White Supremacist, Fake Black Profiles & Cultural Intrusion

[zarahan]

Dec 24, 2018 18:14:52 GMT -5 Tukuler al~Takruri said:

Lies and distortions.

You the one cutting down DO FOR SELF
acting like I said or implied it.

Of course to do that you had to selectively quote me completely out of context.

Here are my words in context. Dare you address the actual issue I raise intead of building yourself a strawman so you can heroically knock it down.

I bet you guys think Beatrice was proper Black business.
Yeah, for integrationists.
To the DO FOR SELF nation within a nation blacks it was the biggest blunder ever.

You wilfully distorted that.
For what?
To win an argument?

But go on and on about what you never lived through to correct those who experienced it.

You integrationists and your dependence on whites and laying everything blacks struggled to accomplish as impossible w/o white aid and direction.


Jews Arabs and Asians certainly weren't the white people who didn't want black anything from 1866 to 1966.
Jews were the first to exploit the zero circulation phenomena of the Coloureds (while chiefly doing business only with other Jews).
Next came the East Asians.
Now the Arab is the one enriching their internal economy on the backs of blacks.


Every racial and ethic group understands recirculating $$$ and having independent business not totally reliant on white government handouts.
They develope their own networks.

The proof is in the street not on the 'net.

I did address the issues you wrote about and you are the one consistently ducking
what I have said. Furthermore rather than use clear prose with precision your writing
obfuscates. You say- quote:

To the DO FOR SELF nation within a nation blacks it was the biggest blunder ever.

You now claim to be misunderstood, but it is your own lack of precision that worsens matters.
I am glad you clarify, but your statement still has several problems.

You swerved up the obfuscation with this- quote:
" bet you guys think Beatrice was proper Black business.
Yeah, for integrationists."

Who said that "you guys" think that BEatrice was a black business? Beatrice at one time was'
the largest food corporation in America, and it was run by a black man. Done. Who here said
that was any sort of "model" for black business? I didn't.

But lets ask- why is Beatrice NOT a model (and no one claimed that it is) of black business?

And if you do not think it is a model, what is your definition of "proper" black business?

And how is a black man owning a billion dollar corporation a "blunder" for "do it yourself" blacks?

Why would it be a "blunder" for a black man with enough savvy to leverage a multi-million dollar buyout be a "blunder"?
He supposed to stay in de Jim Crow department forever to be "authentically" do-it-yoself black?

Please clarify,
and furthermore:



The Black boss of Beatrice helped the development of other black businesses. How is this a "blunder"?

You seem to conceive of "do it yourself" to apply only to ghetto businesses- hence alleged "blunders."
But in fact it applies equally as well to individuals. Here's what the Encyclopedia of African-American
Business has to say about Reginald Lewis, black mastermind of Beatrice:

"Black Enterprise proclaimed TLC Beatrice International the magazine’s 1988 company
of the year in recognition of TLC Beatrice International’s $1 billion in
revenues. Lewis encouraged corporations such as General Foods, Equitable,
and Aetna to lend money to minority-owned firms. He helped many minority
enterprise small business investment corporations (MESBICs) acquire
more than $100 million in funding between 1973 and 1984...
Edward Koch appointed Lewis to the Off Track Betting Corporation; and
during his four-year tenure, Lewis attempted to increase the numbers of
African Americans and Hispanics bidding for contracts."
--Jessie Carney Smith, 2006. Encyclopedia of African-American Business, vol 1 and 2-- pg 475-476

In short here is a black man that gave back to the community, and helped other black
businessmen try to get ahead to the tune of millions. Why is he some sort of "blunder?"


------------------------------------------------

Jews Arabs and Asians certainly weren't the white people who didn't want black anything from 1866 to 1966.

Here again is more obfuscation with a double negative. What exactly are you saying?
If you are saying that white people who were NOT JEws or Arabs refused black money,
that is completely false. Blacks acquired land in the south from good old white rural
rednecks, who called them nigg&^r, but still took their money. Same situation in the North.
Harlem became black when non Jew or Arab white Irish and Protestants sold to blacks. They
didn't have to like blacks, they just had to like their money. Southern redneck restaurateurs
refused blacks service next to white people, but were not too proud to take black folk money
if they ordered at the takeout window. Likewise store owners did not want blacks sipping
coffee next to the good folk, but readily took black cash for clothes, appliances and other goods.


Jews were the first to exploit the zero circulation phenomena of the Coloureds (while chiefly doing business only with other Jews).
Next came the East Asians. Now the Arab is the one enriching their internal economy on the backs of blacks.

I agree that other minorities have exploited blacks and they were doing this back in
the segregation days BEFORE integration. I have no problem with the argument that the end of
Jim Crow hurt SOME black businesses. But the end of segregation also boosted black business
as well. The picture is mixed- a trade-off, not simplistic. Exaggerated claims either directly
or by implication, that integration was the worse thing that happened to black business,
how integration is responsible for all or most black business decline in the 1960s,
how whites refused to take black money until it was forced on them de to integration,
how the 1950s was some sort of mystical golden age of segregated black business etc..
All of these arguments or notions are false, and create this exaggerated rosy picture of
black business, that did not exist in the real world..

[Tukuler al~Takruri]

This is pinpoint precision accuracy.

I bet you guys think Beatrice was proper Black business.
Yeah, for integrationists.
To the DO FOR SELF nation within a nation blacks it was the biggest blunder ever.

You don't have the slightest idea what it means and too eager to win an argument to to do the right thing and just ask.


What's really ashame about your uncalled for belligerence is you don't understand what DO FOR SELF even means.
Your equating it to do-it-yourself proves that.

Pity a generation which rejects the inheritance of its progenitors.

You wilfully continue to lie and distort me.

For what? Ego? Chips you can't cash in anywhere?

And you go on with your poisoning propaganda rather than admit, hey I'm only human, can you clarify and expand that statement.
But you, Svengali-like propose to read my mind in order to gaslight readers.
You ain't got it like that.
Best you work on reading your own mind.


This whole thing is stupid.
Instead of a rounded discussion benefitting all parties its the typical hiphop generation noncooperative battlerap in internet forum style.

SMH

[zarahan]

You guys are fighting over pennies, what happened to the billions the inventions of Jan Matzeliger and Frederick McKinley Jones created? Thermo King corporation was built on the 50+ patents Jones received during his lifetime. Consolidated Lasting Machine Company was built on the patents of Jan Matzeliger. Both men were black geniuses. What benefits did the black community derive from their work? None. Why? That's the way the system works.
www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/edn-moments/4410339/Shoe-lasting-machine-is-patented--March-20--1883
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmVi88jv2pI
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmi3PkDTNt4

----------------------

How pennies? When Beatrice Foods was bought out by a black man, it was
the largest leveraged consumer food corp buyout of its time in US business history.
It had revenues of 1 billion dollars in the 1980s. That's far from pennies.

Matzeliger and the rest had some good inventions but having a good invention is one
thing, profiting from it is another. Matzeliger died at a young age and never really
cashed in. His machine ,patented in 1883, came at a time Jim Crow was being imposed
on blacks after Reconstruction. Most blacks were in no position to benefit from
his invention, which in any case was a factory machine that was taken on by
cash-rich white enterprises. That’s where Matzeliger had to go for sales not "the hood."
Matzeliger himself is a semi-model of integration, not only biracial, but his invention was
made up north in Lynn Masschusetts, a relatively liberal place for the time, where racial
barriers were not as bad. In fact Lynn Mass. was a hotbed of Abolitionism, and white
Abolitionists bought Frederick Douglas a home there. If Matzeliger was stuck in in Mississippi,
his freedom to move around, create, network, hook up with influential whites etc, etc.
would have been dead on arrival. In any case some blacks got factory jobs using
the new Matzeigler machines, breaking the white monopoly on such jobs.

Frederick McKinley Jones is also another integration model- which some people
seem to think is so bad. He developed his product outside the Jim Crow South in parts of
the Midwest, where again the race barriers were relatively relaxed. He was able to work as an
auto mechanic on an equal basis side by side with whites on the same job- a far cry from the
supposedly golden zone of segregated business. He lived in Hallock, Minnesota for years,
another relatively relaxed zone where blacks moved easily side by side with whites. He
even built the town's radio transmitter, and went on to greater things, including his famous
refrigeration system. If Jones was stuck in a segregated format or zone, he would never have
been able to develop such far-reaching products of nationwide significance. He was not
an ethnic entrepreneur like Madame CJ Walker whose sales were to mostly blacks. He
was a general inventor and entrepreneur who worked and moved freely among whites,
and some of his products were significant in mostly white markets. If he had
"stayed in his place in the hood" he would never have reached the heights he did.

Thus while integration is NOT a prerequisite for black advance in business, it allowed talented
black people fuller scope to create, invent design and profit from their work, as compared
to narrower segregated venues. Same principle with black athletes. Jackie Robinson began
to finally make real money when the Jim Crow shackles were taken off. Some "stay all black'
proponents alas, fail to grasp this elementary lesson. To really expand and grow beyond your
ethnic market, you have to "export" goods and services to whites. It is a lesson Asians apply.

The "Asian model" is worthy of study. Chinese Americans were driven out of mining and other
industries into segregated Chinatowns. But they never left the general economy- they worked aat
reduced levels for whites AND built businesses. Eventually they began to "export" tourism in Chinatowns
to whites- from food, to trinkets to gambling. At the same time, they send their 2nd and 3rd generation
kids into schools, yielding huge benefits later. Japanese Americans started out as mere agricultural labor.
But they saved to buy land and developed significant pieces of the truck farming industry, serving
fresh produce to urban markets. Most of their sales were not with other Japanese, but with whites.
They did not stay "all Jap in the hood". It is this successful "export" that made them prosperous,
and that attracted white envy and resentment. When they were mere cheap laborers they were popular
with whites.

On the international front, what has built Asian prosperity from CHina, Japan, Korea
and others? It is the EXPORT of goods and services to richer whites that have made them
prosperous. Today China and Japan are worldwide monster- trading and export giants
others respect.

The lesson to be applied is that black folks have to make themselves useful to the larger
economy by "exports"- exports of services (labor) or goods. Black athletes and entertainers
have long done this, but so have black nurses, teachers, plumbers, metal workers etc.
Black males in particular must recognize this absolute necessity of making themselves
useful. It is a principle Booker T drove home time and time again. Make yourself useful.
Right now, many are simply irrelevant to the productive general economy, and have become
prey to the prison-industrial complex, which gets paid off them. Last young male I mentioned
these things to said he had no time for the effort required. He could make money more quickly
dealing dope. This is true TEMPORARILY, but dope money passes through your
hands like water- spent on mostly consumer goods- not building long term investments
or skill. And it is built on a house of cards- having to watch your back from rival dealers,
cheating suppliers, AND the police. THe dismal end game is predictable for most.
Lesson:
You can listen to the elders now and make yourself useful, or someone else will make you
listen to a different tune in a bullet-ridden street, or in a prison.

[Tukuler al~Takruri]

Reading comprehension.

I'm a Jew.
I said white Jews.
I didn't say undercut.

I chose what and how much of my personal life to share.

I know nothing about you.
Gimme some anecdotes of your experience with
• downsouth legislated Jim Crow
• upnorth social protocol de facto segregation
• businesses you've founded, your hirelings, your customer base

That was good what you wrote about the foundations of modern refrigeration and shoe manufacture.

Tell us a lil about auto design production and distribution in the early to mid years of Jim Crow/overt segregation.
It's something I meant to add to the African cars thread a coupla weeks ago.
Thx.

Dec 24, 2018 22:03:35 GMT -5 @djokser said:

"Interesting enough the first thing I tried was a shoe import/export deal with producers in Nigeria back in '74."
Do tell, give us the gory details, how did the Jews manage to undercut you? What did you learn from this venture and how did you apply the lesson learned?

[zarahan]

Dec 25, 2018 10:27:40 GMT -5 Tukuler al~Takruri said:

This is pinpoint precision accuracy.

I bet you guys think Beatrice was proper Black business.
Yeah, for integrationists.
To the DO FOR SELF nation within a nation blacks it was the biggest blunder ever.

You don't have the slightest idea what it means and too eager to win an argument to to do the right thing and ask.

You wilfully continue to lie and distort me.

For what? Ego? Chips you can't cash in anywhere?

And you go on with your poisoning propaganda rather than admit, hey I'm only human, can you clarify and expand that statement.
But you snakelike propose to read my mind for the world.
You ain't got it like that.
Best you work on reading your own mind.


This whole thing is stupid.
Instead of a rounded discussion benefitting all parties its the typical hiphop generation noncooperative battlerap in internet forum style.

There is no battle rap going on. Your example of Beatrice foods is illogical whichis why I question it.
You refuse to explain why BEatrice Foods would be a "blunder". The black CEO of Beatrice, himself a
model of "doing for self", reached out to give back to the community by helping other black businesses
get started. How is this a "blunder?" You duck a specific response and rather proffer an emotional response
with little content. I again ask, how is Beatrice a "blunder"?


And you go on with your poisoning propaganda ..

What poisoning propaganda? The facts have been clearly presented and numerous examples
given demonstrating why simplistic claims about black business and integration are wanting,
or even false. If anything, the real poisoning is propagation of illusions and falsehoods-
such as the 1950s being a hotbed of Jim Crow prosperity, or the insinuation that integration
takes most of the blame for the decline of black business, or shaky claims that whites
did not want black dollars, or the false picture painted or insinuated of a black business
nirvana independent of the white man back in the day, etc.

You say:
do the right thing and ask... can you clarify and expand that statement.

But I did. I said initially- quote: "Do for self could not be a blunder. It was/is the key to black wealth and development."

I questioned - for "do for self" is the epitomy of the black businessmen that took over Beatrice.
If you wanted to clarify your meaning you have ample scope to do so. Instead, you respond
with more emotionalism. ANd strikingly, you STILL have not explained or clarified
or expanded on your statement. You now dwell on how you have been "misinterpreted."
But you still haven't given specific answers, or clear explanations. I questioned
your notion of a "blunder" as to why a black man, who worked his way up, and then
got together with other black businessmen to do a massive corporate buyout that would
create the largest black owned firm in the country would be a bad thing? YOu have had
multiple opportunities to clarify, but still can't give a coherent explanation or
clarification. If you are being misinterpreted, it would be logical to give a clear
explanation of your meaning. But so far you have avoided that.

-----------------------

[zarahan]

But in the interests of discussion on possible solutions lets switch gears for a moment.
I ask all here- What would be the "lessons learned" re black business advancement
from the Jim Crow to the present era?

We know for example that general patterns in the economy- chain store corporatism,
overseas outsourcing, massive cheap imports etc killed off many small businesses
regardless of race. They happened where there were no blacks and no "integration"
to be an issue. We know that we are in a modern era of black business including
the media businesses built on black culture by black entrepreneurs marketing heavily
to whites. We know the Asian model of "export" driven growth in goods and services.
Given this and other detailed examples previously mentioned, what are the SPECIFIC
lessons to be gleaned for the future of black business and the "internal" black economy?

[asante]

Dec 25, 2018 0:45:46 GMT -5 zarahan said:

Boyce Watkins says:
So, years later, we have achieved at least half of Dr. King’s dream of integration: We can shop where we want, eat where we want and get almost any job at the big fancy corporation down the street.

And that is massively better than the situation prevailing under Jim Crow.
BOyce Watkins also does not note that there are now multi-milion dollar black
corporations, along with many other smaller black enterprises, finally free to
make more money with the demise of Jim Crow.


The problem for our community, I humbly submit, is that we did not properly negotiate the terms of our integration. The pride that Dr. King’s father instilled in him is lost for millions of youth who are being educated by people who don’t care about them.

Agreed that the terms in integration were not properly negotiated in some cases. In some cases it
was rushed by malicious whites destroying black institutions. IN others blacks themselves quickly
abandoned the inferior second-tier situations they had dealt with for almost a century, but in
the process in SOME cases, ditched the good situations as well in their haste to get out from under.


Integration, for the most part, was simply prolonged assimilation, like moving into someone else’s home and giving up the keys to your own. You are happy to be moving into a bigger house, but soon realize that you can’t go into someone else’s house and move around the furniture. Also, while you’re renting a room, they are paying the mortgage, which means that their kids (not yours) are going to own the house when all the hard work is done.

Fair enough but before integration blacks did not have the keys to their own homes, figuratively
speaking in many cases. The brutal "urban renewal" or "slum clearance" programs prior to the
1970s for example destoryed numerous thriving black neighborhoods as whites deliberately
routed major roads and highways thru black areas to grab coveted land or "seal off" the
black areas into newer or fragmented older ghettoes.


Many of us see the golden carrot of a higher salary without understanding the risk that is inherent in allowing your family to depend on the descendants of your historical oppressors. Even the most educated among us are raised to sell our services to bidders who extract our best and brightest like oil being lifted from the soil of Nigeria.

Boyce fails to mention that under segregation there was even WORSE dependence on oppressors.
And why is getting paid what you are worth "selling yourself"? Blacks never sold themselves off
prior to integration? Jackie Robinson and many of the old-time base ballers for example, got
chicken-feed in the old segregated leagues, selling their services to bidders who extracted
the best and the brightest for a fraction of what they were worth- that is, assuming the team even
met payroll that month -some didn't. What? These men were supposed put up with chump-change
wages, pot-holed playing fields and cramped fleabag hotels forever?



People with six figure jobs are living paycheck-to-paycheck, further heightening the economic dependency that makes you impotent when it’s time to stand up for your rights.

But this was often the case under segregation. Low paid blacks were afraid to speak up, or do civil
rights work because they were economically dependent on whites and feared for their jobs.
This is one of the reasons black ministers took the lead in several civil rights campaigns, or let
their churches be used for meeting places, hideouts of civil rights workers sought by the Klan, and
staging areas for demonstrations- venues absolutely critical to the struggle. Their income was not
dependent on whites, and their land was owned by the church community not a white landlord that could
evict them in retaliation for speaking up.


I argue that integration didn’t work in our favor because there is a difference between giving up a portion of your economic sovereignty in exchange for a true partnership vs giving up nearly everything to allow yourself to become an occupied state.

Boyce's argument here is questionable because under segregation blacks never had the economic sovereignty
he imagines, and under segregation, blacks lived in a state of occupation in many areas. Integration
did not bring in any "occupied state" - occupation was ALREADY in force under segregation.


For example, if I were to give up my business and “integrate” myself into the management of a large company, I would probably be a very different (and more highly paid) man from the one you are hearing from right now. In fact, I’d probably be speaking a different political language altogether because few majority White institutions would allow me to speak the way I do in public (just ask Syracuse University, where I put my academic freedom to the test).

Sure- if you are paid by a corporation or government you have to watch what you say versus
being an outspoken independent. BUt this rule applies across the board in all areas of life,
and has little to do with integration per se. White employees of white corporations for example
dare not speak against the corporate brand or get involved in any political conflicts that
would reflect on them unfavorably in the eyes of their white corporate bosses. Life 101.


So, the conclusion is not that integration is always a bad thing. Integration can be a wonderful thing, since White Americans have hoarded most of the nation’s resources (due to our oppression), and integrating gives us an opportunity to have a piece of the American pie. But integrating in such a way that makes you dependent on others can put your socio-economic security at risk.

Again the weakness here is that under segregation, blacks were still dependent on the white man,
and their socio-economic security was always vulnerable. Under integration blacks are still
dependent, but less so than under segregation, because under integration, there are more options
and alternatives to work with, compared to JIm Crow. Just moving from place to place to find
a better job is an example. Jim Crow regimes actually deployed police at train stations to harass and
block blacks from moving north in search of better opportunities at one time in US history. Black
males were set up with bogus charges to dragoon them into the semi-slavery convict leasing system,
ensuring that they could not go elsewhere to better their lot.


Years after achieving the “dream” of integration, we have seen our poisoned and misguided financial chickens coming home to roost. When the 2008 economic crisis hit America, Whites took a small hit and soon recovered, but Black wealth dropped by over half. Black unemployment hit levels that we haven’t seen in over 30 years. The young men who should be heading our families are filling up the jails and prisons, and our public schools have become prisons with training wheels. There is nothing pretty about this form of integration, where even our best, brightest and strongest are in no position to help those of us who are struggling.

All true, but little of this can be blamed on integration per se. Black unemployment for example
was no winner under segregation. IN fact the famous "March on WWashington" led by ML KIng was
officially titled the "March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom," Jobs came first, but that got
little press compared to the "I Have A Dream" speech.


The fact is that we must critically assess the extraordinary work of Dr. Martin Luther King while simultaneously realizing that his work was not complete. He died at the young age of 39 years old, and was speaking boldly about the importance of economic sustainability as a critical component to achieving true equality in a capitalist society. As a finance professor myself, I am hopeful that we realize that this was probably the most significant part of Dr. King’s vision, and that it is the conscientious and intelligent allocation of economic resources that ultimately serves as the key to many of your most fundamental rights as an American.

Agreed


As a community, each of us has a responsibility to teach our children entrepreneurship as an important part of their long-term economic survival. Learning to run your own business is as important as knowing how to grow your own food.

Agreed, but let us be realistic. ENtrepreneurship is only ONE part of the package. Skills
acquisition applied in work- what I call "laborism" - working for soemone else, yes, is
a key component in the rise of American ethnic groups, from the Irish in mills and factories,
to the Jews in the garment trades, to Asians in agriculture and mining. All of these groups
used a DUAL strategy of business entrepreneurship AND laborism to advance. This is one of the
major weaknesses with black males today- they are not making themselves useful to the econmy
as labor in some way. Black females have grasped the game and are doing better. And labor is
always a means to an end, There is no rule that says you have to stay at the same job forever.

Unfortunately, some spin the fantasy of everything being OK if only black folk would go into business.
Business is no panacea. More than half of all small businesses will fail within 5 years. Kids need
not only to be taught entrepreneurship, but laborism- acquiring skill and applying said skill with hard-
nosede labor. They should also be taught the third part of the triad- investment- in property and/or
financial instruments.


We must embrace educational excellence as if our lives depended on it, but ensure that our children are taught Black history and family values that they are not getting in class. We must target our spending to Black-owned businesses whenever we can, and embrace the importance of saving, investing and ownership. Finally, since many of us spent $200 last month at Walmart without blinking, this means that we can certainly afford to give $15 to our favorite Black-owned organization.
Agreed, and black organizations must not take black support for granted but must perform and
demonstrate real value to their supporters. Just "being black" is no longer good enough.


It’s time for a new way of thinking as it pertains to money and education. Ownership, wealth-building and self-sufficiency should be part of the consistent Black national discourse. By re-inventing ourselves in a productive way, we can turn our darkest hour into one of the greatest periods in Black American history. The time for us to do this is NOW.
Agreed.

With all due respect. Boyce Watkins has a platform that he is on just about everyday! He is extremely interactive with anyone who is on his live feeds. I would love to you see raise these issues on his platform. Hell put this sh*it in the regular comment section. Zaharan your white liberal in black face arguments will be eaten alive, and possibly the subject of a video stream. Please do you this, though because you seem to have alot of "knowledge" about what Afro-Americans should be doing, that you seem to feel is more qualified than Dr. Boyce and his camp. I want to see them defend their arguments against your claims. Let me know if you ever get around to doing any of that. 

[asante]

[africurious]

Dec 24, 2018 22:03:35 GMT -5 @djokser said:

"Interesting enough the first thing I tried was a shoe import/export deal with producers in Nigeria back in '74."
Do tell, give us the gory details, how did the Jews manage to undercut you? What did you learn from this venture and how did you apply the lesson learned?

What’s even more interesting is that a white Jew also has cornered the market on importing African fabrics used to make African clothes in NY area. This probably isn’t coincidental. I know someone who had this guy as a client but they didn’t know how he came to corner the market. I’d love to learn the details of how it played out someday.

[Deleted]

"How pennies? When Beatrice Foods was bought out by a black man, it was

the largest leveraged consumer food corp buyout of its time in US business history.

It had revenues of 1 billion dollars in the 1980s. That's far from pennies. "
I wasn't thinking of Beatrice Foods, I was thinking of the pathetic demonstrations against 'mom and pop' stores run by non-blacks in the ghettoes. Beatrice foods was broken up by corporate raiders Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts (KKR) who sold Lewis the chump change of the operation for $985 million. Thermo King is part of Ingersoll Rand who took it off Westinghouse's hands for $2.56 billion in cash, In 1997. Matzeliger's patents gave the company who owned it a monopoly, worldwide, so I imagine that billions were extracted from such market position. The whole "black businessman as savior of the race" is nonsense.
"Most blacks were in no position to benefit from his invention, which in any case was a factory machine that was taken on by

cash-rich white enterprises." Your comment leaves out the cash-rich non-whites such as Jeremiah Hamilton who died in 1875 worth a cool $2 million, or the even richer Haitian tycoon, Sylla Laraque, who was estimated to be worth $20 million in 1885, when he left Haiti for France. Rumor has it that his was the third biggest fortune of France. I'm sure there were others similarly situated. 
www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/wall-street-first-black-millionaire/411622/
A picture of Henri Laraque, son of Sylla, in his fancy car with his white wife: club-bugatti-france.blogspot.com/2013/06/recherche-dinformations.html

I'm a Jew. (ok)
I said white Jews. (got it)
I didn't say undercut. (Give us the gory details)


I chose what and how much of my personal life to share.  (Fine)


I know nothing about you. (Right)
Gimme some anecdotes of your experience with

• downsouth legislated Jim Crow (Zero)
• upnorth social protocol de facto segregation  (The usual bs)
• businesses you've founded, your hirelings, your customer base (none)


That was good what you wrote about the foundations of modern refrigeration and shoe manufacture.  (Thank you)


Tell us a lil about auto design production and distribution in the early to mid years of Jim Crow/overt segregation.

It's something I meant to add to the African cars thread a coupla weeks ago.

Thx. (Ok, follow this link: blackpast.org/aah/c-r-patterson-sons-company-1893-1939)
 

[zarahan]

With all due respect. Boyce Watkins has a platform that he is on just about everyday! He is extremely interactive with anyone who is on his live feeds. I would love to you see raise these issues on his platform. Hell put this sh*it in the regular comment section. Zaharan your white liberal in black face arguments will be eaten alive, and possibly the subject of a video stream. Please do you this, though because you seem to have alot of "knowledge" about what Afro-Americans should be doing, that you seem to feel is more qualified than Dr. Boyce and his camp. I want to see them defend their arguments against your claims. Let me know if you ever get around to doing any of that.

I don't need to talk to Watkins personally to see that some of his statements just don't hold
water. Have you talked with Donald Trump personally to prove that some of his arguments
are baloney? Boyce is a media personality pushing his books, videos and other services. This is
fine but that doesn't mean whatever he says is right, and analyzing what he says requires detailed
blocks of text- it can;t be done in little comment boxes on Youtube, 280 char Tweets, or sites with a 2000
character limit. Some of what he says also is unsourced. Did black wealth really decline with integration
after the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Says who? Where is his data? Just on the face of it- a massive
question mark is raised about such a statement. Boyce also fails to mention the matter of general
trends int eh economy such as the decline of small businesses (In white areas too) due to the
rise of corporate chains, as well as outsourcing and cheap imports. None of these damaging trends
for small business have anytng to do with integration.

Boyce and I are actually in broad agreement- as several points in my critique note. We both
agree on the importance of black business, and that integration caused some losses etc.
My problem is with certain of his statements that too often makes shaky claims such as
that black wealth declined after integration. This is completely false. And such false
statements create or help to create a false narrative of history, that will serve us ill
in making strategies for the future.


But if you feel Boyce would disagree with what I say- you are free to send him the info
in this thread, and get his response. Send him a link to this Reloaded page and see what he says.

I have already critiqued one of his spiels above. Below I will do another. Since you feel this
might be disagreeable to BOyce, send along the link to him or members of his camp, and see
what they say. LEt me know when you get around to doing this.

[zarahan]

Asante posted something by Boyce Watkins? saying:
(note points of agreement below with Boyce. Some detailed points also already covered in this thread)

Per Boyce, or Asante?
1. Black Wealth Stagnated or Declined After Integration

This claim is false or contradictory. Black wealth actually INCREASED after integration as shown
by credible statistics. Even the spiel itself undermines some claims elsewhere about shortages
of modern black business- For example- quote: "the number of Black firms has grown 60.5 percent between 2002 and 2007."

The claim too that integration caused black restaurants, theaters banks etc to disappear
is also distorted. SOME black businesses failed due to integration. Others failed as part
of the changing business environment including the rise of chain stores, shift from central
cities to suburbia, and massive imports, outsourcing and immigration. and the failures of
black businesses such as banks, which at times scammed poor black folk out of their
hard-earned money, is common under segregation. "Integration is to blame" is a false narrative.

Integration is not the "bad guy" as far as wealth. Hell on into the 1960s, federal housing
policy was designed to hinder or block the major source of wealth, home ownership. The removal
of those barriers by the civil rights movement was a massive positive for black people not a negative.


2. Black Family Structure Collapsed After Integration

True but integration was not the cause of this as insinuated in many places.
Black family structure became worse as a result of URBANIZATION, just as it did
in white groups from rural peasant background like the Irish. Blacks only became
a fully urbanized people after around 1960s. Integration had little do do with any
"breakdown." The disappearance of the many manufacturing jobs into he 1960s also
weakened the role of black men as providers weakening the family, as William Julius
Wilson noted in book WHEN WORK DISAPPEARS-1996. The problem is not integration it is
lack of organization or a decline in organization. Today's 70% out of wedlock
births is not due to "integration." Watkins quotes some authors that say poor
male socio-economic standing influences mrital stability. Yes. This ties into my
point about how the disappearance of the jobs traditionally used by ethnic groups
to pull themselves up, hurt black breadwinners influencing instability.


3. The Unemployment Rate of Black Men Quadrupled After Integration

But integration is not the cause of this. Changes in the economy, such as the
decline of once plentiful manufacturing jobs, the rise of massive illegal
immigration, and the rise of the knowledge economy rather than traditional
unskilled and semi-skilled blue collar trades severely hurt black male employment.
Simplistic "before and after" comparisons do not capture the real world.


4. Myth of a Colorblind Society Propagated After Integration

Agreed.


5. Black Community Became Dependent After Integration

But the black community was even MORE dependent under segregation. Watkins lists a lot
of current statS like median income, but things were even WORSE on such under segregation.
If blacks had remained under segregation, things would have been even WORSE. Integration
does not need to show a state of perfection to appreciate its benefits which most blacks desired.
Integration in fact opened up numerous more opportunities and alternatives. For example:
detailed scholarly studies on the impact of the Civil RIghts Act and its integration fallout show this.
One of the best such studies on the subject is Gavin Wright's Sharing the Prize- 2013- demonstrating that
Indeed the CIvil RIghts Act and subsequent federal government enforcement was a key factor in boosting
black income and opportunity. See for example:
historynewsnetwork.org/article/156565


^^THis last point is important for when Watkins mentions the Civil Rights Act he only mentions
how it opened up opportunities for white women. True, but it also had massive other positive
effects for black people. Just forcing southern hospitals to finally treat sick black people
(under threat of withholding federal funds) was a great boon for black health.
Failure to even mention such effects (so as to build the "integration is bad" narrative),
once again demonstrates the weaknesses and distortions in Watkin's approach.

==================================

Boyce Watkins? said:
1. Black Wealth Stagnated or Declined After Integration

During segregation, Blacks were forced to start and support the businesses in their own communities. Many of these businesses flourished and even helped make some Black communities, such as the Greenwood community in Tulsa, Okla., (often called Black Wall Street), wealthier than their white neighbors.

After segregation ended, African-Americans flocked to support businesses owned by whites and other groups, causing Black restaurants, theaters, insurance companies, banks, etc. to almost disappear. Today, Black people spend 95 percent of their income at white-owned businesses.

Even though the number of Black firms has grown 60.5 percent between 2002 and 2007, they only make up 7 percent of all U.S firms, and less than .005 percent of all U.S business receipts. In 1865, just after Emancipation, 476,748 free Blacks — 1.5 percent of U.S. population– owned a .005 percent of the total wealth of the United States. Today, a full 135 years after the abolition of slavery, 44.5 million Black Americans — 14.2 percent of the population — possess a meager 1 percent of the national wealth.

2. Black Family Structure Collapsed After Integration

From 1890 to 1950, Black women married at higher rates than white women, despite a consistent shortage of Black males due to their higher mortality rate. According to a report released by the Washington D.C.-based think tank Urban Institute, the state of the African-American family is worse today than it was in the 1960s, four years before President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act.

In 1965, only 8 percent of childbirths in the Black community occurred out of wedlock. In 2010, that figure was 41 percent; and today, out-of-wedlock childbirths in the Black community is at an astonishing 72 percent.
 Researchers Heather Ross and Isabel Sawhill argue that marital stability is directly related to the husband’s relative socio-economic standing, and the size of the earnings difference between men and women.

Instead of focusing on maintaining Black male employment to allow them to provide for their families, Johnson passed The Civil Rights Act with full affirmative action for women. The act benefited mostly white women and created a welfare system that encouraged removal of the Black male from the home. Many Black men were also dislodged from their families and pushed into the rapidly expanding prison industrial complex that developed in the wake of rising unemployment.

I guarantee that these women did not have strong fathers in their homes. 

 

3. The Unemployment Rate of Black Men Quadrupled After Integration

Since integration, the unemployment rate of Black men has been spiraling out of control. In 1954, white men had a zero percent unemployment rate, while African-American men experienced about a 4 percent rate. By 2010, it was at 16.7 percent for Black men compared to 7.7 percent for white men.

The work force in 1954 was 79 percent African-American. By 2011, that number had decreased to 57 percent. The number of employed Black women, however, has increased. (this was deliberately done to create internal strife between the male and female) In 1954, 43 percent of African-American women had jobs. By 2011 54 percent of Black women are job-holders.

Although the earnings gap between African-Americans and their white peers has narrowed, it still persists, with a Black man earning about 70 percent of white man’s income. In 1960, Black men earned about 60 percent of what white men were paid.

4. Myth of a Colorblind Society Propagated After Integration

The Civil Rights Movement pushed for laws that would create a colorblind society, where people would not be restricted from access to education, jobs, voting, travel, public accommodations, or housing because of race. However, legislation has been ineffective in eradicating white privilege.

Michael K. Brown, professor of politics at University of California Santa Cruz, and co-author of “Whitewashing Race: The Myth of a Color-Blind Society” says in the U.S., “The color of one’s skin still determines success or failure, poverty or affluence, illness or health, prison or college.”

Colorblind policies that treat everyone the same, no exceptions for the historically oppressed and disenfranchised, are often used to argue against corrective policies such as affirmative action. But “colorblindness” today merely bolsters the unfair advantages that color-coded practices enabled white Americans to accumulate over a very long time.

5. Black Community Became Dependent After Integration

African-Americans have appealed to the descendants of our oppressors to right their ancestors’ wrongs, pay us sufficient wages to take care of our families, educate our children and police our neighborhoods.

As a result, only 2 percent of all working Black Americans work for another Black person within their own neighborhood. Because of this, professionally trained Black people provide very little economic benefit to the Black community.

The Black median household income is about 64 percent that of whites, while the Black median wealth is about 16 percent that of whites. Millions of Black children are being miseducated by people who don’t care about them, and they are unable to compete academically with their peers. At the same time, the criminal justice system has declared war on young Black men with policies such as “stop and frisk” and “three strikes.

Marcus Garvey warned about this saying: 

Lagging behind in the van of civilization will not prove our higher abilities. Being subservient to the will and caprice of progressive races will not prove anything superior in us. Being satisfied to drink of the dregs from the cup of human progress will not demonstrate our fitness as a people to exist alongside of others, but when of our own initiative we strike out to build industries, governments, and ultimately empires, then and only then will we as a race prove to our Creator and to man in general that we are fit to survive and capable of shaping our own destiny.

[zarahan]

Dec 24, 2018 12:44:10 GMT -5 africurious said:

If black ppl don't buy from black businesses then who are the patrons that go to the roughly 2 million black businesses in the US (https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/business_ownership/cb11-24.html)? It's whites, asians and latinos who primarily go to these places?

During the past quarter century, minority-owned businesses have undergone a significant transition. Small-scale, personal-service businesses—beauty salons, barber shops, etc. —no longer predominate; they have been replaced by businesses in a diverse array of industries from which Blacks had, heretofore, been excluded for reasons of education, experience, or race. Between 1960 and 1980, minority-owned, personal-service businesses decreased by 49.1 percent, while minority-owned finance, insurance, and real estate businesses increased by 185.7 percent; business services increased by 175 percent; and wholesale industries increased by 111.8 percent (Bates, 1987; see Table 9–1).

source: www.nap.edu/read/9719/chapter/10

That link also has some good data on progression of black businesses. Black business has changed over many decades but haven't seen data that show it's any worse off now than in the days of segregation.

I've seen some black biz owners complain before about blacks not buying their stuff. I can't tell if they're biz isn't being run optimally to attract buyers or not. But I do know that most businesses fail in a few yrs regardless of the owners race cuz running a biz is very tough. I also know that many other black biz thrive and have many black patrons. I also know that if I or just about any other black or purple person get substandard service/product I'll unlikely come back.

My aunt used to complain that people who came to her fast casual restaurant didn't want to spend money on her cakes which she made with real butter and various organic ingredients. In her mind her cakes were delicious and healthier than cheap ish. Problem is she didn't realize that her cakes were around the prices that you'd find at a cake specialist and she was trying to sell them at a place ppl go for quick moderately priced food. Business is tough. If someone isn't making it then they should ask themselves some hard questions about why (other than saying its cuz black ppl dont wanna buy your stuff cuz you're black).

Good data- didn't know about the shifts. It tracks with the research of Juliet Walker as to the 4 waves
of black business development quoted sometime earlier. WHat is interesting is that the old
mom and pop model so beloved of "the old days were better before integration" school is not
foremost among young black entrepreneurs. Even the old-line service businesses have declined.
Black business today is much more diverse. The data interestingly shows an overall UPWARD trend in
businesses by blacks since 1960, calling into question some aspects of the "failure and decline" narrative,
at least as far as Atlanta.

And yes, running a business is tough. Most small businesses will fail even without any race issue.
The many proponents of black business as some sort of panacea are pitching dreams sure to end in
disillusion and loss. SOME people will be successful. Most others will not. Hence the key is to use a
flexible strategy combining LABOR, business and investment. The most successful business groups-
Jews nd Asians are doing just that- Even as the Jewish pushcart peddler moved his wares, or even
as the Indian and Korean grocers tend their countertops, they are sending their sons and daughters to
school to enter civil service, skilled trades/technical and the professions- Labor. And they are
working the investment end to acquire property and also financial instruments. Business is only
ONE part of the triad.

[Tukuler al~Takruri]

Take it from me or contradict it from a book, just don't twist it into a strawman or nonsequitur.

Origins of the 'stranglehold?'
Jews have redistributed items from W Afr to 'the West' for at least 1000 years.
Terminals can't just, by will, connect across the Atlantic.
That distribution is out terminal control under international regulation (and connivance).
I quit vending decades ago but when I go about I see Moroccans also on the wholesale end now too.
On a very small scale some items come direct as 'baggage', evading the system.

Dec 25, 2018 12:27:40 GMT -5 africurious said:

Dec 24, 2018 22:03:35 GMT -5 @djokser said:

"Interesting enough the first thing I tried was a shoe import/export deal with producers in Nigeria back in '74."
Do tell, give us the gory details, how did the Jews manage to undercut you? What did you learn from this venture and how did you apply the lesson learned?

What’s even more interesting is that a white Jew also has cornered the market on importing African fabrics used to make African clothes in NY area. This probably isn’t coincidental. I know someone who had this guy as a client but they didn’t know how he came to corner the market. I’d love to learn the details of how it played out someday.

[Tukuler al~Takruri]

You still have no idea of DO FOR SELF or a DO FOR SELF nation within a nation concepts.
[12 years of me using the term
search
"do for self" tekrur site:egyptsearch.com -rhymes]

But do you ask w/o attaching illogical well poisoning strawmans and nonsequiturs?
Why?
What you don't understand is illogical?
Sure.

You keep blundering from do-it-yourself to doing-for-self.
The term is DO FOR SELF.
Your unfamiliarity stems from the relative lack of independent institutional Black Studies.
Not being passed intact from generation to generation.
Thus your SquareOne-ing.

Dec 25, 2018 11:37:58 GMT -5 zarahan said:

Dec 25, 2018 10:27:40 GMT -5 Tukuler al~Takruri said:

This is pinpoint precision accuracy.

I bet you guys think Beatrice was proper Black business.
Yeah, for integrationists.
To the DO FOR SELF nation within a nation blacks it was the biggest blunder ever.

You don't have the slightest idea what it means and too eager to win an argument to to do the right thing and ask.

"doing for self",

is not DO FOR SELF any more than "do it yourself" is.


Completely fabricated strawmans

If anything, the real poisoning is propagation of illusions and falsehoods-
such as the 1950s being a hotbed of Jim Crow prosperity,

....

a black business nirvana independent of the white man back in the day,

Build a strawman knock him down.
A dodging technique via lying.


I don't answer loaded questions nor respond to points I never made yet get attributed to me.
Learn to ask point blank without prepoisoning w/yr value judgements.

A simple:
Takruri, can you expand and clarify your statement,
"I bet you guys think Beatrice was proper Black business.
Yeah, for integrationists.
To the DO FOR SELF nation within a nation blacks it was the biggest blunder ever."
is objectively non-confrontational undemanding of a showdown,
indicative of discussion ie willing to consider before outright ret to gun ya down rejection as in debate.