mreinman wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

mreinman wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

mreinman wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

mreinman wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

mreinman wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

nixluva wrote:It sounded to me like Larry was trying to say more Blacks needed to OWN teams and thus have more power and control over conditions and treatment. I doubt that he was calling for simply a league with just black players. No one is that stupid. He just did a bad job of expressing what he was trying to say I think.

Race is always a touchy subject. It may sound crazy but back when segregation forced Blacks to own their own businesses in every area, they were doing very well. Just look at how things turned out in Tulsa and what they called "Black Wall Street".
The Dollar turned over within that Black community more than 6 times before leaving the community. They had professionals of all kinds, owned hotels, movie theaters, Air Planes!!! It was of course destroyed by racist Whites but it was a very successful community that was built on self reliance. Every since then Blacks have scratched out a very tough life at the bottom of just about every metric of American Society. If you don't know go look up "Black Wall Street".

I feel like I knew what he was trying to say and if that were the case, I'd agree with him. Black people need to do a better job of building wealth and in keeping as much of it as possible within our communities. There is so much talent that exists and has existed, yet others have been the ones who have profiteered from it.

I remember reading a statistic that articulated for every dollar spent by an African American, only $0.10 remains in the hands of another African American. Meanwhile, for every dollar a Jew spends, $0.70 remains in the hands of another Jew. That has to be the model we follow as a fellow minority and the only way to accomplish that is to build a better business infrastructure that is also more mainstream. Money talks and is exactly why narratives develop of us that are often adversarial and antagonistic. For example, when Blacks access social programs, they are perceived as "takers", "lazy", etc. AUIPAC lobbies our government to send billions of dollars to Isreal, the most of any country, and all they are are "God's people" and "loyal friends" who share a mutual interest with our great nation. The point is that making money in the right industries is key to all of this.

Back to Larry, he needs to realize that he's in a public forum and express himself accordingly. I'm sure he's going to have to issue an apology and he better articulate himself in it.

so america is to pro jewish and jews don't share their money with non jews?

Not at all; you missed the point. What I am saying is that money in the right places gets to shape narrative. You don't find it interesting that certain Republicans are incredibly xenophobic and outright racist, yet they constantly pledge unwavering support to Isreal, a concern for many Jewish Americans? You don't think it's interesting that many of those same Republicans get their funding from men like Sheldon Adelson? Just a few weeks ago, almost every prospective Republican presidential candidate flew out to meet with Adelson and express their support for everything he's interested in. Hell of a coincidence don't you think? And it isn't on just one side because Democrats have their George Soros' as well.

The fact is that I admire the way that Jews, as a minority, are able to shape their own destiny. In an economic sense, it is something that I'd like to see other minorities adopt.

Richard Nixon was a known anti semite yet he bailed israel out in the 6 day war. Why? Because Israel was and is a strategic democratic ally in the middle east with (arguably) the best air force in the world. Nixon was strong on foreign policy and he made a calculated move.

Republicans in general earmark boat loads of money in defense spending and Israel's well being is part of that policy.

Of course there are super lobbyist who can affect policy but there are many lobbies and that is part of our democracy.

The US has israel doing lots of dirty work since they cannot officially sanction them.

As far as money staying in the jewish circle, jews don't trust outsiders very much due to their history of persecution so they choose to keep it in house and do business with other jews.

I think the "strategic importance" argument is overstated. In a world where aircraft carriers and aerial refueling exists, there is no need to be allies with a country, just to utilize their airbases or air force, especially when you consider that it is composed of weapons produced and subsidized by the American government (see the F-15, F-16 and even F-35's I think). Our military has been flying sortee's around the world in this fashion since the 50's with the U-2's and Sr-71 Blackbirds, which has how Francis Gary Power's got shot down in '61. And from a geopolitical perspective, the U.S. have working relations with several Middle Eastern powerhouses in the region including Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt (I still think it is the case), UAE and potentially Iraq if the Kurd's and Sunni solidify their power over there. So I don't think that Isreal is some last bastion of hope for us over there. If anything, our alliance with them seems to be pissing off a lot of people over there more than it is helping us make any in-roads in the region. I think the more likely reason why we support them is because men like Sheldon Adelson and loopy Christian zealots have an emotionally vested interest in the land and are willing to spend billions and their political capital in protecting it; that and as you said, the military industrial complex is a trillion dollar industry.

It was much more important during the cold war but they still obviously find it extremely important.

Who is going to bomb Iran and/or Syria's nuclear sites for the US? Jordan? Egypt?

Israel is basically the US army, navy and air force and spy agencies in the middle east. In many ways its far more (geographically) important than the US military.

Republicans spend on military and they see israel as an arm. This has been the case before Adelson was a lobbyist.

The same people who have bombed iraq (twice), Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam/indo-China, Grenada, much of Western Europe during WWII, Japan, etc. The United States military. We didn't need any real help to do any of that and I highly doubt we need Isreal's help to do that in the Middle East. I already pointed out that logistically, we don't need their airbases/air force. During Desert Storm we purposely did not launch attacks from Isreal to avoid inflamming the Middle East. I'm almost certain that was the case in Iraqi Freedom and Afghanistan. In fact, I read that we were operating out of bases in Germany and Afghanistan before capturing bases within these respective countries.

You are looking at this far too simplistically IMO.

There are certainly issues with their relationship and how it pisses off the world, especially the muslim world and there are certainly powerful lobbies that will not allow the destruction of Israel and believe that without US's support this will certainly happen.

Isreal took on four nations during the 6-day war and thoroughly outclassed them militarily using American military technology. Bare in mind, that was during the late 60's.

Since that time, those countries have retained their Soviet era weapons and military technology while Isreal has acquired most of the modern weapons that the U.S. military has today. They literally have a 30-40 year advantage on the advantage they already had some 50 years ago. Needless to say, they are no "danzel in distress". They'd be alright without us having to involve ourselves, so I wouldn't worry about their "destruction".

Its not just the weaponry (which I do agree goes overboard), its the public support that the US has always given while other nations could care less for israel.

Jewish people have been very successful in the US and that has made Jewish Lobbies extremely powerful. Candidates don't stand a chance without a very pro israel stance.

Then what's our point of contention here? Is it the method I suggested for attaining success?

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/TheRealLJ2/statuses/460157093954486272

Black people: you are focusing on the wrong thing. We should be focusing on having our own: own team, own league! Do for self!

I agree with nixluva: he is speaking to a sentiment of a Marcus Garvey or Black Wall Street, and it's not the same thing as what Sterling is saying. He's saying whether pawn or a knight or a king, you are still a piece someone else's chess board. Integration had a great effect on Black America, but it also had a side effect much like globalization has had on the US. Now I'm not all nostalgic about the Talented Tenth/Jack and Jill set and the more subtle caste system in the Black community where instead of Jim Crow you had the paper bag test, but I understand what he is saying.

However, I would just say to LJ: show and prove, you are the dude who had the endorsement deals and multi-million dollar salary and have friends who have/had the same. It's easy to be a Twitter revolutionary.

But it's not the same thing as Sterling, guys.

Studying my family history in America. Best I can accurately tell my ancestors were dragged here some time around 1750. The family that held my ancestors as slaves was Granted Land and money to purchase slaves from the British. The way it worked back then, if the immigrant was willing to come to South Carolina they gave them 50 acres for the family head and for each child after. By the year 1771 the Slave holder of my ancestors had 600 acres. He became wealthy and one of his grandchildren became a Reverend and formed a Methodist church in the same town. By 1790 they had 38 slaves according to the 1st U.S. Census. In 1865 Gen. Sherman busted thru that Orangeburg, South Carolina, burning the Cotton Warehouse and town court house. Within a few months my great, great, great grandfather Tom C. as a free man and reluctantly signed a Contract to work the land of his former Slave Master on June 22, 1865. I have a copy of the document and it's one of my most prized possessions. Can't believe I found this document. What is most sad is that he and other Freedmen in town had been promised land of their own, but the Whites in power were more concerned for the former Slaver Holders and trying to re-establish southern commerce which was based almost entirely on Agriculture. They freed the slaves, but then basically forced them back into a situation that would leave them at a disadvantage for generations to come.

White Southerners also feared that if freedmen did not work for white landowners, the agricultural economy of the South would collapse. During the last months of 1865, a rumor spread among freedmen: The federal government was going to grant “40 acres and a mule” to every ex-slave family on Christmas Day. Although the federal government had confiscated some Confederate lands and given them to freed slaves, it never planned to do this on a massive scale. Nonetheless, expecting their own plots of land, blacks in large numbers refused to sign work contracts with white landowners for the new year. At the same time, Southern whites passed around their own rumor that blacks would rise in rebellion when the free land failed to appear on Christmas Day.

All these economic worries, prejudices, and fears helped produce the first Black Codes of 1865. These codes consisted of special laws that applied only to black persons. The first Black Code, enacted by Mississippi, proved harsh and vindictive. South Carolina followed with a code only slightly less harsh, but more comprehensive in regulating the lives of “persons of color.”

The South Carolina Black Code

South Carolina’s Black Code applied only to “persons of color,” defined as including anyone with more than one-eighth Negro blood. Its major features included the following:

1. Civil Rights

The Southern Black Codes defined the rights of freedmen. They mainly restricted their rights. But the codes did grant black persons a few more civil rights than they possessed before the Civil War. South Carolina’s code declared that “persons of color” now had the right “to acquire, own and dispose of property; to make contracts; to enjoy the fruits of their labor; to sue and be sued; and to receive protection under the law in their persons and property.” Also, for the first time, the law recognized the marriages of black persons and the legitimacy of their children. But the law went on to state that, “Marriage between a white person and a person of color shall be illegal and void.”

2. Labor Contracts

The South Carolina code included a contract form for black “servants” who agreed to work for white “masters.” The form required that the wages and the term of service be in writing. The contract had to be witnessed and then approved by a judge. Other provisions of the code listed the rights and obligations of the servant and master. Black servants had to reside on the employer’s property, remain quiet and orderly, work from sunup to sunset except on Sundays, and not leave the premises or receive visitors without the master’s permission. Masters could “moderately” whip servants under 18 to discipline them. Whipping older servants required a judge’s order. Time lost due to illness would be deducted from the servant’s wages. Servants who quit before the end date of their labor contract forfeited their wages and could be arrested and returned to their masters by a judge’s order. On the other hand, the law protected black servants from being forced to do “unreasonable” tasks.

3. Vagrancy

All Southern Black Codes relied on vagrancy laws to pressure freedmen to sign labor contracts. South Carolina’s code did not limit these laws to unemployed persons, but included others such as peddlers and gamblers. The code provided that vagrants could be arrested and imprisoned at hard labor. But the county sheriff could “hire out” black vagrants to a white employer to work off their punishment. The courts customarily waived such punishment for white vagrants, allowing them to take an oath of poverty instead.

4. Apprenticeship

Southern Black Codes provided another source of labor for white employers—black orphans and the children of vagrants or other destitute parents. The South Carolina code authorized courts to apprentice such black children, even against their will, to an employer until age 21 for males and 18 for females. Masters had the right to inflict moderate punishment on their apprentices and to recapture runaways. But the code also required masters to provide food and clothing to their apprentices, teach them a trade, and send them to school.

5. Courts, Crimes, and Punishments

South Carolina’s Black Code established a racially separate court system for all civil and criminal cases that involved a black plaintiff or defendant. It allowed black witnesses to testify in court, but only in cases affecting “the person or property of a person of color.” Crimes that whites believed freedmen might commit, such as rebellion, arson, burglary, and assaulting a white woman, carried harsh penalties. Most of these crimes carried the death penalty for blacks, but not for whites. Punishments for minor offenses committed by blacks could result in “hiring out” or whipping, penalties rarely imposed on white lawbreakers.

6. Other Restrictions

South Carolina’s code reflected the white obsession with controlling the former slaves. It banned black people from possessing most firearms, making or selling liquor, and coming into the state without first posting a bond for “good behavior.” The code made it illegal for them to sell any farm products without written permission from their white employer, supposedly to guard against stealing. Also, blacks could not practice any occupation, except farmer or servant under contract, without getting an annual license from a judge.

In truth not much has changed. There are still structural impediments for minorities that hold the masses back from fully realizing what should be their birth right in this country after the hundreds of years of blood and sweat given to make America great. I was born in 1965 as the 1st of my family to be born with Civil Rights for Blacks as fully part of the law. Even tho my Grandfather fought in WW2 and my father in Vietnam. It wasn't until my birth that any member of my family, here since 1750 was able to say they were born with his Civil Rights.

A riveting piece of personal history that deserves its own book or screenplay. nixluva, well done and courageous for sharing that.

nixluva wrote:Sorry for this long post, but I felt it was worth posting.

Studying my family history in America. Best I can accurately tell my ancestors were dragged here some time around 1750. The family that held my ancestors as slaves was Granted Land and money to purchase slaves from the British. The way it worked back then, if the immigrant was willing to come to South Carolina they gave them 50 acres for the family head and for each child after. By the year 1771 the Slave holder of my ancestors had 600 acres. He became wealthy and one of his grandchildren became a Reverend and formed a Methodist church in the same town. By 1790 they had 38 slaves according to the 1st U.S. Census. In 1865 Gen. Sherman busted thru that Orangeburg, South Carolina, burning the Cotton Warehouse and town court house. Within a few months my great, great, great grandfather Tom C. as a free man and reluctantly signed a Contract to work the land of his former Slave Master on June 22, 1865. I have a copy of the document and it's one of my most prized possessions. Can't believe I found this document. What is most sad is that he and other Freedmen in town had been promised land of their own, but the Whites in power were more concerned for the former Slaver Holders and trying to re-establish southern commerce which was based almost entirely on Agriculture. They freed the slaves, but then basically forced them back into a situation that would leave them at a disadvantage for generations to come.

White Southerners also feared that if freedmen did not work for white landowners, the agricultural economy of the South would collapse. During the last months of 1865, a rumor spread among freedmen: The federal government was going to grant “40 acres and a mule” to every ex-slave family on Christmas Day. Although the federal government had confiscated some Confederate lands and given them to freed slaves, it never planned to do this on a massive scale. Nonetheless, expecting their own plots of land, blacks in large numbers refused to sign work contracts with white landowners for the new year. At the same time, Southern whites passed around their own rumor that blacks would rise in rebellion when the free land failed to appear on Christmas Day.

All these economic worries, prejudices, and fears helped produce the first Black Codes of 1865. These codes consisted of special laws that applied only to black persons. The first Black Code, enacted by Mississippi, proved harsh and vindictive. South Carolina followed with a code only slightly less harsh, but more comprehensive in regulating the lives of “persons of color.”

The South Carolina Black Code

South Carolina’s Black Code applied only to “persons of color,” defined as including anyone with more than one-eighth Negro blood. Its major features included the following:

1. Civil Rights

The Southern Black Codes defined the rights of freedmen. They mainly restricted their rights. But the codes did grant black persons a few more civil rights than they possessed before the Civil War. South Carolina’s code declared that “persons of color” now had the right “to acquire, own and dispose of property; to make contracts; to enjoy the fruits of their labor; to sue and be sued; and to receive protection under the law in their persons and property.” Also, for the first time, the law recognized the marriages of black persons and the legitimacy of their children. But the law went on to state that, “Marriage between a white person and a person of color shall be illegal and void.”

2. Labor Contracts

The South Carolina code included a contract form for black “servants” who agreed to work for white “masters.” The form required that the wages and the term of service be in writing. The contract had to be witnessed and then approved by a judge. Other provisions of the code listed the rights and obligations of the servant and master. Black servants had to reside on the employer’s property, remain quiet and orderly, work from sunup to sunset except on Sundays, and not leave the premises or receive visitors without the master’s permission. Masters could “moderately” whip servants under 18 to discipline them. Whipping older servants required a judge’s order. Time lost due to illness would be deducted from the servant’s wages. Servants who quit before the end date of their labor contract forfeited their wages and could be arrested and returned to their masters by a judge’s order. On the other hand, the law protected black servants from being forced to do “unreasonable” tasks.

3. Vagrancy

All Southern Black Codes relied on vagrancy laws to pressure freedmen to sign labor contracts. South Carolina’s code did not limit these laws to unemployed persons, but included others such as peddlers and gamblers. The code provided that vagrants could be arrested and imprisoned at hard labor. But the county sheriff could “hire out” black vagrants to a white employer to work off their punishment. The courts customarily waived such punishment for white vagrants, allowing them to take an oath of poverty instead.

4. Apprenticeship

Southern Black Codes provided another source of labor for white employers—black orphans and the children of vagrants or other destitute parents. The South Carolina code authorized courts to apprentice such black children, even against their will, to an employer until age 21 for males and 18 for females. Masters had the right to inflict moderate punishment on their apprentices and to recapture runaways. But the code also required masters to provide food and clothing to their apprentices, teach them a trade, and send them to school.

5. Courts, Crimes, and Punishments

South Carolina’s Black Code established a racially separate court system for all civil and criminal cases that involved a black plaintiff or defendant. It allowed black witnesses to testify in court, but only in cases affecting “the person or property of a person of color.” Crimes that whites believed freedmen might commit, such as rebellion, arson, burglary, and assaulting a white woman, carried harsh penalties. Most of these crimes carried the death penalty for blacks, but not for whites. Punishments for minor offenses committed by blacks could result in “hiring out” or whipping, penalties rarely imposed on white lawbreakers.

6. Other Restrictions

South Carolina’s code reflected the white obsession with controlling the former slaves. It banned black people from possessing most firearms, making or selling liquor, and coming into the state without first posting a bond for “good behavior.” The code made it illegal for them to sell any farm products without written permission from their white employer, supposedly to guard against stealing. Also, blacks could not practice any occupation, except farmer or servant under contract, without getting an annual license from a judge.

In truth not much has changed. There are still structural impediments for minorities that hold the masses back from fully realizing what should be their birth right in this country after the hundreds of years of blood and sweat given to make America great. I was born in 1965 as the 1st of my family to be born with Civil Rights for Blacks as fully part of the law. Even tho my Grandfather fought in WW2 and my father in Vietnam. It wasn't until my birth that any member of my family, here since 1750 was able to say they were born with his Civil Rights.

It wasn't until my birth that any member of my family, here since 1750 was able to say they were born with his Civil Rights

Sterling's comments, and beliefs, are ignorant and outrageous. society is rightfully universally condemning them. This thread is about LJ's comments - which, to me, are divisive and seperatist.

One is not drawing equivalency between the comments, nor condoning Sterlings, but, both statements can be - and in my view, are - worthy of condemnation.