new religious practices, combined languages, preserved ancestral knowledge, created musical traditions, cultivated land, organized revolts, escaped, negotiated, and built communities under conditions intended to prevent collective identity.

The Black American people began to take recognizable form within this pressure, by 1790 Black Americans were already a New World Creole population.

III. Neo-Slavery

Formal emancipation did not eliminate the economic demand for controlled Black labor.

After the Civil War, Southern governments, landowners, industrialists, and law-enforcement systems developed new methods of coercion. Black Codes criminalized ordinary behavior. Vagrancy laws punished unemployment or movement without white authorization. Debt peonage bound workers to landowners. Sharecropping trapped families in cycles of fabricated obligation.

Convict leasing became one of the most direct successors to slavery.

Black people were arrested under discriminatory laws, convicted through hostile courts, and leased to plantations, mines, railroads, factories, and private businesses. Because companies did not own the prisoners permanently, they often had even less incentive to preserve their lives than slaveholders had possessed under chattel slavery.

Neo-slavery was not merely slavery continuing under another name. It was a reorganized system in which criminal law, debt, labor contracts, and imprisonment replaced or supplemented private ownership.

Its legacy reaches into the modern prison-labor system. The specific institution of convict leasing declined, but the broader relationship between criminalization and compelled labor did not completely disappear.

The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime. That exception created a constitutional opening through which coerced labor could continue after emancipation.

Neo-slavery should therefore be understood as both a historical period and an institutional pattern: the recreation of forced or highly controlled labor through criminalization.

IV. Racial Occupation

Racial occupation describes the political and policing conditions imposed on Black communities after emancipation.

Black Americans were formally present within the United States but were frequently governed as though they constituted a hostile or potentially rebellious population.

This occupation operated through segregation, racial terror, surveillance, disenfranchisement, economic exclusion, and unequal law enforcement.

During Reconstruction, federal troops briefly intervened against former Confederate power, but the withdrawal of federal protection allowed white supremacist governments and paramilitary organizations to regain control throughout much of the South.

Lynch mobs, police departments, sheriffs, courts, employers, and local governments all participated in maintaining the racial order.

Black neighborhoods were subjected to intense observation and selective enforcement. Black political organizing was treated as threatening. Black economic success could provoke violence. Black movement across neighborhoods, cities, or state lines was regulated through law and custom.

This was a hypervigilant racial police state.

At the same time, Black communities were often denied meaningful protection from violence committed against them. The state could be intensely present when policing Black people and largely absent when Black people required protection.

Racial occupation therefore involved both over-policing and under-protection.

This period includes segregation and the classical Civil Rights era, but it is not limited to either. Its methods began earlier and continued after legal segregation was formally dismantled.

V. Internal Colonization

Internal colonization refers to the subordination of a population that lives within the borders of a larger state but lacks meaningful control over its institutions, resources, territory, political representation, and cultural development.

For Black Americans, this condition was intensified through the particular form that integration took after the Civil Rights era.

Integration challenged legalized segregation and opened institutions from which Black people had been excluded. These victories were necessary and historically significant.

However, integration also carried a destructive possibility: Black access to white-controlled institutions could occur without the preservation or expansion of independent Black power.

As integration advanced, many Black schools, businesses, professional networks, newspapers, hospitals, civic associations, and commercial districts declined or disappeared. Black teachers and administrators frequently lost their positions when schools were merged. Black businesses struggled against larger white-owned competitors. Talented professionals who had once served Black institutions were recruited into dominant institutions.

Resources, leadership, and consumer spending flowed outward.

This does not mean integration alone destroyed Black institutions. Urban renewal, highway construction, discriminatory lending, suburbanization, deindustrialization, hostile regulation, political decisions, and organized violence also played major roles.

But within this framework, the integrationist movement became one mechanism through which Black collective strength was redirected.

The problem was not contact or cooperation with other groups. The problem was integration without institutional power.

Black individuals entered previously closed spaces, but Black communities did not necessarily gain control over those spaces. Representation increased while autonomy weakened. Individual mobility was frequently purchased at the cost of collective capacity.

Internal colonization describes the resulting dependency: Black communities became increasingly reliant on institutions they did not own and could not govern.

This made Black Americans a permanent underclass while also opening the doors to mass immigration.

VI. Racial Occupation II

The second racial occupation emerged from the accumulated effects of the previous periods.

Slavery created the racial caste. Neo-slavery connected criminalization to labor control. The first racial occupation established segregated policing and surveillance. Internal colonization weakened institutions that might have defended Black communities against the next expansion of state power.

Racial Occupation II includes the War on Drugs, mass incarceration, militarized policing, sentencing disparities, aggressive surveillance, gang databases, probation systems, parole systems, public-housing enforcement, civil-asset forfeiture, and the political construction of Black criminality.

This period did not simply imprison individuals. It disrupted entire communities.

Large numbers of Black men and women were removed from families and neighborhoods. Criminal records restricted employment, housing, voting, education, travel, and access to public benefits. Police encounters became a routine feature of life in many Black neighborhoods.

Communities were simultaneously flooded with drugs, stripped of employment, weakened through disinvestment, and then punished for the disorder those conditions helped create.

The result was the political declawing and defanging of Black America.

Movements were fragmented. Leaders were killed, imprisoned, compromised, discredited, or absorbed into institutions. Neighborhood organizations lost members and resources. Political anger was redirected into symbolic representation, consumer expression, electoral loyalty, intracommunal conflict, or individual advancement.

The second occupation was therefore not only about incarceration. It was about neutralization.

Black Americans were permitted greater visibility while losing much of the organized leverage required to transform visibility into power.

The Periods Overlap

These periods should not be placed on a timeline as though one neatly ends before the next begins.

The Progenitor Period continues through the survival of distinct ancestral lineages and traditions.

Enslavement survives culturally, economically, and legally through inherited inequalities and the punishment clause of the Thirteenth Amendment.

Neo-slavery overlaps with modern prison labor, debt-based coercion, exploitative probation systems, and the criminalization of poverty.

The first racial occupation survives in segregated neighborhoods, unequal policing, surveillance, and disparities in protection.

Internal colonization continues through institutional dependency, resource extraction, outside ownership, and the weakening of independent Black organizations.

Racial Occupation II incorporates elements of every period that came before it.

These are not sealed historical boxes. They are layers.

Each layer modifies the one beneath it without completely removing it.

A Layered Historical Model

The resulting timeline can be summarized as follows:

Progenitors: The diverse ancestral populations from whom Black Americans would emerge.

Enslavement: The forced convergence and racialization of those populations within Atlantic and American systems of bondage.

Neo-Slavery: The reconstruction of coerced Black labor through criminal law, convict leasing, debt, and incarceration after formal emancipation.

Racial Occupation I: The containment of Black political, economic, and social life through segregation, terror, surveillance, disenfranchisement, and over-policing.

Internal Colonization: The weakening of independent Black institutions and the redirection of Black talent, spending, legitimacy, and leadership into outside-controlled structures.

Racial Occupation II: The expansion of the carceral and surveillance state, especially through the War on Drugs and mass incarceration, resulting in the fragmentation and neutralization of Black collective power.

This model changes the central question.

Rather than asking, “When did one era end and another begin?” we should ask:

What institutions survived the transition?

Which methods were abandoned, and which were merely updated?

What forms of power were taken from Black communities?

What forms of control replaced the systems that became politically unacceptable?

And how much of the present is not new at all, but an older structure operating under a different name?

The terms could also be organized into a visual overlapping timeline, with each period shown as a layer that expands, contracts, and resurfaces rather than a fixed block.

This can work as a parallel timeline showing how the collective identifier changed alongside the historical eras. The labels overlap, and no term disappeared immediately when another gained prominence.

The Evolution of the Black American Identifier

The history of Black America can also be traced through the names used to identify the people.

These identifiers did not change in a perfectly linear fashion. Older terms continued to exist after newer ones emerged, and different institutions, regions, generations, and political movements often used different names at the same time.

The timeline is therefore not simply a record of vocabulary. Each identifier reflects a changing stage in Black American ethnogenesis, political consciousness, social status, and relationship to the United States.

Negro: The Progenitor Populations

Before Black Americans fully emerged as a distinct ethnic people, the term Negro was used broadly for populations classified through developing European racial systems.

At this stage, the populations later incorporated into Black America were not yet one unified people. They existed among multiple groups distributed across the Americas, Africa, Europe, and parts of Asia.

“Negro” functioned primarily as an imposed racial classification. It grouped together populations that did not necessarily share one nationality, culture, language, political identity, or collective history.

These populations were progenitors of Black America, but they were not yet Black Americans in the complete ethnic sense.

American Negro: The Formation of a New People

As generations were born and raised in the Americas, a more historically specific population began to emerge.

The term American Negro distinguished this developing people from the broader populations classified simply as Negroes.

The American Negro was shaped by life in the colonies and later the United States. Enslavement, intermarriage, forced migration, cultural blending, Christianity, Indigenous contact, European contact, resistance, and adaptation created a population increasingly distinct from its various progenitors.

The word “American” was therefore significant.

It identified a people whose ancestry came from several populations but whose collective ethnogenesis occurred primarily within the territory and political order that became the United States.

The American Negro was not merely an African living in America. The American Negro represented the development of a new people.

Freedman: The 1860s

The Civil War and formal emancipation introduced the identifier Freedman.

A Freedman was a formerly enslaved person who had entered a new legal status after emancipation. The term also came to describe the communities and descendants emerging from the destruction of chattel slavery.

“Freedman” was not merely a racial designation. It was a political and legal identity.

It marked the transition from property to personhood, from enslavement to citizenship claims, and from forced dependency to the effort to build independent families, institutions, businesses, schools, churches, and political organizations.

The Freedman era was foundational to modern Black American identity.

It established a collective memory centered on emancipation, Reconstruction, land, citizenship, constitutional rights, self-government, and betrayal by the federal government.

Although the term was especially associated with the 1860s and Reconstruction, its historical significance continues through the descendants of the emancipated population.

Negro: The Post-Emancipation National Identity

After Reconstruction, Negro again became the dominant national identifier.

However, it no longer carried exactly the same meaning it had during the progenitor period.

By the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the American Negro had developed a clearer national culture, institutional life, political tradition, and collective consciousness.

Black newspapers, schools, churches, colleges, mutual-aid organizations, businesses, artistic movements, and political associations helped consolidate the people across regions.

The term appeared in the language of institutions such as the United Negro College Fund and organizations such as the National Negro Business League. It was also used by many Black intellectuals, writers, organizers, and political leaders.

In this period, “Negro” could function as both an imposed racial term and a self-conscious ethnic and political identifier.

Its meaning depended on who used it, how it was used, and what political project it supported.

Black: The 1960s and 1970s

During the 1960s and 1970s, Black emerged as a powerful preferred identifier.

“Black” represented more than a change in terminology. It reflected a transformation in political consciousness.

The Civil Rights Movement, Black Power Movement, urban uprisings, decolonization struggles, Black nationalism, and cultural movements challenged the idea that Black people should seek dignity by distancing themselves from Blackness.

“Black is beautiful” rejected the assumption that Blackness was shameful, inferior, or undesirable.

The term became associated with pride, self-determination, political resistance, cultural affirmation, and solidarity.

This period also marked a decisive stage in the national consolidation of Black American identity. The Great Migration had connected regional populations, while television, radio, national organizations, music, and political movements created a shared national conversation.

“Black” became the language of a people asserting itself.

Black or African American: The 1980s and 1990s

During the 1980s and 1990s, Black and African American increasingly operated side by side.

“Black” remained widely used in everyday, cultural, and political life.

“African American” gained prominence in institutional, academic, governmental, and professional settings. It emphasized ancestry, cultural heritage, and inclusion within the naming conventions used for other ethnic groups in the United States.

The rise of “African American” also reflected a growing interest in African heritage and diasporic connection.

However, the term introduced ambiguity.

It could refer specifically to the historic Black American ethnic group, but it could also be interpreted more broadly to include any American of African descent. As migration from Africa and the Caribbean increased, ancestry-based language became less precise as an identifier for the population historically formed within the United States.

During this period, Black Americans were increasingly described through both a racial label and an ethnic-style label.

African American and Black American: The 2000s

During the 2000s, African American remained dominant in many official and institutional settings, while Black American became increasingly useful as a more specific collective identifier.

“Black American” emphasized the historical formation of the ethnic group within the United States.

It distinguished the people from newer African, Caribbean, Latin American, and other Black immigrant populations without denying broader racial or diasporic connections.

The identifier contained several dimensions at once.

It was ethnonational because it named a people formed within the United States.

It was sociopolitical because the group had been shaped by American law, enslavement, emancipation, segregation, migration, policing, and civil-rights struggles.

It was sociocultural because the people shared historical traditions expressed through language, religion, music, food, family life, humor, aesthetics, political thought, and collective memory.

“Black American” restored specificity to an identity that had become increasingly broad.

Neo-Blackness: The 2010s

The 2010s introduced the era of Neo-Blackness.

Neo-Blackness describes the commercialization, digitization, globalization, and recontextualization of Black identity.

Through social media, streaming platforms, advertising, entertainment, and global communication, Black culture became more visible and influential than ever before.

At the same time, Blackness became increasingly detached from Black American historical specificity.

Black American language, music, aesthetics, political concepts, humor, trauma, and cultural practices circulated globally. They were adopted by corporations, influencers, political organizations, and multiple diaspora populations.

Under Neo-Blackness, Black identity could be performed digitally, marketed commercially, and interpreted globally.

This expanded the reach of Black culture, but it also weakened the connection between the culture and the people who created it.

“Black” increasingly became a broad global category rather than a precise name for the historic Black American ethnic group.

Neo-Blackness created visibility without necessarily creating ownership, sovereignty, institutional power, or historical clarity.

Delineation: The 2020s

The 2020s have produced a movement toward delineation.

Delineation is the effort to distinguish the historic Black American ethnic group from the broader racial and diasporic category of Blackness.

Identifiers such as FBA, ADOS, and Soulaan emerged from this effort.

FBA, or Foundational Black American, emphasizes descent from the population that formed the historic Black American community before later waves of voluntary immigration.

ADOS, or American Descendants of Slavery, emphasizes lineage from people enslaved within the United States and is often connected to reparations politics.

Soulaan functions as an ethnocultural or ethnonational name intended to distinguish the people from broad racial classifications and externally imposed terminology.

These identifiers do not always carry identical definitions, political programs, or historical boundaries. Their supporters may disagree strongly with one another.

However, they share a general purpose: restoring specificity.

The delineation movement argues that the term “Black” has become too broad to identify the particular people created through the history of the United States.

It attempts to distinguish race from ethnicity, diaspora from nationhood, cultural participation from lineage, and solidarity from identity.

The Identifier Timeline

The naming sequence can be summarized as follows:

Negro — Progenitor populations
A broad racial classification applied to multiple populations before the complete formation of Black Americans as a distinct ethnic people.

American Negro — Progenitor and formative stage
A developing population created in the Americas through the convergence and transformation of multiple ancestral groups.

Freedman — 1860s
A legal and political identity produced through emancipation, Reconstruction, citizenship, and the transition out of chattel slavery.

Negro — Late nineteenth to mid-twentieth century
The national identifier of a consolidated American people with growing cultural, political, and institutional consciousness.

Black — 1960s and 1970s
An identifier associated with pride, resistance, self-determination, cultural affirmation, and Black Power.

Black or African American — 1980s and 1990s
A dual naming period shaped by institutional recognition, diasporic consciousness, and changing ideas about ethnicity.

African American and Black American — 2000s
A period in which “African American” remained institutionally prominent while “Black American” increasingly restored national and historical specificity.

Neo-Blackness — 2010s
An era of commercialized, digital, globalized, and diasporically recontextualized Blackness.

Delineation — 2020s
The emergence of FBA, ADOS, Soulaan, and related efforts to name the historic Black American ethnic group more precisely.

From Classification to Self-Definition

The larger movement of this timeline is from classification toward self-definition.

“Negro” began as a broad racial designation applied to multiple populations.

“American Negro” reflected the formation of a new people.

“Freedman” named a new legal and political condition.

“Black” transformed a stigmatized racial category into a declaration of pride and power.

“African American” connected identity to ancestry and heritage.

“Black American” emphasized the historical formation of a people within the United States.

Neo-Blackness expanded Black identity into a commercial, digital, and global category.

Delineation emerged in response, seeking to restore ethnic boundaries, historical memory, lineage, and political specificity.

The central struggle has therefore never been only about what Black Americans are called.

It has been about who possesses the authority to name the people, define their history, establish the boundaries of the group, and determine the political meaning of the identity.

(The Exter We Black Americans historically delineate ourselves by area. 

Black America is a nation within a nation. It is what binds all of our together. Black Americans are an amalgamated ethnic group in America that underwent an ethnogensis that culminated in 1960. We have been systemically reclassified and historically treated as “beings of an inferior order” due to the prevailing race theory developed by Occupiers in the Colonial Empire know as the United States of America.
3 Major events have shaped our identity
-Enslavement
-NeoSlavery
-Civil Rights Era (Racial Occupation/Internal Colonization and the Great Migration) 

Black American experiences have been shaped collectively by these experiences. We are ONE ethnic group in many areas thus our culture has been the same with regional variations. There’s many heritages and lineages to discuss. 

Black American is the classical identifier. It is an ethnonational, sociopolitical, and sociocultural identifier. 

A siege is not only an attack on walls. It is an attempt to control everything within them: movement, resources, morale, leadership, communication, and the population’s belief in its ability to survive.

The same framework can be used to examine the pressures placed on Black Americans. In this model, external pressures focus on containment. They seek to limit, regulate, extract from, or dismantle Black power. Internal pressures focus on dilution and redirection. They weaken collective power by diverting energy, creating dependency, encouraging defection, or turning people against one another.

These categories should not be treated as permanent labels for individuals. They describe functions people and institutions may perform within a broader system. A person can occupy more than one role, move between roles, or resist the role assigned to them.

The siege produces reactions both outside and inside the walls.

External Pressures: Containment

External actors seek to ensure that Black power does not become independent, organized, durable, or capable of setting its own terms. Their methods may differ, but their shared purpose is containment.

Colonizers and Occupiers

Colonizers enter a community intending to reshape it according to outside interests. Occupiers maintain control after entry.

Their motivation may be profit, fear, guilt, paternalism, political advantage, or a belief that Black communities cannot be trusted to govern themselves. Some arrive openly hostile. Others present themselves as protectors, reformers, investors, or rescuers.

Regardless of presentation, the defining feature is the assumption that authority should remain outside the community.

The colonizer asks, “How can this territory be made useful to us?”

The occupier asks, “How can we prevent the people inside it from becoming fully self-determining?”

Appropriators

Appropriators capture the language, culture, symbols, innovations, and moral authority produced by the community while separating those things from the people who created them.

They are hijackers and culture vultures, but they may also resemble missionaries. They enter claiming admiration, solidarity, education, or cultural exchange. They learn the community’s language, adopt its aesthetics, repeat its ideas, and then present themselves as authoritative interpreters.

Under appropriation, Black culture may become highly visible while Black people remain politically weak. The culture travels farther than the power of its creators.

What begins as expression becomes a product. What begins as resistance becomes branding. What begins as a community’s language becomes a vocabulary outsiders use to advance themselves.

Extractors

Extractors treat the besieged community as a source of wealth.

They remove money, labor, land, attention, data, talent, intellectual property, and political energy while returning as little as possible. They are the crows circling the siege, feeding on whatever the conflict exposes.

Extractors may appear as predatory businesses, absentee owners, exploitative employers, opportunistic organizations, or political operations that repeatedly solicit Black support without building lasting Black capacity.

Their interest is not necessarily in destroying the community. A destroyed community can no longer be harvested. Their goal is to keep it alive enough to remain profitable, but weak enough to remain exploitable.

Dismantlers

Dismantlers attack the structures that allow a community to defend itself.

In a literal siege, they operate the equipment that breaks the walls. In a social siege, they weaken institutions, discredit leaders, interrupt networks, erase history, divide organizations, and remove the mechanisms through which people build collective power.

They may target schools, businesses, neighborhoods, families, political organizations, cultural institutions, or systems of mutual aid.

Dismantling does not always look violent. It can happen through regulation, neglect, hostile financing, selective enforcement, bureaucratic interference, media campaigns, or the constant demand that Black institutions justify their existence while dominant institutions are treated as neutral.

Conscripts

Conscripts are ordinary people directed toward the walls.

They may not understand the larger campaign. They may believe they are simply doing their jobs, following policy, protecting standards, preserving order, or responding to a threat.

A conscript can be a worker, voter, consumer, officer, teacher, administrator, neighbor, or online participant who reproduces the logic of containment without seeing themselves as part of an occupying force.

This role matters because systems rarely operate through architects alone. They depend on large numbers of people carrying out small instructions.

The conscript may not have designed the siege, but the siege cannot continue without them.

Internal Pressures: Dilution and Redirection

External pressure does not remain external. Prolonged siege conditions reshape behavior inside the walls.

Scarcity encourages competition. Surveillance produces caution. Repeated punishment creates fear. Limited opportunities make proximity to outside power appear safer than solidarity with those under pressure.

The result is not a moral defect unique to Black communities. These are common human reactions to occupation, coercion, and instability. The siege creates incentives, and people respond to them in different ways.

Collaborators

Collaborators cooperate with the occupying force.

They help outside power understand, manage, or control the community. They may provide legitimacy, access, information, cultural translation, or public defense of policies that harm the people around them.

Collaboration is often rewarded. The collaborator may receive safety, money, visibility, status, or limited authority. They are permitted to rise, but usually on the condition that their advancement does not increase the collective power of the group.

The collaborator becomes evidence that the system is fair precisely because their individual success helps conceal the group’s continued containment.

Divesters

Divesters defect.

Rather than helping the community survive or transform its conditions, they withdraw their money, talent, loyalty, identity, or concern. They jump ship and attempt to secure a place on the other side.

Divestment may be physical, economic, political, cultural, or emotional. It can take the form of leaving without reinvesting, distancing oneself from Blackness, refusing collective responsibility, or treating the suffering of other Black people as proof of one’s own superiority.

Not everyone who leaves is a divester. Departure may be necessary for survival or growth. The defining issue is not movement. It is whether separation is accompanied by contempt, abandonment, or service to the forces maintaining the siege.

Tethers

Tethers drop the act when it benefits them.

They may be individuals, institutions, habits, incentives, or narratives that make independence appear impossible. A tether says that survival depends on remaining attached to an outside authority, even when that authority is extractive.

Tethers can redirect ambition away from building collective capacity and toward seeking acceptance, funding, recognition, or permission from institutions that benefit from Black dependency.

Unlike collaborators, tethers do not always openly serve the occupying force. They may sincerely believe they are being practical. Their function, however, is to prevent separation from structures that continually limit the community’s freedom.

They do not break the walls. They persuade people that life beyond the walls cannot be imagined and that we should be grateful for the saviors.

Infiltrators and Saboteurs

Infiltrators enter organizations, movements, and relationships to gather information, redirect priorities, provoke conflict, or destroy trust.

Saboteurs damage the community’s ability to coordinate. They may spread rumors, create unnecessary rivalries, mismanage resources, provoke reckless action, expose vulnerable people, or transform strategic disagreements into permanent fractures.

Not every disagreement is sabotage, and suspicion can itself become destructive. A community that calls every critic an infiltrator eventually loses the ability to correct its own mistakes.

The challenge is to distinguish healthy dissent from behavior that repeatedly produces confusion, exposure, paralysis, and collapse.

Proxies

Proxies redirect violence away from the source of the siege and toward other people inside the walls.

Under intense pressure, some individuals begin exploiting, robbing, abusing, or killing those nearest to them. They become local agents of insecurity, even when they have no formal relationship with the external power.

Their actions help maintain containment. Fear weakens public life. Businesses close. Families withdraw. Neighbors distrust one another. Resources that might have supported education, organization, or development are redirected toward emergency, punishment, and survival.

The proxy did not invent the siege, but their actions reproduce its effects.

Recognizing the surrounding conditions does not remove personal responsibility. Explanation is not absolution. It allows us to understand why punishment alone cannot repair a social order that continually manufactures desperation, alienation, and conflict.

The Siege Is Maintained Through Interaction

These external and internal pressures reinforce one another.

Extractors create scarcity, and scarcity strengthens divesters and proxies.

Appropriators remove culture from its political foundation, while collaborators help present the resulting imitation as progress.

Dismantlers weaken institutions, while tethers persuade people that outside institutions are their only realistic option.

Occupiers create systems of surveillance, while infiltrators turn that surveillance into internal distrust.

Conscripts enforce the boundaries, while the people inside are encouraged to blame one another for failing to escape them.

This is how containment becomes self-sustaining. External power creates the conditions for internal fragmentation, and internal fragmentation is then used to justify further external control.

The community is blamed for the damage produced by the siege.

Breaking the Siege

A siege framework is useful only if it helps identify a path beyond it.

Breaking the siege requires more than exposing enemies. It requires building durable forms of Black power that are difficult to appropriate, extract from, dismantle, or redirect.

That means strengthening institutions capable of surviving individual leaders. It means circulating resources within communities, protecting political education, creating systems of accountability, and developing ways to resolve conflict without turning every disagreement into exile or warfare.

It also requires refusing the false choice between individual success and collective responsibility. Individual achievement becomes liberating when it expands the community’s capacity—not when it purchases distance from the community.

The goal is not isolation. It is the ability to enter relationships without surrendering self-determination.

A people are not free simply because they are visible, represented, celebrated, employed, or permitted to participate. They are free when they possess the organized power to defend their interests, develop their institutions, control their resources, preserve their memory, and determine their future.

The central question of the siege is therefore not merely, “Who is attacking the walls?”

It is also:

Who benefits from keeping the walls under pressure?

Who carries the pressure inward?

Who redirects the community’s energy?

Who strengthens its ability to withstand the siege?

And who is working to make the siege impossible to maintain?

Red Ranger Syndrome

When a person feel like they are the center of the universe, the chosen one, the main character and they must lead others because they know what is best.

They have to be the leader or they are noncooperative

When a person feel like they are the center of the universe, the chosen one, the main character and they must lead others because they know what is best.

They have to be the leader or they are noncooperative

Disclaimer: The content and opinions expressed in this post are solely those of the author and do not represent the views or positions of Reddit or its affiliates. This post may contain sensitive material or strong language, and reader discretion is advised. The author has made an effort to comply with Reddit’s content policy and community guidelines and has ensured that the message does not promote hate or target any specific individual or group.

Trigger Warning: This post may contain discussions or descriptions of potentially sensitive topics, including but not limited to violence, abuse, mental health issues, or self-harm. If you feel that such content may negatively affect you, please proceed with caution or consider skipping this post altogether. This post ISNT attacking any race ethincity religious group etc and heaviy lanugage may be used. This isnt harrasment either.

Please note that any content that violates Reddit’s content policy or community guidelines will be removed by moderators, and users may be subject to appropriate action. If you encounter content that you believe is inappropriate, please report it to the moderators for review.

​

Liberia is a country located on the West African coast. It is bordered by Sierra Leone to the northwest, Guinea to the north, Côte d’Ivoire to the east, and the Atlantic Ocean to the south and southwest. Monrovia is the capital city and the largest urban area in Liberia.

The Republic of Liberia was founded by freed African-American slaves in 1822, with the support of the American Colonization Society. They established a settlement in present-day Liberia and declared their independence on July 26, 1847. The country’s constitution was modeled after the United States Constitution, and the settlers became known as Americo-Liberians. Liberia is Africa’s first and oldest modern republic.

Liberia has a diverse population consisting of around 4.9 million people as of 2021, with 16 officially recognized ethnic groups. The official language is English, but there are more than 20 indigenous languages spoken throughout the country.

Liberia’s economy relies heavily on agriculture, with rubber and palm oil being the primary export commodities. The mining sector is also significant, with iron ore, gold, and diamonds being some of the major minerals extracted. Liberia has experienced economic challenges, however, due to civil wars, political instability, and corruption. The country has a long history of political strife and unrest. Liberia experienced two civil wars between 1989 and 2003, which caused massive destruction and the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives. After the second civil war, a peace agreement was signed, and the United Nations established a mission in Liberia to help maintain stability. The country has since been working on rebuilding its infrastructure, economy, and political institutions.

The Americo-Liberians did not techincally enslave the indigenous Liberian population in the same sense as chattel slavery in the Americas, their relationship with the local people was marked by significant inequality, exploitation, and social stratification. The Americo-Liberians, who were descended from freed African-American slaves, saw themselves as culturally superior to the indigenous people and sought to **civilize** them. Remember, the American Colonization Society was founded by Robert Finley who was an American Presbyterian clergyman. After Liberia gained independence in 1847, the Americo-Liberians established a **ruling class** that controlled the government, economy, and social institutions of the country. This elite group monopolized power and resources, often treating the indigenous population as second-class citizens. They imposed a system of indirect rule, wherein local chiefs were responsible for maintaining order and collecting taxes in their respective regions.

The indigenous people were subjected to forced labor, particularly on rubber plantations, and they were often paid very low wages, if they were paid at all. This exploitative system was sometimes referred to as “domestic slavery” or “peonage.”

The exclusion of indigenous Liberians from political and economic power contributed to social tensions, which eventually led to the 1980 military coup, when indigenous Liberian Master Sergeant Samuel K. Doe overthrew the Americo-Liberian government. This marked the end of more than a century of Americo-Liberian political dominance, but it did not resolve the deep-seated issues of inequality and underdevelopment in Liberia.

This is why the black bourgeoisie will always be a threat to the black community. They will inevitably replicate the same Eurocentric systems. Especially of capitalism (that requires a forced lower class). Right now a lot of our people are becoming nationals of nations back in the motherland. I hope that the black bourgeoisie paradigm dies before another system like it arises. The Americo-Liberians’ behavior towards the indigenous population in Liberia can be attributed to a combination of factors, including their cultural background, the influence of Western ideologies, and their own experiences as a marginalized group. They were colonizers. (See what we discussed about this)

Americo-Liberians were primarily descended from freed African-American slaves who had been exposed to American culture and values. They considered themselves culturally superior to the indigenous populations in Liberia, which led them to adopt a paternalistic and condescending attitude towards the local people. The 19th century was marked by widespread belief in the “civilizing mission” of Western powers. European colonial powers justified their conquests and colonization by claiming that they were bringing “civilization” and modernity to the so-called “backward” peoples of the world. The Americo-Liberians were influenced by these ideas, which led them to believe that it was their duty to “civilize” the indigenous population by imposing their own culture, religion, and values. The Americo-Liberians themselves had been subjected to discrimination and marginalization in the United States due to their African heritage. After they arrived in Liberia, they sought to create a society where they would be the dominant group, which led them to adopt an oppressive attitude towards the indigenous population. The Americo-Liberians wanted to maintain control over Liberia’s political and economic resources, which required them to establish dominance over the indigenous population. This control allowed them to exploit the local people’s labor and resources for their own benefit. The Americo-Liberians sought to create a social hierarchy based on race and culture, with themselves at the top. They believed that their Western education, Christianity, and cultural background made them inherently superior to the indigenous people, who were often seen as “primitive” or “uncivilized.”

These factors combined to create a situation in which the Americo-Liberians acted like colonizers, exploiting and dominating the indigenous population of Liberia. This behavior led to deep-seated social, economic, and political inequalities that have persisted in the country for many years.

Realistic conflict theory (RCT) is a social psychological theory that explains how intergroup conflict can arise as a result of competing goals and limited resources. The theory suggests that when two or more groups are in competition for resources, it can lead to hostility, prejudice, and discrimination towards the outgroup. This competition can be real or perceived and can involve a range of resources, including power, money, and social status. The theory has been widely studied and has helped researchers to better understand the causes and consequences of intergroup conflict.

Liberia serves a cautionary tale whereas Haiti showed us how freedom is earned. Now on to the argument.

Why is there so much push for representation and diversity? Its based on the integrationist idea that if we assimilate into their society and work hard, our “pathologies” would disappear while simultaneously the forces that are pushed against us to keep us in the stockades are strong and a small percentage of us make it out and a huge majority are silenced or in general ignored when not partaking in the minstrel show that has become the main representative of our culture. They busted our social movements that would have increased black power. Now, the black bourgeoisie is selling out the culture for Representation and diversity and other white liberal talking points, the same group are also attempting to lead black people into white conservative voting blocks. Both do not have the black community’s best interest at heart. Their version of representation and diversity is dishonest and it usually still manages to neuter(whitewash) blackness by showing us only within stereotypical extremes. Either as a low-class thug OR as acceptable black person (even further an o**o). This isn’t representation, its representing the one subsection of Black America that aligns their values with classic white americans (Neo-blackness, Bow-tie 🥷 ) It’s pushing their ideology under the guise of our ideology. I often hear Blackness isn’t a monolith. WTF do you think black culture is? Of course there’s diversity in religion, political ideology, education, region, but one can recognize this without meaning theres a lack of diversity in black communities, especially where diversity seems to cause more division than unity. I think this is a talking point of separatist to justify their divestment and assimilation. In fact, hollywood propaganda are coloring white people with our juice because they dont want to show black people in an negative light in any way. They dehumanize us further. They also seem to push diversity in romance. They love showing black people in IR instead of promoting Black Love. Against ask, who is pushing this? When you see other black people pushing these ideas, ask who are they and why? what is their background? What’s their ideology? They want to control the narrative about what happens in the trenches BUT they were behind enemy lines the entire time and some where never in the trenches at all. So many found their blackness on college campuses after being socialized conditioned and indoctrinated by white society their entire lives. They measure black excellence with white normality, they look for themselves and insert themselves into Eurocentric identity and ways of life. See the paint the cup black but pour milk into.

They present concepts as “black” but it is just the appearance, a layer, the underlying substantial “essence” of their ideology isn’t black empowerment or raising black awareness or anything like that. Liberals will always find some “cause” to stand behind and conservatives will always find some cause to stand against. Black liberals push their ideology with a coat of black, but it’s really issues that have only affected the societies they built. I imagine that if they were to ever take power, they would appease them instead of try to restore nurture and cultivate Black America (Obama’s entire presidency LOL) Look at Kamala for instance and Candace Owens or any other black conservative. They live, walk, talk, act, etc like white americans. (bLaCk iS nOt a mOnOlthIc) no shit, but they arent even socialized or representative of us YET they will talk, walk, and act like they are to their true audience, their white liberal or white conservative audience and the other black americans who live, walk, talk, and act as they do. But they will sell the culture for points, I see it a lot nowadays, black people selling out the culture when we should gate keep and collectivise. We allow so many others to “join in on the fun” when they have zero investments to the community, they take our culture, commodify it, and sell it back to us and reinvest that money into their communities. They try to talk like us, walk like us, all to be cool (Discussed in White Ne***s) we call them allies, they get proverbial invites to the cookout. Many not knowing they are playing into white people fantasies (specially the White Paternalism and White Savior complexes that is fueled by guilt)

I believe Black Americans should perform an exodus, integration weakened us. It added creamer into the coffee. It tricked black people into placing american before the black. Haiti showed us what would happen if black people fought for our freedom, fought for ourselves, and Liberia showed us what would happen if the Black Bourgeoisie took over. Their version of diversity still places them at the center of superiority. Just as their token colorblind representations could be easily be swapped out with their version of “default” They include US but the black people they do show represents the “black friends” they imagine they have that makes them not a racist. They want to keep us divide and further dilute black power movements by using diversity. These same black people that’ll preach all this black power rhetoric will drive back to suburbia with their white spouse, they push IR to black women and black men, go support all white businesses, send their children to all white schools where they are being socialized, talk down on AAVE, avoid black people, their families, and culture, etc. They are only black to white people and they want to represent the culture when they do everything to separate themselves from it. They were never in the trenches yet they telling war stories. We all have met them. This is only one type when its three types ive ID

1. The Bow-Ties (Black Bourgeoisie)
2. The O*** (these are the radicals out of the three)
3. Neoblack (the ones i talked about, i suspect they are the children of the bow-ties)

They stand in opposition to the unapologetic black people. This is their version of diversity. They commodify blackness and sell it back to push their programs and agendas. It’s never diverse, it’s always an acceptable black person (never your average run of the mill black american) they show a diverse group of white people (Euphoria for example) but the black people are always one type but they are there for inclusion. They are never just “black”

Frazier identified the black bourgeoisie as black Americans who acquire money and status while assimilating white social structures. The main point of E. Franklin Frazier’s “Black Bourgeoisie” is to critically examine the social, economic, and political behaviors of the African American middle and upper classes, emphasizing their attempts to assimilate into mainstream American society and adopt the values and culture of the white middle class, often at the expense of their own racial identity and solidarity with the broader black community. Frazier argued that the black bourgeoisie sought to emulate the lifestyle, values, and culture of the white middle class in order to gain acceptance and social mobility. This behavior, however, led to a detachment from their own cultural heritage and the black community’s struggles. The black bourgeoisie was characterized by a focus on material possessions, social status, and respectability, which Frazier believed distracted them from the more significant issues of racial equality and social justice. Frazier contended that the black bourgeoisie’s preoccupation with assimilation and materialism led to a lack of meaningful social and political engagement in the broader struggle for civil rights and racial equality. Frazier’s work can be seen as a critique of respectability politics, which is the idea that if marginalized groups adopt the dominant culture’s norms and values, they will be more accepted and treated fairly. He pointed out that this approach can be counterproductive, as it can lead to the abandonment of one’s own cultural identity and a lack of solidarity within the community. Frazier’s work highlights the complexities and contradictions within the black middle class, revealing the challenges they face in navigating American society and their efforts to balance their aspirations for social mobility with their racial identity and responsibilities to the broader African American community.

Some examples of the BBs systems

1. The Talented Tenth: The concept of the “Talented Tenth” was introduced by W.E.B. Du Bois, who believed that an educated and elite group of African Americans could lead the rest of the community towards social, economic, and political advancement. Frazier critiqued this notion, suggesting that the black bourgeoisie focused on assimilation and materialism rather than the upliftment of the entire African American community.
2. Black fraternities and sororities: These organizations, founded at historically black colleges and universities, often attract members of the black middle and upper classes. While they may engage in philanthropic and community service activities, Frazier argued that these groups also reflect the black bourgeoisie’s desire for social status and respectability.
3. The “Brown Paper Bag Test”: This was a discriminatory practice within the African American community, where individuals were assessed based on the lightness of their skin, often using a brown paper bag as a reference. Frazier suggested that the black bourgeoisie participated in and perpetuated colorism, seeking to distance themselves from darker-skinned African Americans as a way of gaining social acceptance from the white majority.
4. The rise of the black professional class: The growth of the black professional class in the 20th century, including doctors, lawyers, and entrepreneurs, provided opportunities for social mobility and economic success. However, Frazier argued that this often led to a focus on material wealth and status, with less attention paid to the broader struggle for racial equality.
5. Black churches: Frazier also critiqued the role of some black churches in reinforcing the values and aspirations of the black bourgeoisie. These churches often emphasized respectability, social status, and conformity to white middle-class norms, rather than focusing on social justice and the empowerment of the black community.
6. The Negro Business League: Founded by Booker T. Washington in 1900, this organization aimed to promote black entrepreneurship and economic self-sufficiency. While the League did support the growth of black-owned businesses, Frazier argued that it focused more on the economic success of individual entrepreneurs rather than addressing the broader economic inequality faced by the African American community.
7. The Harlem Renaissance: This cultural movement in the 1920s and 1930s brought together African American artists, writers, and intellectuals, many of whom belonged to the black bourgeoisie. While the Harlem Renaissance produced significant cultural achievements, Frazier contended that it also reflected the black middle class’s desire for assimilation and recognition by the white mainstream.
8. The Black Social Register: Similar to the Social Register for the white elite, the Black Social Register was a publication that listed the names and addresses of prominent African American families. This publication exemplified the black bourgeoisie’s preoccupation with social status and respectability.
9. African American private schools: Some members of the black bourgeoisie chose to send their children to private schools, often seeking educational environments that emphasized traditional white middle-class values and culture. This practice can be seen as an example of the black middle class’s pursuit of assimilation and distancing from their racial identity.
10. The “Jack and Jill” clubs: These social clubs, founded in the 1930s, were created for the children of middle-class and upper-class African American families. They organized social events and activities that emphasized etiquette, refinement, and other characteristics associated with the white middle class. The existence of these clubs illustrates the black bourgeoisie’s focus on social status and assimilation.

When Blackness (post-slavery consciousness) + Capitalism (profit)

​

There’s no power in seeing ourselves or walking like the people who seen us as subhuman. There’s no power in replicating the same systems.

American Nightmare Pt.1

​

How any of you wondered what were the effects integration had on Black America?

1. Loss of black-owned businesses: During segregation, black communities were often forced to establish their own businesses to serve their needs. With the end of segregation and the beginning of integration, some of these businesses struggled to compete with larger, white-owned businesses and eventually closed down.
2. Decline of black neighborhoods: Integration allowed African Americans to move into previously white-only neighborhoods. While this increased housing opportunities for black families, it also led to the decline of historically black neighborhoods, as people moved away from them. This could have resulted in the loss of community identity, cohesion, and support networks.
3. Impact on black schools: Integration led to the closing of many black schools and the reassignment of students and teachers to formerly white schools. This sometimes resulted in a loss of black educators, as well as the loss of a nurturing and supportive environment where black students could thrive academically and culturally.
4. Economic disparities: While integration removed legal barriers to economic opportunity, it did not fully address the systemic racism and discrimination that had long existed. As a result, many African Americans continued to face economic challenges, such as wage gaps, underemployment, and limited access to resources that could help them achieve economic stability.
5. Fragmentation of black political power: Integration also led to the dispersion of the black population, which diluted the political power of black communities. This, in turn, made it more difficult for black leaders to advocate for their community’s interests and needs.

It’s important to note that integration was a necessary step toward civil rights and equality in the United States. However, it is also essential to recognize the complex and varied effects of integration on different aspects of the black community. The challenges that emerged from integration should not be seen as a reason to dismiss its importance, but rather as issues that need to be addressed to ensure that all Americans can enjoy equal opportunities and a sense of community.

There were other options besides integration. Integration was popularized because it had garnered the most support. During the civil rights movement, the primary goal was to end racial segregation and promote racial equality. Integration was seen as a crucial step in achieving this goal. However, there were other perspectives and options considered at the time. Some of these alternatives include:

1. Black Nationalism: Advocates of Black Nationalism called for the establishment of a separate nation for African Americans, where they could govern themselves and be independent of the United States. This idea was championed by leaders like Marcus Garvey and, later, Malcolm X.
2. Pan-Africanism: Pan-Africanism is a political and cultural ideology that emphasizes the shared history and experiences of people of African descent across the globe. This movement aimed to promote solidarity among African nations and those of African descent in the diaspora, with the goal of fostering economic, social, and political progress.
3. Community control and self-determination: Some activists and leaders argued for increased control over local institutions, such as schools, police departments, and housing authorities, to ensure that they served the needs and interests of black communities. This approach aimed to empower black communities to make decisions that directly affected their lives and neighborhoods, rather than relying solely on integration.
4. Economic empowerment: Some civil rights leaders, like Martin Luther King Jr., focused on addressing the economic disparities faced by African Americans. This approach emphasized the need for fair wages, access to quality education, and equal employment opportunities to uplift black communities.
5. Cooperation and coalition-building: Some civil rights activists believed that building alliances with other marginalized groups and progressive organizations could lead to broader social and political change. This approach involved working together on issues of common interest and engaging in collective action.

Here’s some potential hypothetical outcomes:

1. Separate but equal Hypothetical outcome: If the “separate but equal” doctrine had continued, it’s likely that racial inequality would have persisted or even worsened, as this doctrine failed to address the systemic barriers faced by African Americans. The separate facilities and institutions would likely remain underfunded and inferior to those available to white Americans, perpetuating disparities in education, housing, and employment.
2. Black nationalism and self-determination Hypothetical outcome: If the focus had been on promoting black nationalism and self-determination, it’s possible that African American communities could have developed a stronger sense of cultural identity and political power. However, this approach might have also led to further racial polarization and a lack of progress in dismantling systemic racism in broader American society.
3. Economic empowerment and community development Hypothetical outcome: If the primary focus had been on economic empowerment and community development, it’s possible that some progress could have been made in closing the racial wealth gap and improving living conditions in black communities. However, without addressing the broader issues of segregation and discrimination, it’s likely that African Americans would still face significant barriers to achieving true equality and social mobility.
4. Multiracial coalition-building Hypothetical outcome: If the civil rights movement had focused on building multiracial coalitions to address racial inequality and promote social justice, it’s possible that a broader base of support could have been achieved, leading to more significant progress in dismantling systemic racism. However, this approach might have also led to compromises and a slower pace of change, as different groups within the coalition may have had differing priorities and goals.

It’s important to note that these hypothetical outcomes are based on assumptions and should be taken with a grain of caution. In reality, the civil rights movement and the struggle for racial equality in the United States have been influenced by a combination of various approaches and ideas, with integration being just one of the many facets of this complex and ongoing process. Out of all the options, the one option that weakened the black communities was the one that was most favored. Integration was seen as a more feasible and practical solution compared to alternatives like Black Nationalism or the establishment of a separate nation for African Americans. Integration aimed to work within the existing system to bring about change, which made it more appealing to a broader range of activists and the general public. A significant focus of the civil rights movement was on dismantling the legal structures that perpetuated segregation and racial discrimination. Integration provided a clear legal path for challenging these structures, such as the landmark Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education, which declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. Integration received support from a broader range of allies, including white liberals and progressive organizations. This support was essential in raising awareness, mobilizing resources, and advocating for policy changes. Other alternatives like Black Nationalism, although supported by some, did not garner the same level of widespread support. >!(White Americans were afraid of Black Americans pulling a Haiti!) !<The civil rights movement had numerous influential leaders and organizations, such as Martin Luther King Jr., the NAACP, and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), that actively advocated for integration.

When we think about what has destroyed the black communities and rendered any movement we have ineffectual, understand that the ground work must have been laid to disable such movements. The environments been made to be unsupportive of such disparities of the civil order. There is no single factor that can be pinpointed as the cause for the destruction of black communities. Instead, a combination of historical, social, economic, and political factors contributed to the challenges faced by these communities in the United States.

Some of the key factors include:

Slavery and its legacy: The institution of slavery created a foundation of racial inequality that has persisted even after its abolition. The lasting impact of slavery and its associated social and economic injustices has profoundly affected black communities.

Segregation and discriminatory policies: Racial segregation, enforced through policies such as Jim Crow laws and redlining, limited opportunities for African Americans in housing, education, and employment. Discriminatory practices in lending, real estate, and urban planning contributed to the concentration of poverty and disinvestment in black neighborhoods.

Economic inequality: Black communities have historically faced economic disparities, including limited access to well-paying jobs, education, and resources necessary for social mobility. Income inequality, wealth gaps, and unemployment contribute to the challenges faced by these communities.

The War on Drugs: The War on Drugs disproportionately affected African Americans, leading to mass incarceration and the dismantling of families and social structures in black communities. The criminal justice system’s racial bias has further exacerbated the issue.

Loss of industrial jobs: The decline of manufacturing and other blue-collar industries in the United States has disproportionately affected black workers, leading to increased unemployment and a decline in living standards in many black communities.

Urban renewal and gentrification: Urban renewal policies and gentrification have often displaced African American communities, breaking apart established neighborhoods and social networks. In many cases, these policies have prioritized economic development over the well-being of existing residents.

Systemic racism: Systemic racism is the ongoing presence of racial discrimination and inequality in various institutions and aspects of American society. It perpetuates disparities in education, housing, employment, healthcare, and criminal justice that disproportionately affect black communities.

Black people in the United States have faced various forms of discrimination throughout history. While some forms of discrimination have decreased over time due to legal changes and social progress, others persist in more subtle ways. Some ways black people have been discriminated against include:

Slavery: The enslavement of African people and their descendants in the United States was the most extreme form of discrimination, depriving them of basic human rights, freedom, and dignity.

Jim Crow laws: After the abolition of slavery, a series of discriminatory laws known as Jim Crow laws were enacted in the Southern United States, enforcing racial segregation and limiting the rights of black people in various aspects of life, including voting, education, and access to public facilities.

Voting restrictions: Black people faced various tactics to prevent them from voting, such as poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses. These restrictions were designed to undermine the political power of African Americans.

Housing discrimination: Racially restrictive covenants, redlining, and discriminatory lending practices have limited access to affordable housing and mortgage loans for black people, segregating communities and reinforcing racial inequality.

Employment discrimination: Black people have faced discrimination in hiring, promotions, and wages, as well as occupational segregation, which confines them to low-paying jobs with limited opportunities for advancement.

Education inequality: Segregated schools, unequal funding, and discriminatory policies have contributed to disparities in educational opportunities and outcomes for black students.

Racial profiling and police brutality: Black people have been disproportionately targeted by law enforcement through racial profiling and have experienced higher rates of police brutality.

Mass incarceration: Racial disparities in the criminal justice system have led to the mass incarceration of black people, disproportionately affecting black families and communities.

As for factors that have stunted the economic development of black communities:

Historical legacy of slavery: The lasting impact of slavery has shaped the social and economic landscape for black communities, limiting opportunities for wealth accumulation and social mobility.

Discriminatory policies and practices: Policies such as redlining, racially restrictive covenants, and discriminatory lending practices have hindered black communities’ access to affordable housing, quality education, and financial resources.

Employment discrimination: Discrimination in hiring, promotions, and wages has limited the economic opportunities for black individuals, contributing to income inequality and unemployment.

Loss of industrial jobs: The decline of manufacturing and other blue-collar industries in the United States disproportionately affected black workers, leading to increased unemployment and a decline in living standards in many black communities.

Underinvestment in infrastructure and services: Disinvestment in black neighborhoods has limited access to quality education, healthcare, transportation, and other essential services, impeding economic growth and development.

Systemic racism: The ongoing presence of racial discrimination and inequality in various institutions and aspects of American society perpetuates disparities that hinder the economic development of black communities.

Addressing these issues requires a comprehensive approach, including legal changes, policy reforms, and social and economic initiatives aimed at reducing racial disparities and fostering inclusive growth and development. The leadership and commitment of civil rights leaders to this approach played a significant role in shaping the movement’s priorities and strategies. As the civil rights movement progressed, public opinion shifted toward a greater acceptance of integration, especially in the face of the movement’s nonviolent protests and the moral weight of its arguments. This change in public opinion played a crucial role in the eventual passage of key civil rights legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

​

I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed. We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.

I have a dream that one day out in the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by their character.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; that one day right down in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be engulfed, every hill shall be exalted and every mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plains and the crooked places will be made straight and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together.

Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller

Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller, a member of the prominent Rockefeller family, was indeed an outspoken supporter of civil rights during his political career. As a moderate Republican, he advocated for progressive policies and championed social justice causes, which included support for civil rights. During his tenure as Governor of New York (1959-1973), Rockefeller pursued several policies aimed at promoting racial equality and reducing discrimination. The Rockefeller Foundation, a philanthropic organization established by the Rockefeller family, provided financial support to the SCLC’s Citizenship Education Program, which aimed to educate African Americans about their rights, voter registration, and civic engagement. The SCLC, MLK’s organization, was backed by the Rockefeller Foundation.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr: ‘I fear I am integrating my people into a burning house’

Maybe Nelson was just a good guy but I do wonder, what was the vested interest in the capitalist supporting integration? You still will have COINTELPRO bust out many black power organizations including the one MLK founded. So many questions I have yet to answer. I take the stance that an organized black society poised some sort of threat. I personally believe Malcolm X was right.

Of course the racist preferred a movement that made them feel less guilty, that didn’t hold them accountable, and that whitewashed the entirety of civil rights. Of course they would promote the option that is the complete opposite of pulling a Haiti.

​

This is our fight we dont need allies

My thoughts on the topic of acting white

Disclaimer:

DISCLAIMER:
This post will discuss heavy topics that may invoke uncomfortable feelings. The topic of race and racism, extreme violence, and triggering words will be referenced . This is for educational purposes. FACT CHECK EVERYTHING. This post is not an attack on anyone nor is it promoting hate for any group. It is discussing the phenomenon of acting white.

I simply don’t understand how this subject or concept got conflated with education. I want to dispel this myth and how it is used as racist propaganda.

While in the marines I realized a key feature in the dehumanizing effect of racism was that in the mind of the racist, the person is animalistic. They could be physically stronger, faster, etc they could be clever but the racist people I was surrounded far thought they were inherently smarter. They couldn’t believe I had an aversion to sports and was into things that they thought the traditional black person wasnt.

I was told: “You’re the whitest black guy I know.”

I began to realize they had two reactions depending on the context:

1) since I didn’t fit the what they believed as the stereotypical black male I must have been on “their” side
2) they thought I was what they believed as the stereotypical bm, so when i did speak about the annals of history, when I proved them wrong, etc

They would attempt to whitewash me or what I later discovered, humanize me.

“You’re not like the rest of them”

I understood that the racist mindset not only dehumanizes a person but some go further and demonize the person. Before I opened my mouth, it was assumed I was lower intelligence.

Today I read reports

Margaret Beale Spencer and Vinay Harpalani (2008

Stuart Buck, a lawyer, also explored this issue in Acting White: The Ironic Legacy of Desegregation (2010)

But the main contender that pushed this hogwash was OGBU (taken from Wikipedia)

In 1986, Signithia Fordham co-authored with Nigerian sociologist John Ogbu a study that concluded that high-performing African-American students in a Washington, D.C. high school borrowed from hegemonic white culture as part of a strategy for achievement, while struggling to maintain a black identity. Ogbu made a related claim in his 2003 book, Black American Students in an Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic Disengagement, concluding that black students’ own cultural attitudes sometimes hindered academic achievement and that these attitudes are too often neglected.

Another statement read on Wikipedia.

“A black student trying to achieve high educational success may then be considered as trying to leave the minority group.”

Black communities have experienced brain-drain over the years.

Here’s my take:

From my experience, we were treated like prisoners, metal detector, no roaming etc. the schools were poorly funded, etc. people who performed low in school were clowned and if you made high grades you were respected. A lot of kids who performed low has A LOT going on at home.

The smartest person I knew mom was addicted to crack and she dropped out in middle school to run the streets. She never acted less intelligent or carried herself as if she didn’t understand. She went into survival mode at ayoung. She could’ve been so much more. The socioeconomic factors placed in front of her made the probability of her being successful increased the moment her mother for whatever reason decided to smoke crack. She’s doing well for herself now though.

The point I’m making here that as a people or culture education isn’t valued highly, survival was the upmost importance but times have changed and while some still are in fucked up situations a good majority aren’t.

Acting white doesn’t have Jack shit to do with acting intelligent. That is pure racist propaganda while acting white and taking white references is real social phenomenon.

What people are recognizing is that this person isn’t socialized as black, or their cultural affiliation isn’t the culture that is associated with their background. It’s putting the American (white American) before the black. Often times and ESPECIALLY in the past this clued have detrimental consequences.

A person who acted white was shamed because they were attempting to “whitewash” themselves. They were ashamed to be black. They were told speaking AAVE meant they were less intelligent so they spoke white (standardized English)

They were shamed for their desire to assimilate and be white while being ashamed of black culture NOT because they wanted to better themselves pursue higher education or learn

We learn much more about the hostile environment that cause this situation rather than the action itself. What would happen if black people used AAVE in an environment that viewed speaking that way as improper English? Talking white is literally code-switching from AAVE to standardized English. Acting white is literally being assimilated into white society because they see it as superior Whereas being whitewashed is being assimilated and thinking you are white.

What boggles my mind is in our communities we are quick to call out appropriation and point at people who are “acting black” but when members of our community are washed and are acting white, the narrative have changed

You can be unapologetically black highly educated (educated and intelligence are two different things) and use AAVE etc it doesn’t affect your ability to solve a math equation

TLDR:

Pursuing education and wanting to better yourself has never = acting white

Acting white = the desire to assimilate into white culture/society (by mimicking white people) thinking it is superior.

Who’s old enough to remember the sayings that bill Clinton was the first black president?

Acting white has always been a problem in the black community fueled by internalized racism (colorism)

Here’s an more interesting take
Abagond

Analyzing Racist Tropes and White Society

Disclaimer and Trigger Warning:
This post is not made to direct hate at anyone nor IS it directing hate or inspiring hate. It is an analysis of history and racist caricatures used to invoke thoughtful discourse about modern society and race relations. Terminology and images that explore these racist concepts are used and uncensored. Proceed with caution. THIS POST is NOT an attack on ANY individual or does it direct hate towards a GROUP of people. It is not to harass anyone. I ask the reader to remember the human. To be respectful and to humanize.

White anxieties have been the fuel of many, many great cultural changes.

Imagine being a southern white property owner in the 1800s. You are a proper white gentleman of noble blood. The product of good Christian upbringing and a respectable heritage of souther plantation owner. Your prestige is correlated to the value you and your family have given to the society.

Imagine the pressure and unique position your “noble” birth have placed you. The subtle tension between those poorer than you and those richer, and you can’t forget about the slaves, and the people looking to free the slaves. How do you protect your interests?

We can analyze white anxieties from some of the tropes and reoccurring images they have used. (I call them white people fantasies) Much of white anxieties stem from the atrocities they have benefited from. It speaks to them unconsciously.

White mans burden

the alleged duty of white colonizers to care for nonwhite Indigenous subjects in their colonial possessions.

White paternalism

White paternalism is the idea that white people have a “duty” to intervene in lives of Black, Indigenous, and/or People of ColorWhite savior

Mighty “White” (The Chiefs Daughter)

In modern-day fiction, sometimes the Mighty Whitey is there to lead or inspire the Hollywood Natives or bring some aspect of modern technology or knowledge …

The Sapphire, Jezebel, mammy, Sambo, Uncle Tom, Black brute, magical n-word, and the c-word. In our collective conscious as a Nation, these racist images are still embedded in our mind.

​

If you analyze each of these caricatures, and the others, it speaks much more about the people who created them. The Sapphire (angry black woman) , Jezebel (promiscuous black woman which contrast the victorian archetype of ), the Tragic “mulatto” and the Mammy. Black femininity being bastardized by racism.
The racist believe that black people are animalistic (black brute/Jezabel) while they terrorized and r*ped black people. Their beliefs were made out to be “reality” when it spoke much more on who they were and what they were doing. The mammy and tom caricatures being that they were more concerned with white lives than black. How did these attitude propagate into modern media? Its far deeper than we acknowledge.

In truth, white anxieties is a collective unconscious paranoia. The murderer think that the family of the woman he murders, would love to take revenge. Othello’s Error?

​

White racism has hurt white people. The racists convinced them of a lie that they stick too. Think about the advancements we missed out on. How society could have progressed. The people who could have been geniuses. Lost history. Civilizations that were destroyed Etc White anxieties when it comes to black people is centered around an overwhelming fear of retribution. They fear black people organizing and seeking retribution (pulling a Haiti)

Ask yourselves this: How did or what was the social institutions instilled in the Haitians that caused them to revolt and tear the fabric of their society into a new one vs the slaves of USA? How did the Haitians engineer their own government but the slaves in the USA couldn’t?

Religion

If you begin to see white anxieties as the paranoia ALL criminals develop, you’ll see how much guilt is present in the collective unconscious of White People. How angry it makes some to acknowledge the past saying its forcing them to feel guilt while forcing others to be victims, and also, how some submerge it and become morally blind. How could the founding fathers author the declaration of independence while owning slaves? Justifying it by dehumanizing them. If you point out the hypocrisy of their society, you’ll see a common theme or reaction.

That’s why a lot of the racist arguments or responses avoid responsibility (My people didnt own slaves, they came from (random place in Europe) with 25 cents in their pocket, they pulled themselves up by their bootstraps) or morally alleviate themselves from feeling guilty about crimes they never committed. They inherently are prone to guilt BECAUSE they inherently understand they benefit from the racist institutions and societies their forefathers engineered for them. It’s boils down to holding their society accountable for moral hypocrisy.

The left and right have different approaches. When the USA “freed” the slaves, millions of free black slaves could change the political power and fabric of their societies. Plus if they organized they could do a Haiti against them. White anxieties where exacerbated the KKK and other groups rose.

The Right is on the yeah it HAPPENED get over it we won we’d do it again to protect ourselves side of things. They have been shamed from being openly like this they get censored but to them it is the natural order (white supremacy) but they understand they cannot say it they have to hide it. The Right is more on the we must maintain our power because if we don’t they’re going to get us and do what we have done to them. They are going to rob us (take back what we stole from them, pillage us (white anxieties fueled Jim Crow around the black brute caricature that black men were out r*ping white women when the opposite was happening!) and replace us in the societies we’ve created!

The Left is more slick. They believe the same thing as the right but their approach is more subtle. Convince them that they are like us, that they are us. They take the moral high ground of the issue to prove they are superior to the right not because they believe those values. It’s hypocrisy. They latch on to each moral cause in order to increase their casus belli and power against the right. They are like yeah it happened but your culture now is messed up you should become more like us and start working harder. We dont really owe you anything but we do need your votes so to symbolize our progress here’s a holiday.

People are only protecting THEIR interests. To be honest, the right has been fucking the south and finding solutions to problems that affect THEIR people.

Americans are playing A game of chicken of who wins the attention the acceptable byproduct being the suffering of BIPOCS. We are tools for getting white people what they want. One uses fear, one uses advocacy. At the heart of white anxieties is a prevailing guilt of the past that fuels a sense of fear that leads to paranoia of retribution. It’s a self fueling emotion through confirmation bias. Every crime state that mentioned, their subs on reddit, fox news, media (movies, sm) in general etc is confirmation bias for them. One culture in America reacted to this guilt by subjugation and the other reacts to it by moral hypocrisy (assimilation, integration)

Disclaimer: I am not a socialist of communist. I do have my critique of capitalistic societies but I do think as social technology, the capitalist engineers wonderful systems of innovation when unadulterated and exploitation when adulterated. People will be people

The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism plays a huge role. Capitalism NEEDS an underclass. It’s a calling to work to show glory to god. They are pressured by the fear of eternal damnation. It’s a calvinist tradition because through work they proved their faith. Work hard and you’ll be rewarded!

Pick yourself up by your boot straps. It is to Work for an eternal reward (access to heaven) that in a way is predetermined. You work hard to PROVE yourself worthy of the community that you are a good Christian that you are gods chosen. Unfortunately. secular expectations of a work forced founded on religious work ethics is not a good mix. They are left with the religious echoes of anxieties from eternal damnation and religious extremist. Person choice, your response to your attributes is far more important than the Facticity of them.

Cointelpro busted a lot of African American attempts at organizing power. Black Star Line, Black Panther Party, NOI, OAAU, etc were all deemed threats to the United States by the FBI. They made the term black power mean hate and have labeled these organizations as racist and extremist. Ask yourself, why black people organizing and reuniting with African civilizations poised a threat to the stability or fabric of the USA? Or to be frank, white society? What did they fear? I do wonder what would’ve happened if they had been successful. There was a reason, would it had caused a new nation to form? There were movements in the US that wanted Black Americans out instead of integrated.

Yellow peril

​

White civilizations have feared invasion from Asian civilizations from the east since the crusades. Yellow peril is a term used to describe this phenomenon. However, this brand of racism started when the Chinese work ethic of immigrants, who legally immigrated to Western Civilizations in the 19th century, garnered a racist backlash. Kaiser Wilhelm II used Yellow Peril to encourage German imperial interests in China. Racism has always been a tool of the powerful and other racists to control populations and manufacture consent.

If it’s not the Jews (blood libel WHICH IS CONTINUED INTO TODAY’s RHETORIC) or The Muslims (Crusades/Reconquista) If it’s not the poor (classism) it’s simply another cultural or identity (Irish, Italians,(Crusades, inquisition, scramble for Africa, manifest destiny, etc) Humans have always found a way to discriminate. European Societies post-crusades has had an extreme fear. of “otherness” I partially blame christianity for this mentality.

Their intolerance was religious, ethnic, class etc and now it the relatively new metric, race. But it’s always excessive self preservation. Religious morals were the first sacrificed. Instead of recognizing the humanity in others, they chose to view them as not human to dehumanize them but the guilt of this particular way of thinking still manifested itself in their consciousness

White rhetoric now is that everyone is racist against them now. What they are experiencing is prejudice, not racism (prejudice and racism are mutually exclusive concepts and the liberals will have you believe its an umbrella catch all term for prejudice and discrimination but the history of the word says otherwise and not discrimination on a societal level but they are being lead to believe that are. It was inevitable that we got here. (I covered this in Frankenstein). The fear i do have is these prejudices developing into full blown racism in the next 500 years. Hopefully, we steer things in the right direction and eradicate this nasty ideology all together but i dont see that happening as the metric will only be replaced with a new dominant race and then their origin myth will be the one to revisit history.

There is also Great Replacement Theory which holds some merit to it IMO but not in the way the racist will have anyone believe. I personally do see interracial dating and assimilation advertised heavily towards black people. I dont think anything is wrong with this though.

In any case, these ideologies and anxieties all culminate to a perfect storm for the unveiling of fascism. Yes, a social revolution to achieve a National rebirth. They also like to use intentional fallacies by simplifying things which often a argues without the context an example is nationalism

Black Nationalism = Black Americans while coexisting with others should not be assimilated and should maintain a separate identity and even connect with Africa and black people throughout the diaspora.

White nationalism was all about removing others from their society or subjugating others. Black nationalism is at odds because its about restoration. The propagandist (PRs) knew this back then. To the racist though the nation is the utmost important, narrowly defining “white” and we rule because we are white it’s our destiny in the natural order. We are the next stage of evolution (scientific racism) or we were created to rule we are gods chosen people (creationism) They are being lied once again by the same agitators. It’s often passionate religious rhetoric. They are defined by who the are not. It’s the absence of color. It’s a hierarchy of US vs Them. They use whatever system helps them gain power until it stops suiting their need. The US group is essential attributes such as race or heritage because those attributes cannot change but one can go from being poor to rich. This metric of US vs THEM fails

Race war (Retribution), Great Replacement theory, Islamophobia(Crusades), Yellow Peril.

Whiteness is whatever it needs to be when to differentiate between the US* and the them that they were against at that time. They conceive it differently than the way they conceive of others. Obama can call himself the first black president but not another white president.

There’s an unspoken rule of white purity. Children of Interracial families (black partner) get framed as black instead of mixed of biracial. I look at it through socialization or cultural affinity. The racist see it as an increase in “them/others” and a decrease in whiteness. Thus in their minds, others spread but whiteness has to be maintained. It’s the absence of race in their mind whereas others are deviations.

It’s all bullshit to justify their actions. They often move the goalposts as well (Subsaharan African nations, political terms such as the middle east, the concept of whiteness being stretched and then constricted in matters of race: Italians and Jews being considered white as well as North and East Africans. Side note: I could do a complete series on why they fight voraciously to say Egypt was white and how to steal a civilization ) Questions pop up in my mind simple logic. Do these people really think the sahara was completely unable to be crossed? If there was mediterranean caucasian race, doesnt that mean that the Greeks, Italians, North Africans, etc are all not white in the classical sense? (Northern European?) and the people we consider arabs, turks, etc are the truest representation of said civilization? Idk, it’s confusing because its undefined and only suits them when they need to steal civilizations. They did the same thing to india that they did to north africa.

And sense whiteness is arbitrary they can stretch the definition when it suits them (Jews, Italians, Honorary Asians, Irish) but it gets narrow after their victories and they push back.

One side attempting to regress one side attempting to progress.

These enthostate racists will inevitably discriminate against others: they need a contrast. They feel victimized by the equalization of society.

If you see it from this lens, you’d understand a lot more of their actions which on the surface seem irrational.

If any white person reading this feels guilty about the past. It’s okay, I understand why you feel that way but you have to Let it go and recognize not only the historical implications of your forefathers action but also recognize how it is affecting the future and help truly remediate or correct these injustices, to not pretend they are happening or turning a blind eye to. They are being used to further divide us. Recognize that a lot of human history has been distorted and black Americans aren’t treated fairly even though very small steps have been taken in the right direction. I say this not to absolve them but to truly recognize the need f

Black people are not out to get you. Black people are fighting a collective trauma that isn’t recognized as such. It is a continuation or propagation of systems that weren’t destroyed that should’ve been. You fell for a lie about your identity

If any black person reading this feels angry. It’s okay. There is NOTHING wrong with being black. It’s not only natural but justified because we as a people never got justice or had a true catharsis in a way, we’ve taken out our anger on each other. They have exploited us and weaponized our social institutions against us, commodified our culture, and quelled any attempts at black restoration. We defy and fight to never accept subjugation. Continue to REFUSE to bend the knee until we get collectively what is owed. Defy them and the effects of their racist tactics. Defy their division. Defy their assimilation and other attempts to weaken and quell your anger at their system. Be angry but not toxic. Be angry but not self destructive. Be angry at the systems they have created not the people. Organize this anger into productive pro social movement that benefits the general welfare of our communities and tear down the subtle barriers they build. For every garden they destroy we can build 7 more. Divided we will fall.

Ultimately, the racist is constantly telling the people that Somebody gotta be at the bottom white man, it’s the way or the world. I’m going to make sure it’s not you and stop our gov from giving rebels freebies . Now imagine being white in 2023. Imagine the rising anxieties of failed capitalism, equality social movements. Whites women shit on modern white men because they were shitted on by white hegemony (the philosophy at work) they were abused by the system that was suppose to venerate them (I see these swirling movements for what they are). White men didn’t uphold their deal to whites women. Feminism, Racism, Classism, xenophobia, Great Replacement Theory, etc

The failures and betrayals of modern society, the promises unfulfilled. Speak in symbols to understand.

Fun fact, a racist named Gobineu was obsessed with Iran. He believed that there was a white race, black race, and yellow race. He also although not being a historian invented the Aryan race concept that lead to influencing the Nazi regime. This guy hated race-mixing (miscegenation) He believed Iran was too intermixed and that a white civilization will inevitably take it over. He also believed it was because when white men had any close proximity with a black or asian woman, they would not be able to control themselves or resist laying with the. That the women had immense sexual power over white men and they would be seduced.
Yeah okay buddy, but do yall see how that has fueled the caricatures in modern times?

Lets end this on an unrelated brief history of the Helots.

Spartans, who were outnumbered by the Helots, often treated them brutally and oppressively in an effort to prevent uprisings. Spartans would humiliate the Helots by doing such things as forcing them to get debilitatingly drunk on wine and then make fools of themselves in public. (This practice was also intended to demonstrate to young people how an adult Spartan should never act, as self-control was a prized trait.) Methods of mistreatment could be far more extreme: Spartans were allowed to kill Helots for being too smart or too fit, among other reasons.

Taken from wikipedia

Drapetomania was a supposed mental illness that, in 1851, American physician Samuel A. Cartwright hypothesized as the cause of enslaved Africans fleeing captivity.[1]: 41  This hypothesis centered around the belief that slavery was such an improvement upon the lives of slaves that only those suffering from some form of mental illness would wish to escape

The Story of York

York was an enslaved man who was owned by William Clark’s family. Clark was an American explorer who is best known for his role as the leader of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, which explored the western portion of the United States in the early 19th century.

In 1803, President Thomas Jefferson asked Clark to lead the expedition to explore and map the western territory acquired by the United States in the Louisiana Purchase. Clark brought along his enslaved servant York, who was a skilled laborer and hunter, as well as an expert boatman.

During the expedition, York played a significant role as a member of the team. He helped to build boats and navigate the treacherous rivers and waterways they encountered, as well as hunting and gathering food for the group. York was also the first black man to cross the western portion of the United States, which was a significant accomplishment at a time when slavery was still legal and black people were not considered full citizens.

​

DescriptionMany came to view us all day, much astonished at my black servant, who did not lose the opportunity of displaying his powers. This nation never saw a black man before.” The same happened the next day in the Arikara village: “Those Indians were much astonished at my servant, they never saw a black man before, all flocked around him and examined him from top to toe.”

York often wowed the Indians with his dancing. During the winter at Fort Mandan, Clark wrote, “I ordered my black servant to Dance which amused the crowd very much, and somewhat astonished them, that so large a man should be active.” York was said to have enjoyed the attention.Despite his important contributions to the expedition, York was not treated as an equal by his fellow team members. He was still considered property and was subject to the same restrictions and limitations as any other enslaved person. He was not allowed to vote on where the group would camp or which direction they would travel, and he was often left out of important decisions.

After the expedition ended and Despite his many contributions to the Corps of Discovery, Clark refused to release York from bondage upon their return to St. Louis in 1806 breaking his initial promise to set him free when asked by York, even acknowledging it would not have been possible without York. York saved their lives many times during the expedition.

​

I have read conflicting statements on whether or not York was freed. Anybody have any corrections or anything to add?

The Death of a Nation

DISCLAIMER:

This post will discuss heavy topics that may invoke uncomfortable feelings. The topic of race and racism, extreme violence, and triggering words will be used. This is for educational purposes. FACT CHECK EVERYTHING. This post is not made to harass anyone, it is not made to bully anyone, it is not a targeting anyone. It is NOT made to promote hate based on identity, gender, race, religion, or ethnicity, etc it is the DISCUSSION of race and race relations. This is a snowflake disclaimer. I AM NOT DISCUSSING ANY INDIVIDUAL. This is an analysis of black society and issues. If you disagree please state why or call out anything. This is made to DISCUSS these issues and hopefully I can learn something new through these exchanges. Racial Slurs will be referenced. In this discussion lets 1) Remember the Human, deconstructing racism and european society can be an intense subject remember the human. 2) Behave like you would in real life. 3) Look for the original source of the content. (which this is the og) 4) I have search for duplicates and I have written it and if asked I can provide sources. 5) Be real (mask off) with one another is the only rule of the community.

​

We accept that there is explicit bias in people who reject black people due to their racial ideas about black Americans, you even have black people who reject other black Americans based on the same metric but they get a pass because they like what they like?

How can we acknowledge white supremacy and white privilege YET not understand how this has influenced us as a people in the dating sphere but quickly we point fingers at opposite genders and effectively use cookie jar logic when we are both in the same boat.

Our inability to work together and the pick me attitude of having to include others in our fight has ultimately weakened us as a people. They shoved MILK down our throats as children because of the passive message he preached. The will to power is not given. You cannot GIVE me something I was born with.

We refuse to cultivate collectivize a society that truly represents our needs because they tricked us into thinking and wanting to be white. That’s the big elephant in the room. That want us to assimilate, integrate to view their way as superior while still viewing us as subhuman. We don’t have a single black movement or black leaders that represent us. The Gov effectively busted each and every black power movement through cointelpro. We don’t work together because the simple truth is internalized racism got us thinking “we not like them 🥷 over there” completely missing the point. There’s too many that don’t want to be black they might not hate themselves but their lives display that are blackphobic. They cut themselves off culturally spiritually economically etc, from the black community. They quelled black power movements and actually equated them with hate and to mean danger to the white psyche. Real black power movements.

We need to realize CULTURE can be used to topple empires. It is a very subtle weapon that can used to influence people. Our culture was weaponized against us.

The Acceptable blackness paradigm and the fully assimilated black people took over the topic of black power and sold us out for representation. No, not representing US but their own new fusion culture that developed from being black in the suburbs, going to all white schools, having all whites friends. They are the “I was the only black person at my PWI” OR the first semester at a HBCU now I’m black power and all black WITHOUT ever deprogramming from being socialized and conditioned culturally as white American. They stripped us of our language religion and customs for a reason and black culture isn’t one dimensional at all, however without cultural unity we will keep falling time and time again as the rebels without causes keep searching for the next big cause to fight for. They will continuously use us to push their own agenda by getting our voting block to push support for their endless cause.

Another big elephant in the room is White America is at war with itself. It is a moral war. A culture war where one side is attempting to grab the moral high ground and the other side is trying to stay in power. Both groups use nonwhites in different ways to fight their battles. Both sides use fear of retribution. They do not actually LISTEN to the interest of nonwhites when it doesn’t serve them. It might appear that they didn’t have a plan that they just set black Americans free. Truth is a former slave population could have pulled off Haiti

One side was thinking we need to ensure they will never destroy the fabric of our society we need to keep them down the other side thought the same except they wanted to subjugate us mentally to quell any anger or hate and to turn that into a weapon against us. Lock us up in districts under shitty conditions and watch us take that anger out on each other. When black power movements do rise, they bust them out by infiltrating and use propaganda to change the public perception around them. Make them a danger to US. Black power = Black Retribution. When we invite so many to the cookout and those invited to the cookout and the dissonance between their identity and their generational guilt, shame, and fear is eradicated they bring their ideas into OUR movements effectively neuter them and making it their cause. Feminism, LGBTQ+, other racial groups, etc once they get theirs after rallying is up, they get what they want and we get scraps. We get representation (Juneteenth) they get specific bills and laws that effect change. We get recognized they get change. Maybe I am blind but what bill effectively was made for black people who were/are systematically disenfranchised and terrorized? Who is shouting recognize me white people! We are human too. No! Fuck that. Black women were used to push white women’s agenda and increase their power block AS women but they see blackness(race)before gender. The intersection between racism and sexism manifest itself in the divestment movements.

Now that blacks people have engineered a culture that has become globally popular and influential, (once again ode to the jazz age) everyone wants that invite. Nobody wants to be bland they want a little spice. The classic they want to be black without being black they want our culture without US as a people involved and they feel entitled to it although they are historically the villains in the story they don’t want us to talk about it. It’s like a poacher’s daughters wearing the multimillion dollar skin of an extinct animal that her father hunted into extinction shouting she did nothing wrong so she can say the n word because her friends and bf is black.

Remember our acceptable black people separated themselves from their people, said it’s all good, and sold our culture out for “inclusion representation” just so their overlords could feel morally justified by check marking diversity. They are the vultures profiting off the corpses of our people when they commodify violence as entertainment with the creation of each “tea” page, they want to blame rap culture the people telling these stories instead of asking why is it the only thing spotlighted in our community? What can we do to make it better? Instead “we not like those 🥷 over there.” Basically going out of their way to prove their existence isn’t dangerous or a threat. To appease white anxieties.

The colonial mindset is again two on a spectrum. Those who want to “go native” so they can enjoy what they have and then those who want to enforce their way onto the others as they see their own as superior simply to eradicate otherness. Both are usurpers. They invade our culture whitewash it redefine it make it less threatening change the villains and the words meanings. White paternalism White Saviors and the people who lead them to the tribe

Nation

Assimilate, Integrate (play THEIR game in their context)

Colonize

Divestment

nation (n.)

c. 1300, nacioun, “a race of people, large group of people with common ancestry and language,” from Old French nacion “birth, rank; descendants, relatives; country, homeland” (12c.) and directly from Latin nationem (nominative natio) “birth, origin; breed, stock, kind, species; race of people, tribe,” literally “that which has been born,” from natus, past participle of nasci “be born” (Old Latin gnasci), from PIE root *gene- “give birth, beget,” with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.

The word is used in English in a broad sense, “a race of people an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family and speaking the same language,” and also in the narrower sense, “a political society composed of a government and subjects or citizens and constituting a political unit; an organized community inhabiting a defined territory within which its sovereignty is exercised.”

In Middle English it is not easy to distinguish them, but the “political society” sense emerged by 16c., perhaps late 14c. and it has gradually predominated. The older sense is preserved in the application of nation to the native North American peoples (1640s). Nation-building “creation of a new nation” is attested by 1907 (implied in nation-builder). Nation-state “sovereign country the inhabitants of which are united by language, culture, and common descent” is from 1918.

A nation is an organized community within a certain territory; or in other words, there must be a place where its sole sovereignty is exercised. [Theodore D. Woolsey, “Introduction to the Study of International Law,” 1864] 

Natio means CHILDREN OF THE SAME BIRTH or human group of same origin

A nation is birthed from a MOTHERLAND. A land that metaphorically births the people. Most languages refer to a country as “her” they protect the dignity and pride of their ancestral homeland. Most languages have gendered nouns and

Latin, one of the sources of the English language, also has feminine and masculine words, and terra firma is one of them. Terra firma means earth, or solid ground, and it is feminine. So, partly because of its Latin origin, and partly because the rich earth beneath our feet was the original source of food (and nurturing) for our ancestors, our humble planet became known as Mother Earth.

They pillage land and occupy it. They loot to enrich their own.

Remember the Birth of Nations and how sexual racism and the sanctity and purity of white women was used to institute a stratified racial Society while they invaded and pillaged black women? Who is the most disrespected member of our community ? Globally. From women, the nation is born. Attack the womb to destroy the nation. The archetype or symbol of white supremacy is the white woman. Hence the birth of a nation, the revival of the clan was built around the myth of the racist stereotypes of “black brutes” talked about as predators to “pillage” white women and white society. It fueled Jim Crow.

assimilate (v.)

early 15c., in physiology, “absorb into and make part of the body,” from Latin assimilatus, past participle of assimilare, assimulare “to make like, copy, imitate, assume the form of; feign, pretend,” from assimilated form of ad “to” (see ad-) + simulare “make similar,” from similis “like, resembling, of the same kind” (see similar). The meaning “make alike, cause to resemble,” and the intransitive sense “become incorporated into” are from 1620s. In linguistics, “bring into accordance or agreement in speech,” from 1854. Related: Assimilated; assimilating

integrate (v.)

1630s, “to render (something) whole, bring together the parts of,” from Latin integratus, past participle of integrare “make whole,” from integer “whole, complete,” figuratively, “untainted, upright,” literally “untouched,” from in- “not” (see in- (1)) + root of tangere “to touch,” from PIE root *tag- “to touch, handle.”

The meaning “put together parts or elements and combine them into a whole” is from 1802. The “racially desegregate” sense (1940) probably is a back-formation from integration. Related: Integrated; integrating.

Assimilation programs ran rampant in the USA. Of course they used religion to subjugate the mind of the people: from Wikipedia, In 1634, Fr. Andrew White of the English Province of the Society of Jesus established a mission in what is now Southern Maryland. He said the purpose of the mission, as an interpreter told the chief of a Native American tribe there, was “to extend civilization and instruction to his ignorant race, and show them the way to heaven.”

This is how they justified their “R*P*” of a Nation. This is how they justify their theft.

colonize (v.)

1620s, “to settle with colonists, plant or establish a colony in,” from stem of Latin colonus “tiller of the soil, farmer” (see colony). From 1630s as “to migrate to and settle in.” It is attested by 1790s in the sense of “to make another place into a national dependency” without regard for settlement there (such as in reference to French activity in Egypt or the British in India), and in this sense it is probably directly from colony.

No principle ought ever to be tolerated or acted upon, that does not proceed on the basis of India being considered as the temporary residence of a great British Establishment, for the good government of the country, upon steady and uniform principles, and of a large British factory, for the beneficial management of its trade, upon rules applicable to the state and manners of the country. [Henry Dundas, Chairman of the East-India Company, letter, April 2, 1800]

Related: Colonized; colonizing.

Entries linking to colonize

colony (n.)

late 14c., “ancient Roman settlement outside Italy,” from Latin colonia “settled land, farm, landed estate,” from colonus “husbandman, tenant farmer, settler in new land,” from colere “to cultivate, to till; to inhabit; to frequent, practice, respect; tend, guard,” from PIE root *kwel- (1) “revolve, move round; sojourn, dwell” (source also of Latin -cola “inhabitant”). Also used by the Romans to translate Greek apoikia “people from home.”

In reference to modern situations, “company or body of people who migrate from their native country to cultivate and inhabit a new place while remaining subject to the mother country,” attested from 1540s. Meaning “a country or district colonized” is by 1610s.

R*P* (v.)

late 14c., rapen, “seize prey; abduct, take and carry off by force,” from r*pe (n.) and from Anglo-French raper (Old French rapir) “to seize, abduct,” a legal term, probably from Latin rapere “seize, carry off by force, abduct” (see rapid). Also figuring in alliterative or rhyming phrases, such as r*pe and renne (late 14c.) “seize and plunder.”

The older senses of the English word became obsolete. The surviving meaning “to abduct (a woman), ravish;” also “seduce (a man)” is clearly by early 15c. in English, but it might have been at least part of the sense in earlier uses.

Meaning “to rob, strip, plunder” (a place) is from 1721, a partial revival of the old sense. Uncertain connection to Low German and Dutch rapen in the same sense. In Middle English, and occasionally after, the verb was used in figurative senses of Latin rapere, such as “transport in ecstasy, carry off to heaven,” usually in past-participle rapte, which tends to blend with rapt. Related: Raped; raping.

Classical Latin rapere was used for “sexually violate,” but only rarely; the usual Latin word being stuprare “to defile, ravish, violate,” which is related to stuprum (n.) “illicit sexual intercourse,” literally “disgrace,” stupere “to be stunned, stupefied” (see stupid). Latin raptus, past participle of rapere, used as a noun meant “a seizure, plundering, abduction,” but in Medieval Latin also “forcible violation.” 

Pillage, plunder, and forcible violation of a nation and to “colonize” or “occupy” a land.

divest (v.)

1560s, devest (modern spelling is c. 1600), “strip of possessions,” from French devester “strip of possessions” (Old French desvestir), from des- “away” (see dis-) + vestir “to clothe,” from Latin vestire “to clothe” (from PIE *wes- (2) “to clothe,” extended form of root *eu- “to dress”).

The etymological sense of “strip of clothes, arms, or equipage” is from 1580s. Meaning “strip by some definite or legal process” is from 1570s. Economic sense “sell off (a subsidiary company, later an investment) is by 1961. Related: Divested; divesting

We have a growing black divestment movement in the USA. Some Black Women, the progenitors of our nation, wish to fully divest themselves. A divorce from the toxic state of the black community. The collective trauma dishonor disrespect they have experienced has caused them to want to assimilate into white society. Refusing to Dating black men is one component to this but they each have a different perspective and opinion on how to go about it. I understand them and their need to divest. Black women are being pressured from being at the intersection. They deal with the racism that has poisoned the minds of us all and they deal with sexism that religion has breed. Being black and then being a woman. They were attacked at every angle and we as black men FAIL and have FAILED to protect the dignity and sanctity of our women. Culturally and spiritually we fail our daughters mothers sisters. We have not culturally valued black women. They divest for themselves. As an individual It was instilled in me but I have seen it time and time again black women being dishonored.

I do not say this to say that I agree with divestment or even like what they are doing. In fact I disagree with them but i understand their need to leave and in the long run it’s good that people with this way of thinking is not amongst us.

Frantz Fanon

In the West, the family circle, the effects of education, and the relatively high standard of living of the working class provide a more or less efficient protection against the harmful action of these pastimes. But in an African country, where mental development is uneven, where the violent collision of two worlds has considerably shaken old traditions and thrown the universe of the perceptions out of focus, the impressionability and sensibility of the Young African are at the mercy of the various assaults made upon them by the very Nature of Western Culture.

I think they fail to understand that we are in the same boat as a people. Under the same conditions and the collective trauma goes both ways but manifest differently based on gender. Their desire to pack up and leave is the same driving force of the men that they criticize. It’s cookie jar logic. They often become internalized racist. They want to breed the black out of them and they have chosen to opt out and support their own interest. They often go to the very causers and choose the imitation out of familiarity or something completely removed from what they are because it’s simply easier. They can pretend their not black . Black men have been devalued emasculated weaken effectively neutered.

We act like white privilege simply stop existing in dating and we act like black peoples especially black women sense of self worth wasn’t dehumanized and abused beaten into the ground in order to assimilate. We reenact this abuse into each other in a never ending cycle of hate and self destruction. We fall for the very ones who benefit from our division because it was engineered and structured for that to happen. For us to fight.

Who taught us to hate our skin? To hate our lips? Who tricked us into thinking we were subhuman? Who had us hating being black?

To divest means to “sell off” to pull away or pull out from what you bought into. Divesters men and women are pulling out, selling off or out, of the black community (our collective struggle) and our blackness (our collective cultural id)

It’s an abortion. It is a collective call to divorce or abandon. It’s like being a boat with different types of people: some who want to paddle some who want others to help us paddle some who want to paddle. The divesters are two sets of those who refuse to paddle pointing their fingers at each other and then saying fuck this boat it’s sinking and damaged anyway jumping ship and swimming towards the pirates who robbed and destroyed the ship in the first place. When I hear a divester, I am sadden but ultimately

Good riddance

Moving forward we only need nation builders. We need to empower our women and men. Let them opt out. I am sick of people who LOOK like me try to speak for me or represent me when they are sooooooo far removed from our culture. White peoples problems aren’t our problems until they become our problems This is a spiritual war thus symbols are the language. Ancient societies didn’t have a concept of race they went by culture religion language basically they were super aware of ethnicity.

People can share the same race but be a different type of ethnicity. You can change cultures and adopt new ones or be adopted. You can integrate. You can assimilate to another one. But if you chose that life, completely divest. Don’t speak of us. If you abandon your children and put them up for adoption, you opted out of your right to speak or command their life. You are not invested in the community or nation. You date white people as status symbols for validation recognition and representation of your humanity. You sold off your investment into the community. The social status or social mobility being accessed through your partner. Through dating exclusively white people you marry what they symbolize as well. They engineered your subjugation and now you give access to your land. You give them access into your culture identity. You gain access to theirs. You support white supremacy and hegemony when you invest yourself into it for all intents and purposes, you are culturally and socially a white person you play their game and thus you are a white supremacist. You are a white person with black skin

We have no need for that

Yall see how everyone wants a N-word pass? I tried to describe to someone online that simply the term is a Homonym. It has multiple meanings.

They talk so much about how it has a reclaimed meaning. Totally ignoring:

​

1. It is a Reclaimed racial meaning. The last thing some of our ancestors heard before murdered was that word.
2. We use this word amongst ourselves to show solidarity and camaraderie amongst ourselves
3. The multiple meanings changes depending on the context that nonblack people will NEVER experience in its entirety. Just like every other word they appropriated, they want to redefine this one as well to simply ONLY mean one of its contextual meanings. Its dual meaning including a) a black male b) close friend or friends or the derogatory meanings of c) “nwords aint shh”, “stop acting like nwords.” Just like black bword takes a new racial contextual meaning rather just saying bword.

Its part of our collective experience. White people and other nonblack people ONLY see the friend context and think why cant i say it when It simply not applicable. Even when people say white nwords, its in the context of white men. Its a complex word with a complex history and to be honest, I dont think any other race should say a racial slur and get a pass because it is dehumanizing and outside of their understanding in the same way it is outside of a man’s understanding when calling a woman a bword knowing the historical usage and contextual sexism that goes with it . NO OTHER racial slur is going through this. They do not feel what it really means to be a nword.Inevitably, opposition to any occupying force has breed a culture of defiance and anti social behavior in the extreme. They refuse to bend the knee. (Unapologetic blackness) I will tackle this another day

land (n.)

Old English lond, land, “ground, soil,” also “definite portion of the earth’s surface, home region of a person or a people, territory marked by political boundaries,” from Proto-Germanic *landja- (source also of Old Norse, Old Frisian Dutch, Gothic land, German Land), perhaps from PIE *lendh- (2) “land, open land, heath” (source also of Old Irish land, Middle Welsh llan “an open space,” Welsh llan “enclosure, church,” Breton lann “heath,” source of French lande; Old Church Slavonic ledina “waste land, heath,” Czech lada “fallow land”). But Boutkan finds no IE etymology and suspects a substratum word in Germanic,

Etymological evidence and Gothic use indicates the original Germanic sense was “a definite portion of the earth’s surface owned by an individual or home of a nation.” The meaning was early extended to “solid surface of the earth,” a sense which once had belonged to the ancestor of Modern English earth (n.). Original senses of land in English now tend to go with country. To take the lay of the land is a nautical expression. In the American English exclamation land’s sakes (1846) land is a euphemism for Lord

Excerpt:

There was a period when the term “fatherland” was used in English. Emerged in the 1200s, the word predates “motherland,” which came into use in the 1500s. Derived from the Latin word “patria,” “fatherland” implies heritage, tradition, government and order, whereas “motherland” suggests nurturing and a place of birth. While the male image of the country calls for patriotism and loyalty, the female metaphor evokes a sense of belonging and love.

To tie this all together:

The “black” nation or Black America was r*ped and colonized (through force). This colonial mindset is enforced through the dual consciousness

Nations are referred to in the feminine and personified as a woman in most Latin Or Germanic languages.

Symbolically, the black nation or land (she) is pillaged by force and occupied (colonized)

When calling a person colonized you are effectively saying they are occupied by invaders or foreigners who have pillaged (the r word) your motherland. You are divested from your nation and homeland and support the pillaging and plunder. There’s people amongst us WHO want to fully assimilate. They love playing both sides of the fence. Black became popular remember all those people who was washed? What do you think they started embracing just like everyone else around that time? They speak for us yet do not represent us or interest politically economically etc. there are people amongst us who want to play both sides of the fence.

I will tackle white anxieties in another

It includes the ongoing “yellow peril” racism, black retribution (a Haiti), and how white purity doctrine has lead to the failure of white supremacy. Remember we have a European sense. A European language a European name that effectively erase who we were as a people. The way we perceive interact and communicate the world is through a European lens. Deconstruct this. We should also start posting the racist caricatures and examples that propagate them in media.

Malcolm X, along with John Henrik Clarke, wrote the following into the Organization of Afro-American Unity (OAAU) Basic Unity Program:

Restoration: “In order to release ourselves from the oppression of our enslavers then, it is absolutely necessary for the Afro-American to restore communication with Africa.”

Reorientation: “We can learn much about Africa by reading informative books and by listening to the experiences of those who have traveled there.”

Education: “The Organization of Afro-American Unity will devise original educational methods and procedures which will liberate the minds of our children. We will … encourage qualified Afro-Americans to write and publish the textbooks needed to liberate our minds … educating them [our children] at home.”

Economic Security: “After the Emancipation Proclamation … it was realized that the Afro-American constituted the largest homogeneous ethnic group with a common origin and common group experience in the United States and, if allowed to exercise economic or political freedom, would in a short period of time own this country. We must establish a technician bank. We must do this so that the newly independent nations of Africa can turn to us who are their brothers for the technicians they will need now and in the future.”

Self Defense: “In order to enslave a people and keep them subjugated, their right to self defense must be denied. We encourage the Afro-Americans to defend themselves against the wanton attacks of the racist aggressors whose sole aim is to deny us the guarantee of the United Nations Charter of Human Rights and of the Constitution of the United States.”

The OAAU pushed for black control of every aspect of the black community. At the founding rally, Malcolm X stated that the organization’s principal concern was the human rights of blacks, but that it would also focus on voter registration, school boycotts, rent strikes, housing rehabilitation, and social programs for addicts, unwed mothers, and troubled children. Malcolm X saw the OAAU as a way of “un-brainwashing” black people, ridding them of the lies they had been told about themselves and their culture.

On July 17, 1964, Malcolm X was welcomed to the second meeting of the Organisation of African Unity in Cairo as a representative of the OAAU.[3]

When a reporter asked whether white people could join the OAAU, Malcolm X said, “Definitely not.” Then he added, “If John Brown were still alive, we might accept him

It was deemed a threat to National security by Hoovers FBI in 1964.

On July 17, 1964, Malcolm X was welcomed to the second meeting of the Organisation of African Unity in Cairo as a representative of the OAAU.

The OAU successor is the AU (African Union)

Remember Libya 2011. Remember The African Dinar which then SOS Hillary Clinton said must not happened.

Remember the black star line. Remember black Wall Street. Remember the black panthers.

Why do these organizations get busted up? These are recent events as well.Black Americans need to perform a mass exodus and in order to do so

We must break the chains that hold us. The ones placed on us and the ones we have placed on ourselves