White Supremacist, Fake Black Profiles & Cultural Intrusion

[zarahan]

Takuri said:
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.


OK fair enough, but you should have made your statements clear to begin with
for they are easily misleading- particularly since the Beatrice guy is himself
a model of "do for self", and has himself reached out to help other black entrepreneurs.
The notion of a "blunder" is very questionable, and you avoid addressing the shakiness
in that claim even now, despite multiple opportunities. Talking about being misunderstood
or loaded question seems like a neat way to duck or avoid responding coherently.

But let's switch gears. Let's as you say, look at this in non-confrontational style.
I will not jump down on your answer. You apparently don't like the Beatrice situation.
OK fine. But you don't say why in any detail. Why don't you elaborate on the factors
that you feel may have made Beatrice something not favored by nationalists? This is
a relevant question for anyone exploring black economic development.
The floor is yours to elaborate.

[africurious]

Dec 26, 2018 12:37:55 GMT -5 Tukuler al~Takruri said:

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:

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.

Tx for your suggestions on the origins. I was looking for something more specific about the individuals in question tho. Jews redistributing W Af goods to the “west” for 1,000 yrs doesn’t sound outlandish to me so I could buy it.

Regarding this “Take it from me or contradict it from a book, just don't twist it into a strawman or nonsequitur.”...
I question anything that sounds off to me and have been doing so since a kid. I’ve questioned things taught by my profs with PHDs in their respective fields from fancy schools so I don’t see why I wouldn’t question you. I have no prob saying you’re extremely knowledgeable and I’ve learned a lot from your posts. But, you ain’t infallible and have biases like us all. I didn’t “twist” anything you said into “a strawman or nonsequitur” and that claim is old hat at this pt. Everything I posted was either based on what you or Asante said. And you can’t show anything in my posts to prove me the liar. If I really wanted to roast you to stroke my ego all I had to do was say that you posted that fake stat about money circulation purposely to fool us and call you a liar. Instead, based on your history, I took it for just a case of being misled which happens to anyone from time to time. If you haven’t noticed, I tend to be direct. I also don’t care to be king of the hill on this or any other forum.

[Deleted]

"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."

Which Jews? White Jews or Jews like al~Takruri, or a combination of both? You keep interjecting your personal experience as a vendor, but refuse to give us the "gory details" when asked. I find such debating style dishonest. If you want me to take your claims, based on your vending experience, seriously, you'll have to tell me in detail how you came by your information. How do you know that "Jews" have redistributed items for at least 1000 years? This is not an attack on your integrity, I'm just pointing out what Zaharan and Afrocurious have pointed out to you, Your claims need to be backed up by facts that others can interrogate.

[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.

That is subjective! For who? My great grandmother told me from her own mouth that during Jim Crow she had no reason other than employment to associate with white people. Louisville's black community in the early 20th century (of which my family was very prominent) had our own business districts and dealt almost exclusively with our own. Blacks in Louisville (especially older blacks) have tremendous pride in having dealt with and handled our own when state law enforced. Blacks in Louisville, Kentucky were however different in attitude than many blacks in parts of the deeper south in how we dealt with white people and racism back in the day and today. 

We know of the Green Book for example was born out of necessity for safe and convenient travel for Afro-American motorist (I'm sure that outspoken immigrants like Africurious who speaks frequently on American social-politics doesn't know like this);

"African-American travelers faced hardships such as white-owned businesses refusing to serve them or repair their vehicles, being refused accommodation or food by white-owned hotels, and threats of physical violence and forcible expulsion from whites-only "sundown towns". Green founded and published the Green Book to avoid such problems, compiling resources "to give the Negro traveler information that will keep him from running into difficulties, embarrassments and to make his trip more enjoyable...Would a Negro like to pursue a little happiness at a theater, a beach, pool, hotel, restaurant, on a train, plane, or ship, a golf course, summer or winter resort? Would he like to stop overnight at a tourist camp while he motors about his native land 'Seeing America First'? Well, just let him try!...In Cincinnati, the African-American newspaper editor Wendell Dabney wrote of the situation in the 1920s that "hotels, restaurants, eating and drinking places, almost universally are closed to all people in whom the least tincture of colored blood can be detected."[8] Areas without significant black populations outside the South often refused to accommodate them: not one hotel or other accommodation was open to blacks in Salt Lake City in the 1920s. Black travelers were stranded if they had to stop there overnight. Only six percent of the more than 100 motels that lined U.S. Route 66 in Albuquerque, New Mexico, admitted black customers"

link

So Zaharan, don't you think that logically, with that amount of hostility towards their presence that black owned businesses and subsequent micro-economy were a blessing? Not only did it make black businesses a necessity, but many blacks who had dignity also had resentment towards whites for their menacing bigoted attitudes towards them, which subsequently kept their disposable income in the hands of other blacks - the micro economy. The larger society (or as Tariq Nasheed and others call the "Dominant society") does have the vast majority of the resources in the nation relative to what we have always had here. The social-political rejection of the dominant society to the less privileged subjugated society had created a legacy of inferiority complexes. White people did this deliberately to feel better about themselves, and especially with regard to the known stipulations behind their 6,000 year existence. They were very aware of how to flip this inferiority complex to hurt the Afro-American even further. 

Whites have clearly been studying our people's manipulated (through the laws of their forced societies - which a factor that some wish for us to ignore) behaviors like lab animals since our enslavement in the 17th century. By the 1950's when this documentary of how to sell to the Negro was made about quarter to half of the US black population had migrated to the non Jim Crow enforced regions of the US where the options to buy white were available. They saw that blacks who were used to second tier (in the direct presence of a "dominant society" to compare our situations to) make shift economy commodity and goods were eager for access to that first tier retailer or restaurant. They knew that as soon as wholesale access was given to the "dominant society" that blacks who were forced to support each other out of necessity and to a lesser extent pride would rush to exercise their shopping options. Those fresh baked biscuits that a black laborer had to walk past everyday in a formerly whites only bakery window were now available to him for purchase, so now you don't have to eat the usual at the "traditional" but necessary black restaurant any longer. There are many examples of these types of actions and common thoughts that lead to the collapse of local black economies. This is physiological warfare.

BOyce Watkins also does not note that there are now multi-milion dollar black
corporations

What percentage of black people work for black corporations? Do tell! Or let me tell you that it is not significant in any way shape or form Zaharan. Today the vast majority of blacks in America make white people rich, by working for their corporations. 

"According to the U.S. Census Bureau, of the 2 million Black-owned businesses in the U.S., only about 107,000 of them have actual paid employees – that’s barely over 5%."

link

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.

So explain how integration has helped keep blacks from being displaced from their social-political centers within the last two decades as a result of gentrification. This is essentially a form of forced integration, but it's been likened to genocide Zaharan. According to you however this integration is good for Afro-Americans ...Is the loss of political clout as a result of a decentralization of a minority population that has been unified through overt oppression throughout this country's existence good for Afro-Americans? Is the social-political decentralization of our "minority" population being covertly passed off by whites as some form of "corrective" action from the detrimental affects of the insidious political actions directed towards us over the last few decades (i.e welfare state; heroin in the 1970's; Reagan and Bushes crack in the 80's; Bill Clinton crime bill in the 90's; wall-street crooks stealing half of blacks wealth in the 2000's).

Boyce fails to mention that under segregation there was even WORSE dependence on oppressors.

That makes no sense. If you have a separate economy that while like in Tulsa many were dependent on income as maids and cooks for wealthy whites, then that means that if the white economy runs dry or decides to cut us off then the black businesses would get the last bit of money from the residence who get their money from whites, and the black employees of those businesses would be forced to spend exclusively with the black businesses which would give them a little for time afloat.

Now in today's case there are no black owned businesses in let's say Louisville's West End or Newburg that employ a significant number of our own. Black income in Louisville and most of the US is now almost exclusively coming from working for white people. There are no black owned banks, grocery stores, gas stations (maybe one or two). Louisville's black business district was 28th and Dumesnil, and had everything listed except a hospital (many black doctors offices however) prior to integration. So if the white economy collapses then we are at the mercy of the government (AND THAT WAS THEIR PLAN). There is no intra-neighborhood income, no little grocery to sustain our people (even temporarily); no gasoline; there is no hospital that catering to our people's needs. 

And why is getting paid what you are worth "selling yourself"?

Paid what you are "worth". Who tf determines what you are worth first of all. The issue that Dr. Boyce raises that you are missing is that by not working for yourself you are making someone else rich, and by working for white people you are further empowering a power structure that has historically been detrimental to the existence of our people. 

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.

According to some historians Jackie Robinson was an integrationalist "coon". He reportedly against Malcolm X and was adamant against Ali's refusal to fight for the US in Vietnam. 

 

What? These men were supposed put up with chump-change
wages, pot-holed playing fields and cramped fleabag hotels forever?

Note that in Zaharan's says that a smiling white Devil (who created the condition in the first place) coming with shiny new things trumps self dignity and racial social-economic unity. 

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.

You defeat your point with this statement. So how did integration really help? 

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.

You bring up another good point that goes against your argument. The black church were strong community centers that lead the charges for social-political actions, which were targeted through government subsidies to reduce their political influence in the black communities. We see that one of our main weapons against white supremacy during Jim Crow was completely comprised by government actions during this same time period. The wholesale disunity of blacks was the goal of the United States Government with integration. 

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.

You talk about these new protections for black businesses that formed after integration, but you ignore the tf out of what black businesses today go through because of racism at the city level.

When building your business means hiding that it's black-owned

The covert tactics helped him to bill more than $6 million over nine years to a white clientele he perceived as racist, as he often encountered potential customers who slammed doors in his face or refused to allow him in their homes, he said.



"I never said I wasn't the owner. If asked, I would admit it. But I always said I was either the project manager or a designer," he said.



Draughon is among entrepreneurs who feel compelled to conceal the fact that their businesses are black-owned for fear they will lose patronage — either to misperceptions that the products or services are only for blacks, or to racial biases on the part of potential users.

We did not have to hide the fact that we were black when we dealt exclusively with our own. Our economic sovereignty is still based on racial loyalty even to this day.

Black-owned business files lawsuit against Chamblee for racist ordinance 

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,

Not at all Zaharan. You have that white liberal in black face Mark Lamont Hill mindset man. 

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.

People have gotten fired from major corporations for showing support to Kaepernick taking a knee at the games. This is what Boyce means 

Future Colin Kaepernicks, Beware: You Can Get Fired for Political Speech

How has Integration helped this situation? 

 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.

Today in an "integrated" society black business owners are set up on bogus drug charges to get them put into a state of incarnation that is at the highest rate in World history (which is again in an integrated society).

 

So if the same police framing is still happening to black business owners for the same reason that they were 100 years ago then again how has integration helped this situation? This brother luckily had video cameras in his business to prevent him from being incarcerated. 

All true, but little of this can be blamed on integration per se. Black unemployment for example
was no winner under segregation.

Integration was supposed to be great for blacks, yet you fail to properly acknowledge the fact that unemployment for Afro-Americans is at it's highest now, well into integration policies. 

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.

Never attack the black males situation in this nation without acknowledging that in America where this black man is being judged that he is a under a system of white supremacy. Everything about the black males performance is dictated by the opportunities afforded to or rejected from him by the dominant white supremacist society. 

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.

You have an ideology that is eerily reflective of white liberalism. Black women, and black men's relationship and subsequent performance is the direct result of the 1960's government legislative actions. 

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.

Zaharan one thing that I think that you miss about the history of African Americans is that despite the all odds being against African Americans during Jim Crow, is that there have actually been examples of the success that a segregated economy can bring the black population. Tulsa, Ok was in fact a success story, and guess what it was not the race riot that destroyed the thriving black business district, because the blacks during Jim Crow rebuilt Greenwood to it's largest state of commercial existence after the race riot. It was integration, and the what it brought that destroyed Greenwood. 

Black Wall Street: The African American Haven That Burned and Then Rose From the Ashes

"The district declined in part because of urban renewal but also because integration laws passed in the 1960s allowed blacks to spend their dollars elsewhere in Tulsa. Black people with means could choose to live in other parts of the city. Racial solidarity became a personal choice rather than a necessity dictated by white political rule. “Black folks thrived in a way because we were concentrated in a particular area,” says Regina Goodwin, who grew up in Greenwood and now serves as the only black woman in Oklahoma’s House of Representatives. “There was a boatload of talent right in that area, so you saw pilots of planes, you saw hotel owners, newspaper editors. … There was an intent to be well and to do well.

[zarahan]

djokster:
How do you know that "Jews" have redistributed items for at least 1000 years?

Yours is a fair query and I wish Takuri could have provided more details. But his statement
is generally correct. There have been Jewish merchants in West Africa since the 1300s,
working the various settlements, and they took the fabric goods produced by skilled
Jewish weavers in Morocco, and manufactured items from elsewhere in North Africa,
and exchanged this merchandise for West African product- gold, salt, slaves.
Of course, Arabs were also running the same as well, and various West African leaders
were glad to do such trade.

See the book:
The Rise of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade in Western Africa, 1300–1589 by Toby Green 2011
www.amazon.com/Trans-Atlantic-Western-1300-1589-African-Studies/dp/1107014360

[asante]

Dec 25, 2018 14:01:29 GMT -5 zarahan said:

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.

The cumulative black wealth is less dispersed then it was prior to integration. One thing that you're not taking into consideration is that much of that wealth is reflected from that of athletes and the super rich and famous. America did not have black billionaire individual wealth during the 1960's on prior. This was laid out by Dr. Claude Anderson. Back in the 1960's and prior athletes and movie stars were not making anywhere near as much money as they are making now. Contrary to today's wealth distributions black business revenue was a much larger source of black wealth. Today as Malcolm X stated about integration is true. That is that token blacks will be made to represent black progress in the face of insidious covert oppression for the vast majority of the population. 

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."

How many blacks do those black firms employ? What percentage of the profession do those black firms make up? Are these simply regains from the dramatic losses that occurred directly after integration? 

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.

Boy Zaharan is caping hard for the "good ole white Merican govment"

"Black-owned businesses were decimated as a paradoxical side effect of desegregation, and, despite the emergence of a new generation of black businesses competing in the general marketplace, only marginal progress has been made in recovering the ground lost in this era of sweeping social and economic change. 'It Just Didn't Work Out' 

There are fewer than 500 black-owned businesses operating in Birmingham today as against more than 1,000 in the early 1960's, according to veteran black business leaders here, and the statistics tell similar stories in cities across the nation where blacks constitute a significant share of the population: New York, Washington, Richmond, Nashville, Jackson, Miss., Atlanta, Chicago, Kansas City, Mo. 

''Desegregation improved social conditions - it just didn't work out economically,'' said J. McKinley Neal, a member of the Missouri Legislature for 18 years who has been the owner of Regal Pharmacy in Kansas City for 44 years. ''I fought hard in the Legislature for integration. I thought it would work both ways, that whites would patronize black businesses.

''Twenty or 30 years ago we had a full, thriving black business district,'' he said. ''Now it looks like a graveyard.'' Districts Have Lost Cohesion'' 

www.nytimes.com/1981/07/26/us/businesses-owned-by-blacks-still-fighting-an-uphill-battle.html

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.

That's white liberal bullshit Zaharan. What sources do you have that this was an issue during Jim Crow?

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.

Black homeownership rates haven’t changed much in the 50 years since the Fair Housing Act

Integration has not helped black home ownership, so your point is moot. 

2. Black Family Structure Collapsed After Integration

True but

There's no butt to that man. 

3. The Unemployment Rate of Black Men Quadrupled After Integration

But integration is not the cause of this.

The increased dependency on a faltering dominant white economy certainly did not help the figure. Whereas an untampered with black economy would have provided more job security.

5. Black Community Became Dependent After Integration

But the black community was even MORE dependent under segregation.

You have been making this silly claim throughout this thread that contradicts what numerous presented reports have stated on the situation, with little to nothing to substantiate it. 

"The nadir of race relations was reached in the early 20th century, in terms of political and legal rights. Blacks were increasingly segregated. However the more they were cut off from the larger white community, the more black entrepreneurs succeeded in establishing flourishing businesses that catered to a black clientele. 

The most rapid growth came in the early 20th century, As the increasingly rigid Jim Crow system of segregation moved urban blacks into a community large enough to support a business establishment. The National Negro Business League, Promoted by college president Booker T. Washington the League opened over 600 chapters, reaching every city with a significant black population...

Historian Juliet Walker calls 1900–1930 the "Golden age of black business."[17] According to the National Negro Business League, the number black-owned businesses doubled from 20,000 1900 and 40,000 in 1914. There were 450 undertakers in 1900 and, rising to 1000. Drugstores rose from 250 to 695. Local retail merchants – most of them quite small – jumped from 10,000 to 25,000

So in the last half century since integration what has been the "Golden Period" of black economic prosperity that can be matched to that which was achieved when we were forced to do business with one another? Doesn't that fact in itself defeat everything that you're arguing. The best economic prosperity for Afro-Americans did not immediately follow the "liberating integration" policies, but rather when we dealt almost strictly with our own. 

Watkins lists a lot
of current statS like median income, but things were even WORSE on such under segregation.
I

Dr. Watkins has presented sources to back his claims. I've also pointed out how the median income of blacks today is skewed due to the higher number of black millionaires and billionaires, which is not in any way reflective of the 40 plus million blacks in the country.

Integration does not need to show a state of perfection to appreciate its benefits which most blacks desired.

The fact that you have yet to point to a single instance in post Civil Rights era black America that our economy was more solid than at points reached throughout the Jim Crow era just makes your argument out to be a bunch of smoke and mirrors. 

Integration in fact opened up numerous more opportunities and alternatives.

Blacks were invited into another man's home (the greater US economy), and did not realize before abandoning his/her own home that they will not be able to rearrange their new bigger "better" home to fit their needs accordingly.

Indeed the CIvil RIghts Act and subsequent federal government enforcement was a key factor in boosting
black income and opportunity. See for example:

Zaharan...Why are you talking out of your azz;

BLACK NEWSThe Black Family Is Worse Off Today Than In the 1960’s, Report Shows

^^THis last point is important for when Watkins mentions the Civil Rights Act he only mentions

how it opened up opportunities for white women.

Zaharan your white liberal in black face anti genuine black progress philosophies.... 

[clydewin98]

asante Thanks for a great discussion of important issues affecting the Afro-American community. My sons were arguing about the economic myth that there were more Black businesses in the Black community before integration. I explained that this was a myth, because most of the businesses were owned by whites, but managed by Blacks. In other words, there was more investment of white money in the Black Community because Blacks could not shop anywhere else.
You are bringing up issues about race, and the immigration of Blacks from India and Africa that no one wants too talk about. Before integration both groups had to live in the "Black Community". Europeans allowed these groups enter the country after integration so they could make sure integration did not benefit Afro-Americans.


Keep making our people think

[Tukuler al~Takruri]

I'm sorry AC.
Proboards sucks at maintaining unfinished replies.
My original reply went to the bitbucket.
Below is the best I could remember for some parts of it.

Dec 27, 2018 12:23:21 GMT -5 africurious said:

Dec 26, 2018 12:37:55 GMT -5 Tukuler al~Takruri said:

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

Tx

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

That's something I hope every contributor expects.
Respect breed respect.

I question anything that sounds off to me and have been doing so since a kid. I’ve questioned things taught by my profs with PHDs in their respective fields from fancy schools

And that's the road to independent analysis of Africana with authenticated agency.
More power to you.

so I don’t see why I wouldn’t question you. I have no prob saying you’re extremely knowledgeable and I’ve learned a lot from your posts. But, you ain’t infallible and have biases like us all. I didn’t “twist” anything you said into “a strawman or nonsequitur” and that claim is old hat at this pt. Everything I posted was either based on what you or Asante said. And you can’t show anything in my posts to prove me the liar. If I really wanted to roast you to stroke my ego all I had to do was say that

Thx. And I think you summed us all up. I been riddled by strawmans, nonsequiturs, etc., lately.
Not specifically pointing.
Making it clearly known to all I don't tolerate it won't respond to it.

you posted that fake stat about money circulation purposely to fool us and call you a liar. Instead, based on your history, I took it for just a case of being misled which happens to anyone from time to time.

<<ALERT>> You're telling me I been had by
www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/business/black-buying-power-increases-but-circulation-of-dollar-within-community/article_a4348d65-c5b3-5cd3-b9c1-966765a96fd8.html ?
Seemed legit to me?
I bought it.
Should I get a refund?
What you got on 'em?
<<ALARUM>>

If you haven’t noticed, I tend to be direct. I also don’t care to be king of the hill on this or any other forum.

Yeah, let's share and compare then hip otherbodies otherwhere.

[Tukuler al~Takruri]

Dec 27, 2018 18:06:10 GMT -5 @djokser said:

"

@al~Takruri said:

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.

Which Jews? White Jews or Jews like al~Takruri, or a combination of both? You keep interjecting your personal experience as a vendor, but refuse to give us the "gory details" when asked. I find such debating style dishonest.

Debate is a game with audience winner and loser.
I don't play games.
I discuss and share Africana, everbody wins.
Avoids ego attachment and allows growth.
Debate is stagnant, a proponent can't alter their stance can't be open to anything remotely contrary.

If you want me to take your claims, based on your vending experience, seriously, you'll have to tell me in detail how you came by your information.

Who the fox r u that I should care what you take serious or take as a djoke, sir? Take it or leave it, your choice.

How do you know that "Jews" have redistributed items for at least 1000 years? This is not an attack on your integrity, I'm just pointing out what Zaharan and Afrocurious have pointed out to you, Your claims need to be backed up by facts that others can interrogate.

I studied history and amassed a >900 item personal library of Africana and Judaica.

Make yourself honest, get you to a lbrary with interlibrary loan and do yourself some honest research perusing general and more importantly specialist tracts.

It's not my responsibility to teach 8000 yrs of African historical developments in a measly forum post to you or anybody.
Only babies wait on spoon feeding.

Zarahan knows my contributions and basis unlike you newbs.
You can know better too.
Been an ESer since Nov 2004 with significant impact.
This chitchat mode is really not my style I'm trying to adapt it.

You and anyone can follow me on a subject by simple search query

subject/phrase "tekrur" site:egyptsearch.com

and can use ESRs search function.

When using search engines
• "al~takruri"
• "tukuler"
can sub for "tekrur"


Most importantly
I said take my word or contradict me from a book.
Quit yer bitchin moanin and groanin already.
So go ahead and bring me your referenced annotated research on WAfr from 1018 to today
Jewish mercantilism 1018 to today
dovetail them and see if they disconfirm my statement.

[Tukuler al~Takruri]

zarahan

Proboards ate my original response which I cannot now replicate.

You continued a priori well poisoning and you call that fair.

As about fair as turning this

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.

into this

al~Takuri(sic) said:
o the DO FOR SELF nation within a nation blacks it was the biggest blunder ever.

and your nonsequitur fabrications designed to fudge up my statement.

You've many times now proven you haven't the remotest idea what are
• DO FOR SELF
• DO FOR SELF nation within a nation

You claim to ask but prove you're only rhetorical
since you go on to malign the terminology with a know-nothing's inaccurate implications.

I'd be a bigger fool than taken for to followup loaded rhetorical questioning that already directs a neutral reader to your desired conclusion.


In fact, I'm quite sure no participant even has an inkling on DO FOR SELF except maybe Asante.

Please, go on intentionally distorting me and acting like it's my fault you do.
I'm kinda used to it now.
I see you deploy loaded questions, strawmans, and nonsequitors from the debaters' win at all costs toolkit.

As a discussant I abhor such debater tricks.

Beatrice was a grand blunder from the DFS perspective.
Beatrice was a great triumph to minority minded integrationists.

Beatrice was a blunder.
I don't think of the "Beatrice guy" as a blunderer,
the way you view Garvey as a blunderbuss.

[zarahan]

Asante says:
That is subjective! For who? My great grandmother told me from her own mouth that during Jim Crow she had no reason other than employment to associate with white people. Louisville's black community in the early 20th century (of which my family was very prominent) had our own business districts and dealt almost exclusively with our own. Blacks in Louisville (especially older blacks) have tremendous pride in having dealt with and handled our own when state law enforced. Blacks in Louisville, Kentucky were however different in attitude than many blacks in parts of the deeper south in how we dealt with white people and racism back in the day and today.

Wrong. Watkins was pointing to the freedom brought in by integration- we can go anywhere, show wherever,
stay wherever, etc etc. He is right and today's freedoms, are massively better than those under Jim Crow.
That is fact, not subjective.

Your example shows the community pride back in the day, which is true history without a doubt, but also
the restrictions of Jim crow. Your grandmother was likely limited to certain "negro jobs," and the black
businesses were relegated to locations where growth possibilities were limited, compared to white
merchants, who in addition to the white areas they freely worked, could invade the negro areas to do
business anytime they wanted. I agree with you that the black business district was a source of pride.
YThe only problem is with any notion that all was so good back in the day, and the notion that
integration ruined black business, and how segregation brought so much more prosperity for black folk
as in the 1950s etc. All these notions are inaccurate, They should be qualified t stand on firmer ground.

I have never disputed the point that black business growth was higher prior to integration than before.
Without question. But there are caveats- such as the shaky character of many small mom and pop
shops that would have disappeared anyway under general economic changes- like the rise of chair stores-
regardless of integration. What I am calling for is more ACCURACY and BALANCE in these claims rather
than the knee-jerk condemnations of integration one so often hears.


So Zaharan, don't you think that logically, with that amount of hostility towards their presence that black owned businesses and subsequent micro-economy were a blessing? Not only did it make black businesses a necessity, but many blacks who had dignity also had resentment towards whites for their menacing bigoted attitudes towards them, which subsequently kept their disposable income in the hands of other blacks - the micro economy. The larger society (or as Tariq Nasheed and others call the "Dominant society") does have the vast majority of the resources in the nation relative to what we have always had here. The social-political rejection of the dominant society to the less privileged subjugated society had created a legacy of inferiority complexes. White people did this deliberately to feel better about themselves, and especially with regard to the known stipulations behind their 6,000 year existence. They were very aware of how to flip this inferiority complex to hurt the Afro-American even further.

Sure. I have no quarrel with your point as to the necessity of that micro-economy, or the do or die
spirit some black businesses showed, or the community pride and so on. No quarrel there. I also have
no quarrel with your point about the inferiority complexes of SOME (not all) negroes who think white
people ice is colder. Desire for material goods is part of the landscape- andis indulged in by
some of today's rappers, enamored of white brand names and other material goods. I read several
reports where white designer Tommy Hilfiger wanted LESS blacks to wear his clothing designs because that
might hurt the particular brand image he wanted to build. But still rappers and other negroes kept
touting and buying his clothes. Reports were false- Hilfiger found out that rappers and other negroes
loved his brand so he moved to cash in on rap's burgeoning popularity, and worked to get endorsements.
Thus today's "hip hop" negroes embrace the white man's brands, slighting nationalist perspectives
despite a certain amount of lip service..




They saw that blacks who were used to second tier (in the direct presence of a "dominant society" to compare our situations to) make shift economy commodity and goods were eager for access to that first tier retailer or restaurant. They knew that as soon as wholesale access was given to the "dominant society" that blacks who were forced to support each other out of necessity and to a lesser extent pride would rush to exercise their shopping options. Those fresh baked biscuits that a black laborer had to walk past everyday in a formerly whites only bakery window were now available to him for purchase, so now you don't have to eat the usual at the "traditional" but necessary black restaurant any longer.

Yes which makes by earlier point that many whites wanted black cash, and would take it on the
back end- hidden from social view -so white social supremacy could be maintained- like the "take out"
windows of segregated southern eateries blacks were routed to, or the "colored areas" white real estate
agents shunted blacks into, on the margins of the dominant white society. They still took black money,
and made a nice profit too in many cases. Blacks desperate for housing often paid multiple times what
a particular rental space or house was worth in urban areas, and whites were happy to pocket the gains.

There is one thing you must account for in your example however. The white baker might likely have
sold the black laborer the fresh biscuits, as long as the black laborer did not attempt to sit down
AMONG white people to eat, as this would intimate of social equality between black and white.
This was one of the central issues of the many civil rights campaigns- social equality or the
appearance thereof.

You also miss the fact that under Jim Crow, blacks never shopped exclusively black. They always
were aware of how white areas sometimes got better goods. "Buying white" is not something that
happened because of integration as some naive claims make out. In fact it was sometimes a problem
in the Jim Crow era to get blacks to "buy black." Naive fantasies of a "golden age" where everybody
black was forced to patronize "brotherman" are just that, naive. They never existed in the real world.



That makes no sense. If you have a separate economy that while like in Tulsa many were dependent on income as maids and cooks for wealthy whites, then that means that if the white economy runs dry or decides to cut us off then the black businesses would get the last bit of money from the residence who get their money from whites, and the black employees of those businesses would be forced to spend exclusively with the black businesses which would give them a little for time afloat.

Your argument has 2 weaknesses here. First, it still shows dependence on whites under the Jim Crow
economy. The blacks still needed to work for whites so as to have spending money for the black stores.
Second when the white economy did run dry as in the Great Depression, many black businesses failed, and
indeed whites who once scorned "negro jobs" were desperate enough to take them over and push out the
blacks, as every credible history book shows. SO the negroes in many parts could not even count
on traditional "negro jobs." The sad thing is that the Great Depression helped ruin one of the
most promising black business cooperative network models- the Colored Merchants Association run by Albon
Holsey. See book recommended earlier Ethnic Enterprise by Ivan Light. If you
are interested in black business, this classic is one of the first books to start with.



Paid what you are "worth". Who tf determines what you are worth first of all. The issue that Dr. Boyce raises that you are missing is that by not working for yourself you are making someone else rich, and by working for white people you are further empowering a power structure that has historically been detrimental to the existence of our people.

THis is not necessarily so. If you are working for yourself and have to source your
stock from white wholesalers, the white man is still getting paid, and getting richer,
and thus, you are still empowering the white power structure at some level. Robert Abbot
the black owner of the famous Chicago Defender started off paying white printers to get
his product out. IN time he used mostly black printers but got rid of them when they
struck for higher wages and went back to the white man. Watkins is serving up a simplistic
picture. Furthermore working for the white man is precisely how some of the great black
ntrepreneurs got enough seed money or skills, or contacts to create their businesses.

Black magnate John H JOhnson teamed up with a white man named Levy to get distribution
of his new magazine off the ground, and get key network contacts in the publishing world.
AJ Gaston worked for the white man in the mines of Alabama when he figured he could make
some extra money selling lunches to his fellow workers- black and white. He later started
selling burial insurance policies all on the white man's premises. If he had proudly
reused to "work for the white man" he would not have had that start. Black Beatrice Foods
boss Reginald Lewis, trained as a lawyer in the white man's schools and worked for the white
man as a corporate executive- gaining the skills needed to eventually pull off one
of the major corporate buyouts in US history at the time, an almost billion dollar deal.

Boyce Watkins is pushing product- his own books and videos- and thus can say things that
would not hold up in a serious academic setting. His spiel is simplistic and can
possibly lead people down a primrose path where they spend thousands "going into business"
only to fail some years later (as most small businesses do), rather than use a dual
strategy of business AND labor. (Saving for investment like property is the third piece)
The three go together, and Asians and Jews have been running this strategy with success
for decades. Hard LABOR is often the FIRST piece of the triad people must perform in order
to acquire skills, seed capital, and/or contacts.

As far as pay for worth, the market controlled by whites determines that, and so why
is it a bad thing if Jackie finally began to make a salary white players had long enjoyed
rather than the comparative chump change of the negro leagues? If white bosses want to
pay good money- hels yeah- take it. But if Watkins simplistic model is followed thru
in its implications, Jackie should have piously refused "to work for the white man" and
"stayed in his place" in the negro leagues, or as far as bidniss, attempt to start his
own negro league team. lol


According to some historians Jackie Robinson was an integrationalist "coon". He reportedly against Malcolm X and was adamant against Ali's refusal to fight for the US in Vietnam.

What credible historian makes this argument? Can you cite one? There are plenty of political
and media critics of RObinson, but I know of few historians who make the above argument.
And plenty of blacks disagreed with Malcolm X and Muhammad Ali. Shrug.. But lets stick to the
business topic- rather than go off on tangents like Malcolm X and Muhammed ALi. Start a new
thread to argue their philosophies. Lets stick to business.

You need to read an actual credible book on Robinson rather than rely on shaky
Youtube video rants by random people. Robinson had more guts and backbone than
anyone who dares to call him "integrationist coon." The charge is BS. Robinson
did not take shiit off nobody and in fact, a large part of his reputation,
parallel with his integration work, is that he was an angry black man, always
ready to throw down. And he did on the field, in politics and in the media.
He even drew the ire of the NAACP by criticizing what he saw as its geriatric approach.

Bit let's stick to the business topic. Jackie RObinson, was a great black business
booster, pusing businesses to hire more blacks, pushing corporations to give blacks
more franchises etc etc. Jackie RObinson formed a construction company, to build
homes for working class and lower income black people. Jackie Robinson helped
form one fo the most successful black banks of the time- the Freedom Bank in
Harlem, putting up $500,000 of his own money to give the bank enough capital
to open. All this is well documented, as can be seen in book below. All the
ignoramuses who make sweeping condemnations of Jackie Robinson re "integrationism"
are really demonstrating ignorance- plenty of hot air, but little actual knowledge.


Note that in Zaharan's eyes a smiling white Devil (who created the condition in the first place) coming with shiny new things trumps self dignity and racial social-economic unity.

This is laughable. So just getting a decent motel room is "shiny things trumping self
dignity and racial social-economic unity?" That's a stretch. But if your notion is
accepted, so too your rappers, are enamored of "shiny new things trumps self dignity
and racial social-economic unity. " I mean, they sure do love the white man's
material goods...




You defeat your point with this statement. So how did integration really help? [/b]

What "defeat"? Its Boyce Watkins who talked about today's blacks afraid to speak out. OK
but what makes him think things were so good in the days of segregation? Back then
not only rich, but poor blacks too were afraid to "speak out." THis simple fact again
defeats claims that segregation was oh, such a good time for black people.


You bring up another good point that goes against your argument. The black church were strong community centers that lead the charges for social-political actions

No nothing against. My argument is that claims that integration was all bad, or so bad
it cause mass black business failure, or claims re massive Jim Crow prosperity ruined
by integration such as in the 1950s etc are all false, or seriously misleading.


You talk about these new protections for black businesses that formed after integration, but you ignore the tf out of what black businesses today go through because of racism at the city level.

You show one local example of discrimination. OK, but there are dozens of others
non-discrimination, such as the many business grants aiding aiding black entrepreneurs,
or the fact that a black man was able to do the corporate Beatrice buyout,
without being blocked because of his race.




People have gotten fired from major corporations for showing support to Kaepernick taking a knee at the games. This is what Boyce means
Future Colin Kaepernicks, Beware: You Can Get Fired for Political Speech
How has Integration helped this situation?

You miss my point that getting fired from your job for unpopular speech bosses don't
like is a phenomenon hundreds of years old. White people get fired all the time
for saying things publicly their bosses don't like. If it has to do with race, ok
that's just one more thing that gets you fired by your boss. Macarthur and Truman
were both white. And the white general got fired for saying things white Truman did
not like. Life 101. The end of the Jim Crow laws doesn't mean life becomes perfect,
and you don;t have to watch what you say around bosses, including black ones.


Today in an "integrated" society black business owners are set up on bogus drug charges to get them put into a state of incarnation that is at the highest rate in World history (which is again in an integrated society).

Who said that in an integrated world everything would be perfect? Integration had to do with
removing legal and in some cases social segregation barriers. It did not promise you would
have a perfect, problem free life. Only the most naive people think that integration solved
all of life's problems. As for the injustices sure. ONly the most naive people think that
integration removed or solved racism. The visible legal barriers are gone thank goodness,
but there is still fighting to be done. Everyone but the naive understands this.


o if the same police framing is still happening to black business owners for the same reason that they were 100 years ago then again how has integration helped this situation? This brother luckily had video cameras in his business to prevent him from being incarcerated.

LOL you keep naively expecting integration to solve all these life problems. Whoever claimed
racism or police shenanigans disappeared because of say the Voting RIghts Act of 1965? lol




You have an ideology that is eerily reflective of white liberalism. Black women, and black men's relationship and subsequent performance is the direct result of the 1960's government legislative actions.

There you go again. I know. It's all the white mans fault. So if black women work harder
in school and get qualified, but the black men next to them don't, then its the gubment's
fault? This sounds eerily like naive black nationalism, where "da white man" is to blame
fo all badness.

[zarahan]

Tariq Nasheed Negro League vs Majors

Tariq Nasheed pontificates on YOutube as if he knows what he is talking about, but is
is woefully uninformed.He says Jackie's brother was better that he was. This is BS.
On top of that, like Capt Obvious, he proffers what is common knowledge as some sort
of special insight.

Mack Robinson's best sport was track and field and some football, where he was better
than Jackie. But as far as baseball, Jackie had him beat - miles ahead. Tariq also tells
us what is blindingly obvious- that Branch Rickey wanted to make a profit by taking on
Jackie Robinson. This is some sort of profound "knowledge"? Branch Rickey himself
said so publicly in the historical record. He wanted to integrate the leagues
but he also wanted to make money.

He also said Jackie was chosen because he knew how to get along with white people.
Of course. Jackie had to survive in an environment 99.9% white. This is
blindingly obvious. It would have been suicidal for Rickey to send up some
semi-literate country negro, who would have years of racist abuse heaped upon
him on the field or via hate mail, or via white players trying to physically
injure him on the field. Jackie endured all this and kept his temper, He was
not silent, but protested time and time again. And he dished out punishment
on the field as well. But he kept his cool at the right moments so that the
desegregation go through. Within less than 2 years, because Jackie was such
a credible pioneer, OTHER black players like Newcombe and Campanella were able
to integrate baseball. In time, the open racist abuse ceased. Swinging bats at
fans, umpires or other players, which Tariq seems to find so romantic, would have
doomed the whole project, and Jackie.

In short Tariq is misinformed, and to get most of your information from Youtube
off a source like him is not the way to go. Actually READING a credible biography
or history of baseball will provide much more accurate information. Read an actual book,
a credible history like Arnold Ampersads "Jackie RObinson" 1997.

As far as business- Tariq Rasheed is an ignoramus about Jackie Robinson. The
record debunks the baloney he is pushing. Jackie Robinson, was a great black business
booster, pushing businesses to hire more blacks, pushing corporations to give blacks
more franchises etc etc. Jackie Robinson formed a construction company, to build
homes for working class and lower income black people. Jackie Robinson helped
form one of the most successful black banks of the time- the Freedom Bank in
Harlem, putting up thousands of his own money to help give the bank enough capital
to open. (See Rampersad page -quote:

"Despite these setbacks, and benefiting from two ninety-day extensions from the
Comptroller, the sale of stock went on. About six hundred investors had bought shares,
but about one-third of the offering remained unsold when seven members of the committee,
including Robinson, stepped in to purchase the remaining shares at a cost of about $500,000."
--Jackie RObinson by Arnold Rampersad, 1997


Unlike "hotep" negroes who mostly talk on Youtube, Jackie Robinson actually DID. He did
more for black business than a million "hoteps" jabbering loudly as if they know everything.
All this is well documented, as can be seen in book below. All the
ignoramuses who make sweeping condemnations of Jackie Robinson
re "integrationism" are really demonstrating ignorance.

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

Takuri hit the nail on the head re many younger "hotep" types- they don't read much.
QUote:
Make yourself honest, get you to a lbrary with interlibrary loan and do yourself some honest
research perusing general and more importantly specialist tracts.

^^Youtubers spouting personal opinion are not a credible source. Heed Takuri's advice.

[Deleted]

Dec 28, 2018 10:16:04 GMT -5 Tukuler al~Takruri said:

Dec 27, 2018 18:06:10 GMT -5 @djokser said:

"

Which Jews? White Jews or Jews like al~Takruri, or a combination of both? You keep interjecting your personal experience as a vendor, but refuse to give us the "gory details" when asked. I find such debating style dishonest.

Debate is a game with audience winner and loser.
I don't play games.
I discuss and share Africana, everbody wins.
Avoids ego attachment and allows growth.
Debate is stagnant, a proponent can't alter their stance can't be open to anything remotely contrary.

If you want me to take your claims, based on your vending experience, seriously, you'll have to tell me in detail how you came by your information.

Who the fox r u that I should care what you take serious or take as a djoke, sir? Take it or leave it, your choice.

How do you know that "Jews" have redistributed items for at least 1000 years? This is not an attack on your integrity, I'm just pointing out what Zaharan and Afrocurious have pointed out to you, Your claims need to be backed up by facts that others can interrogate.

I studied history and amassed a >900 item personal library of Africana and Judaica.

Make yourself honest, get you to a lbrary with interlibrary loan and do yourself some honest research perusing general and more importantly specialist tracts.

It's not my responsibility to teach 8000 yrs of African historical developments in a measly forum post to you or anybody.
Only babies wait on spoon feeding.

Zarahan knows my contributions and basis unlike you newbs.
You can know better too.
Been an ESer since Nov 2004 with significant impact.
This chitchat mode is really not my style I'm trying to adapt it.

You and anyone can follow me on a subject by simple search query

subject/phrase "tekrur" site:egyptsearch.com

and can use ESRs search function.

When using search engines
• "al~takruri"
• "tukuler"
can sub for "tekrur"


Most importantly
I said take my word or contradict me from a book.
Quit yer bitchin moanin and groanin already.
So go ahead and bring me your referenced annotated research on WAfr from 1018 to today
Jewish mercantilism 1018 to today
dovetail them and see if they disconfirm my statement.

It's obvious why you went bust as a vendor, it's that 'superior' attitude. Get off your high horse and be of use to the "newbs", if that's asking to much of you, who the flock cares what you say? "Make yourself honest, get you to a lbrary with interlibrary loan and do yourself some honest research perusing general and more importantly specialist tracts." Right, a real scholar would give names and texts to be of help to "newbs", no, not you, you are to grandiose to engage in such common civilities. When you asked me about black car manufacturers I provided you with a link that you could evaluate based on your experience. "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)"

[Deleted]

Dec 27, 2018 18:57:47 GMT -5 zarahan said:

djokster:
How do you know that "Jews" have redistributed items for at least 1000 years?

Yours is a fair query and I wish Takuri could have provided more details. But his statement
is generally correct. There have been Jewish merchants in West Africa since the 1300s,
working the various settlements, and they took the fabric goods produced by skilled
Jewish weavers in Morocco, and manufactured items from elsewhere in North Africa,
and exchanged this merchandise for West African product- gold, salt, slaves.
Of course, Arabs were also running the same as well, and various West African leaders
were glad to do such trade.

See the book:
The Rise of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade in Western Africa, 1300–1589 by Toby Green 2011
www.amazon.com/Trans-Atlantic-Western-1300-1589-African-Studies/dp/1107014360

Thank you. It's djokser not djokster.

[zarahan]

Asante says:
How many blacks do those black firms employ? What percentage of the profession do those black firms make up? Are these simply regains from the dramatic losses that occurred directly after integration?

You will have to get the info from Boyce Watkins for I repeated the very same quote you
brought up-: You/he said- quote:
"the number of Black firms has grown 60.5 percent between 2002 and 2007."

You are the one who came up with the info- you should be able to provide the answer.

But in any event, you also need to provide a baseline for the prosperous days of segregation.
You already said most blacks even back in the day were employed by the white man. OK.

So, how many blacks did the black firms employ back in the golden age of Jim Crow?

What percentage of professions, trades, manufacturing etc did those black firms make up?

You cant talk about "regains" after integration without establishing your baseline.

Precisely how many jobs, and how much generated income was contributed by black
business to the black economy before integration?

Give some credible scholarly sources to demonstrate your baseline, not Youtube videos or
individual websites just offering someone's opinion.

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


Boy Zaharan is caping hard for the "good ole white Merican govment"

But you yourself give a reference to government statistics. How come you are using the white mans
statistics rather than gathering the data by yourself?

Your link right off the bat fails for it expresses some personal opinion that is not backed up by
any serious comparison data. We all know SOME businesses were wiped out by integration. Who doesn't?
The article quotes the usual anecdotes about loss, but can give no credible stats as to the alleged
golden age before 1964. Nor does it differentiate between the businesses that failed
as victims of general economic change- such as the rise of corporate chains. Many small
white businesses failed too as a result of such changes. So how much failure is due to general
economic change and how much due to civil rights laws ending segregation? Your 1981 newspaper
article does not say and neither do the many hotep claimants. They don't know either.



Here is credible data on the decline of small firms EVERYWHERE noT simply black firms

"A major feature of this evolution has been the growth of large national retail chains.
This has been coupled with a dramatic decrease in the share of retail activity accounted
for by small single location or “mom-and-pop” stores. In 1948, single location retail
firms accounted for 70.4% of retail sales, but only 60.2% by 1967 (U.S. Census Bureau
(1971)). By 1997, this share had fallen further to 39%. In 1948, large retail firms
with more than 100 establishments accounted for 12.3% of retail sales, but this number
grew to 18.6% in 1967 (U.S. Census Bureau (1971)). By 1997, these large retail firms
account for 36.9% of all retail sales."
--US Census 2005. THE ROLE OF RETAIL CHAINS: NATIONAL, REGIONAL, AND INDUSTRY RESULTS
www2.census.gov/ces/wp/2005/CES-WP-05-30.pdf

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

Second, 1972-1977 is AFTER the Jim crow era, again providing no credible baseline as to
what happened during the golden segregation age. Per your 1981 article:

"According to Government statistics, these are some of the key characteristics of black business in America from 1972 to 1977.."

^^ All well and good, but we are comparing segregation era, to After the segregation era.
No one disputes that the number of black business as far as raw numbers did fall. Sure.
The question is how much of that fall is due to the civil rights laws that signaled
the end of legal segregation. Offering stats from 1972-1977 is irrelevant to the case at
hand, and is dubious as a serious comparison analysis of black business. YOur article
offers no credible source of baseline data. You need to provide stats under segregation
to establish your golden age. How many jobs did black businesses in the golden age create?
How much revenue did the golden age businesses earn? Why were most of the golden age
firms tiny single proprietor mom and pop service and retail businesses? How much money
stayed in the black community in the golden age? 10%? 20%? 5%? How many failed due to
civil rights laws compared to general economic hardship hitting small mom and pops after WW2?
Proponents of the golden age have few answers, yet they claim this rosy business nirvana existed.
If so, where is the data?


JUliet Walker is one of the foreost scholars on black business development. Here is her data.
Notice she does not dispute that black businesses existed or were numerous. No one doubts that.
But she notes that substantial growth came AFTER the segregation era and as a result,
billion dollar black enterprises, and increased sales expanded.

"Still, it was not until federal government minority business programs and black capitalism initiatives in force in the post-Civil Rights era that the doors of the mainstream American business and consumer markets in the private sector were opened to black entrepreneurs... Until then, black business existed primarily in a segregated race-based black consumer market economy. Throughout the twentieth century there were four phases in the rise of Black Corporate America, marked primarily by markets served, degree and kind of ownership of enterprises and amount of business receipts. While leading black enterprises in the first phase of the rise of Black Corporate America, 1900-1938, had annual sales of close to a million dollars, the second phase of the rise of Black Corporate America, 1939-1964, marked the emergence black businesses with receipts in the millions of dollars. With the third (1965 to 1990) and fourth (1990--) phases in the rise of Black Corporate America, leading black businesses had receipts in excess of $100 million. In the fourth phase of the rise of Black Corporate America, black business activity exceeded the one billion dollar mark, in several ways, in receipts, value of the business, and the emergence of the first black billionaire entrepreneur.

.. Moreover, by the end of the twentieth century, during the initial years of the fourth phase of the rise of Black Corporate America in the 1990s, black business was distinguished not only by federal government affirmative action initiatives, but also by successful commodification of black culture."
--Juliet E. K. Walker, War, women, song- The tectonics of black business and entrepreneurship, 1939–2001 (The Review of Black Political Economy/Winter 2004)