Dr. Ron Daniels:
El Hajj Malik El Shabazz, Malcolm X, was one of the most fierce and foremost leaders in the history of Africans in America. In the era of the 60s, there is no question but that Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, two religious leaders from different faiths and political persuasions, were the towering figures of the time. King was a Christian Minister from the integrationist and radical democratic political lineage of Frederick Douglass, Ida B. Wells, Paul Robeson and W.E.B. DuBois. Malcolm was a Muslim from the Black Nationalist lineage of Martin R. Delaney, Bishop Henry McNeil Turner, Marcus Garvey, Queen Mother Moore and the Honorable Elijah Muhammad.
Though both lineages have contributed substantially to the Black Freedom Struggle, Black Nationalism is often relegated to the margins as a fringe ideology. However, it is worth noting that “Garvey and Garveyism” produced the largest mass movement among Blacks in the history of this nation. It is also noteworthy that the largest demonstration in the history of the U.S., the Million Man March in 1995, was organized by the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam. While public intellectuals like Dr. Cornel West have frequently disparaged nationalism as counter-productive, I would argue that Black Nationalism has been and remains an essential/indispensable element in the formula for the survival and development of Africans in America.
At its most basic level, nationalism is simply a call for group unity/solidarity. Nations or groups who are oppressed, disunited or in decline may recall the glories of their history and culture as a means of creating the consciousness and solidarity necessary to revive, resurrect, restore or rebuild the nation or group. Hence, Garibaldi harkened back to the glory days of ancient Rome as he sought to unite disparate ethnic groups in his quest to create an Italian nation. Garibaldi was an Italian Nationalist. Overcoming the devastating effects of the holocaust of enslavement and the British-American system of Chattel slavery required a healthy dose of Black Nationalism to begin the process of creating a new African community from the disparate African ethnic groups kidnapped and brought to America. As Malcolm put it, “we didn’t land on Plymouth Rock, Plymouth Rock landed on us.”
Malcolm also said: “of all the crimes committed by Europeans against Africans, the greatest crime was to take our names.” This is a profound insight because it addresses the devastating impact of cultural aggression on enslaved Africans. Black people from different/distinct African ethnic groups/nations were captured by Europeans, forbidden to practice our native religions, speak our languages, play African musical instruments and taught that our color was a mark of degradation and inferiority. The slave masters attempted to de-Africanize and dehumanize enslaved Africans as part of a process of pacification and control. The goal was to produce a “docile Negro” who would never unite to resist or rebel against enslavement.
Little wonder that the few Blacks who were freed from slavery searched the Bible and the pages of history to discover the legacy of their forebears prior to the holocaust of enslavement. The glory of ancient Egypt, Ethiopia and the great Sudanic Kingdoms of Ghana, Mali and Songhay gave the likes of Richard Allen, Absolom Jones, David Walker, Henry Highland Garnet, Alexander Crummell, Martin R. Delaney and countless other early community-builders the sense that Africans had a heritage/legacy that made them somebody! Armed with the inspiration of these insights, quasi-free Blacks began the awesome task of demanding the abolition of slavery and building and sustaining Black institutions as part of a new African community in the U.S. In the face of the damage done by cultural aggression, an appeal to racial pride and solidarity was essential to the community-building process.
Historically, however, there has always been a tension between those leaders/constituents who preferred to utilize racial solidarity to pursue incorporation/integration into the American body politic as equal citizens as the primary goal of the Black Freedom Struggle versus those who saw the latter option as one possibility in the quest for self-determination. Black Nationalists have always advocated racial solidarity and the maintenance of Black institutions as integral to achieving the goal of self-determination whether that translates into a solidified Black community with full rights inside America, an independent Black nation or repatriation to Africa. Skeptical that the oppressor will ever come to respect and treat the formerly oppressed as equals, Black Nationalists have generally had an oppositional posture towards the American government. Self determination has been the primary goal.
Without question Malcolm X was the most influential apostle of Black Nationalism in the latter half of the 20th century. His ideas had great impact on the architects and advocates of the Black Consciousness, Black Power and Pan Africanist movements which eclipsed the integrationist tendency within the Black Freedom struggle in the 70s and 80s. In his classic 1964 speech Ballots or Bullets, Malcolm articulates three basic tenets of Black Nationalism: “The political philosophy of black nationalism means that the black man should control the politics and politicians in his own community…. The economic philosophy of black nationalism…only means that we should control the economy of our community….The social philosophy of black nationalism only means that we have to get together and remove the evils, vices, alcoholism, drug addiction, and other evils that are destroying the moral fabric of our community.”
In Malcolm’s view the purpose of racial solidarity was to build internal capacity/power for self-development -- to enhance the social, economic and political well being of Black people. As to our relation to the government, Black people must identify and pursue their own interests and amass the power to compel America to do the right thing. Failing that, Black people were not duty bound to hold allegiance to or remain second-class citizens in a racist nation. The goal was/is “freedom by any means necessary.”
As a manifestation of Black Nationalism, the call to Black Power generated a renewed interest in reconnecting with our African roots and working for Pan Africanism, the global solidarity of African people everywhere. It was the call to Black Power that led to the formation of Black caucuses in virtually every predominantly White institution in America or the creation of parallel organizations, e.g., the Congressional Black Caucus, National Conference of Black State Legislators, African Heritage Studies Association, Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, National Association of Black Psychologists, National Association of Black Social Workers and Black caucuses within virtually every major religious denomination. Today we take these Black formations for granted without recognizing their Black Nationalist roots.
As we celebrate the Kuzaliwa/birthday of our “Black Shining Prince,” it is important to reaffirm the value of utilizing racial consciousness and solidarity to promote Black interests and aspirations. The persistent disparities between Blacks and Whites in employment, income, wealth, health, education and housing strongly suggest that we still lack sufficient control over the politics, economics and social life of our communities. Notwithstanding the election of the first Black President, structural racism is alive and well in America. Therefore, in the face of the myth of a post-racial and post-racist society, our nationalist impulse must be to maintain an oppositional posture to so called “race neutral” or “colorblind” policy prescriptions that fail to specifically address the crises afflicting Black people. Accordingly, we must unapologetically be “of the race and for the race” in militantly advocating that the full measure of freedom for Africans in America is not privileges for the few but equity and parity for the masses of Black working class and poor people. Indeed, our revolutionary nationalist impulse must be “freedom for everybody or freedom for nobody.” As we remember Malcolm, let us be clear that Black Nationalism, racial solidarity for liberation and self-determination, is still the order of the day for Africans in America!
SOURCE:
Vantage Point
Articles and Essays by Dr. Ron Daniels
Dr. Ron Daniels is President of the Institute of the Black World 21st Century and Distinguished Lecturer at York College City University of New York. He is the host of Night Talk, Wednesday evenings on WBAI 99.5 FM, Pacifica New York. His articles and essays also appear on the IBW website www.ibw21.org and www.northstarnews.com . He can be reached via email at info@ibw21.org Contact: (888) 774-2921
You need to be a member of TheBlackList Pub to add comments!
"...Black Nationalism is often relegated to the margins as a fringe ideology. However, it is worth noting that “Garvey and Garveyism” produced the largest mass movement among Blacks in the history of this nation. It is also noteworthy that the largest demonstration in the history of the U.S., the Million Man March in 1995, was organized by the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam. While public intellectuals like Dr. Cornel West have frequently disparaged nationalism as counter-productive, I would argue that Black Nationalism has been and remains an essential/indispensable element in the formula for the survival and development of Africans in America."
the question is: why and how did black nationalism get relegated to the margins and viewed as a fringe type ideology? was it the enemy that brought that about? was it black folk own doing? or was it a combination of the enemy and black folk? well, i know for a fact that the enemy feared black nationalism because it meant that black people would think just like the white man, to be lord and master over that which is or that which exists. that black folk would no longer think in terms of a slave's mentality, which would naturally alarm the slavemaster, because the slave would stop seeing himself as the slave and begin to see himself as the master of his own destiny.
now, what part did black folk, if any, play in relegating black nationalism to the back and bottom of the closet? and who exactly were the players? well, it's has been shown that there were forces from the midst of the black collective or black folk as a whole that helped the enemy derail black nationalism when it began to catch fire in the early twentieth century under the leadership of brotha marcus garvey.
and the forces that i'm referring to are the same forces that molded itself into the entity that was at the fore of the civil rights ideology during the sixties. it was when the likes of w.e.b. dubois, alan locke and a. philip randolph took to the task of antagonizing marcus garvey and then communicating to the government of the united snakes of amerikkka about the doings of that brotha that brought about his demise.
so, it was a combination of the enemy's fear of a black man that thought just like the white man, who produced a white rockefeller and a white rothschild, and a handful of traitorous negroes, who were simply envious of garvey's charisma, that inaugurated what has led to the placing of black nationalism on an ideological fringe, which we might as well refer to alien mind-jibing, since it is has been successfully kept from the collective thinking of the black masses.
and cornel west is just continuing what dubois and the rest of the negro sellout crew fomented, because west and dubois and'em were and simply are in the business of helping the enemy maintain his control over the black masses or keeping them in the mental state of a slave subservient to his lord and master. and i dare not forget to remark that ole ron himself, though appearing to be a proponent of black nationalism by the flavor of this topic, ain't really no different than west and the other neo-negro agents, who have turned tricks for a few trinkets of luxury.
what ole ron has learned how to do or has mastered is the art of double talk, where he prods the black collective into internalizing kingism, while, at the same time, don intellectual apparel which would make him seem like he's opposed to negroism, which would give off the perception that he's about black nationalism to the unsuspecting of us, who don't really understand how the enemy operates behind a black face.
for instance, he has what's called the state of the black world, while the negro tavis smiley coordinates the state of the black union. just a glance at the titles of the two cliques should make us see that they ain't no different from each other. that they're both about the same thing: keeping black people checked at the gate, as long as both of them can live next door to donald trump. but, ole ron would appear to be blacker than tavis, since he mentions black nationalism, while tavis holds firm to kingism to appease his white corporate sponsors, such as the rockefellers who, back in the day, would have been in cahoots with the kennedy and johnson administrations.
the last quesion should be what is black? is it the black that would somehow fit inside the white scheme of things, if only the enemy would loosen the noose around our necks some, where we'd be alright? or is it the black that ole ron appears to speaks of in the expression black nationalism? the whole problem ain't the lack of unification. it also has something to do with what would be uniting for. check!
the whole problem ain't the lack of unification. it also has something to do with what would be uniting for.
Mr. Turner/Hendrix, I will stop calling him Mister when he accepts what Imam Malik really taught us. And, this is probably one of the Imam's greatest contribution to African thought and African political ideiology and strategy. What I am talking about is what the so-called "black nationalists" never like to mention about Imam Malik. They are always talking about "black nationalism". But, they never, repeat NEVER, mention the Principles of the African United Front. So, I know they do not really believe in what the Imam taught.
Imam Malik said that it is uncouth and uncivilized to air our differences in front of the enemy. When the enemy sees us atacking each other, it gives him ideas oin how best to divide and conquer us. So, we help the enemy most of all by calling each other the n-word, for example. When the enemy sees us call each other the n-wrod, he thinks that the n-word is not so bad afterall. It is in this way that the n-word looses it shock value and the enemy starts to think of us not as dignified Africans; but, as n-words and worse.
When we criticize "ole ron", we give the enemy ideas on how to undermine not just "ole Ron" but also ole Nat and ole Abudrrahman as well. Most of what the enemy does to us originates among us. We create new ways to oppress us. All the enemy has to do is watch us and copy what we do to each other.
Thus, Imam Malik taught us to avoid these un-principled attacks on each other, especially in front of the enemy. This is the First Principle of the African United Front. What amazes me is how ole Nat, I mean Mr. Turner, and "ole ron" do not seem to be aware of the fact that Imam Malik is the founding father of the African United Front. Yet, they claim to be students of the Imam.
I am an Nkrumahist-Toureist. This means that I accept the Principles of the African United Front. This means that I stand ready to find common cause and join with "ole Ron" and Mister Turner to advance the cause of the Unification and Development of Africa and Arabia. I do not particularly care what project they propose as long as it serves African Unification and Development. Let them name the project and define its scope and whatever. I will support it and join it.
In addition, I hereby renew my call to join me in the various projects that I am working hard to implement. This is what African nationalism is about. But, African nationalsim is NOT "black nationalism". And, it NOT n-word nationalism.
Let me dumb this down a little: what we are Uniting for is the Development of the African Nation. In economic theory, it is a matter of economy of scale: it is more efficient and less costly to pool our reources into a single entity in order to implement various projects. Take the All-African People's Revolutionary Army for instance. We need to defend Africa and Liberate Palestine. 52 and more armies cannot do it separately alone. In Somalia, the big powers just come in and fish out all of the seafood and then dump poison in the waters. If Somalis try to defend their coast, the big powers send in their navies. What we need to do is put all of Africa's military power under one command. This way, if the big powers trespass on Somalia, we can send one army to defend Somalia. If the israelis attack Gaza, we can send one army to defend Gaza. This is Black Power. This is what we are Uniting for.
That is about as dumb as I can dumb it down. So, I hope Mr. Turner understands what Unification is all about at long last. If not, just say so, and I will try to dumb it down some more.
yeah they were both from a different planet. in fact, malcolm was so cognizant that he and king were different in terms of mentality, that he referred to them as the negro revolution and the black revolution, both running round the black colonies of the united snakes vying with each other for control of the power potential of afrikans-n-amerikkka. he had said that king and the rest of his ilk or non-violent civil rights brethren were in the business of appeasing the enemy, the same enemy that was licking the black man and his family everyday on the plantation of the various forms of post-physical slavery.
in other words, king, along with wilkins, rustin, jackson, randolph, young and abernathy (and any other of the political whores whom i forgot to mention) were simply in the business of only improving the slave's condition and not crushing or bringing down to its knees the system of slavery itself. they were gate-keepers at best, making sure that the niggas don't get beside themselves and exact five hundred years of retribution upon an unruly and savage white supremacist system that was only democratic for white folk.
and what was the reward? a chance at being allowed access to material luxury, indulging and drowing themselves in good living, while the rest of us only dreamed about the lifestyles of the rich and famous. all the while they had cut a deal with the same people whom they were telling us was holding us back, in exchange for the raising up of a black middle class upon the amerikkkan scene to give the false percepion that black folk had finally arrived on the world stage.
and what was then has not disappeared from the black collective mindset, because of negroes like smiley, dyson, west, gates, sharpton and the neo-negroes like lamont hill. and of course, ole ron, whom i might add is just as clever as the rest of them, portraying himself as a down-ass black leader, but is no less into kingism and the pacification of black folk than the rest.
such negroes can be summed up as rockefeller men, agents of the state, controlled by the rockefeller branch of the royal institute of international affairs in service of the british crown. and all one has to do is check each of their backgounds and he or she would find the truth of the matter. they'e either connected to the rockefeller interest directly or indirectly, which is tantamount to treason in the world of black folk in the united snakes of amerikkka. and malcolm had them pegged from the beginning, except that hardly any of us was really paying attention when he referred to them no-good bastards as the big six.
then, it is no wonder that any of the afforementioned proponents of the negro revolution never spoke nor speak today a word about the black revolution or revolutionary principles when they were or have been invited to speak to large crowds of still-enslaved afrikans-n-amerikkka. those today make it their business to never stray beyond king and his i have a dream speech, for fear of white reprisal or the revoking of their privileges to live above the rest of us, as members of a black middle class. but, they know that it is sometimes alright to appear as radical or even militant, because that makes for good appeal and good standing among an unsuspecting black collective that is unable to discern the real from the fake among us.
and how ironic that ole ron makes the comment that the black nationalist concept has been put onto the fringe, when it was his kind that helped the enemy put it there. for, when marcus garvey had made inroads to build a black nation, one that called for self-determination, independent of what the white man had to say, it was w.e.b. dubois, of whom i'd be willing to bet is one of ole ron's heroes, who led the way in helping the enemy take brotha garvey down. and so black nationalism has been struggling to rear its beautiful black head again, amidst a sea of negro leaders, who are just as dangerous and the enemy before us.
mark these words: before there could ever be real genuine liberation for the black collective in the united snakes of amerikkka, the negro revolution has to be defeated, just as white supremacy, in which it works for.
uhuru!
slavery.in - This website is for sale! - slavery Resources and Information.
This website is for sale! slavery.in is your first and best source for all of the information you’re looking for. From general topics to more of what…
https://theblacklist.net/
Replies
"...Black Nationalism is often relegated to the margins as a fringe ideology. However, it is worth noting that “Garvey and Garveyism” produced the largest mass movement among Blacks in the history of this nation. It is also noteworthy that the largest demonstration in the history of the U.S., the Million Man March in 1995, was organized by the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam. While public intellectuals like Dr. Cornel West have frequently disparaged nationalism as counter-productive, I would argue that Black Nationalism has been and remains an essential/indispensable element in the formula for the survival and development of Africans in America."
the question is: why and how did black nationalism get relegated to the margins and viewed as a fringe type ideology? was it the enemy that brought that about? was it black folk own doing? or was it a combination of the enemy and black folk? well, i know for a fact that the enemy feared black nationalism because it meant that black people would think just like the white man, to be lord and master over that which is or that which exists. that black folk would no longer think in terms of a slave's mentality, which would naturally alarm the slavemaster, because the slave would stop seeing himself as the slave and begin to see himself as the master of his own destiny.
now, what part did black folk, if any, play in relegating black nationalism to the back and bottom of the closet? and who exactly were the players? well, it's has been shown that there were forces from the midst of the black collective or black folk as a whole that helped the enemy derail black nationalism when it began to catch fire in the early twentieth century under the leadership of brotha marcus garvey.
and the forces that i'm referring to are the same forces that molded itself into the entity that was at the fore of the civil rights ideology during the sixties. it was when the likes of w.e.b. dubois, alan locke and a. philip randolph took to the task of antagonizing marcus garvey and then communicating to the government of the united snakes of amerikkka about the doings of that brotha that brought about his demise.
so, it was a combination of the enemy's fear of a black man that thought just like the white man, who produced a white rockefeller and a white rothschild, and a handful of traitorous negroes, who were simply envious of garvey's charisma, that inaugurated what has led to the placing of black nationalism on an ideological fringe, which we might as well refer to alien mind-jibing, since it is has been successfully kept from the collective thinking of the black masses.
and cornel west is just continuing what dubois and the rest of the negro sellout crew fomented, because west and dubois and'em were and simply are in the business of helping the enemy maintain his control over the black masses or keeping them in the mental state of a slave subservient to his lord and master. and i dare not forget to remark that ole ron himself, though appearing to be a proponent of black nationalism by the flavor of this topic, ain't really no different than west and the other neo-negro agents, who have turned tricks for a few trinkets of luxury.
what ole ron has learned how to do or has mastered is the art of double talk, where he prods the black collective into internalizing kingism, while, at the same time, don intellectual apparel which would make him seem like he's opposed to negroism, which would give off the perception that he's about black nationalism to the unsuspecting of us, who don't really understand how the enemy operates behind a black face.
for instance, he has what's called the state of the black world, while the negro tavis smiley coordinates the state of the black union. just a glance at the titles of the two cliques should make us see that they ain't no different from each other. that they're both about the same thing: keeping black people checked at the gate, as long as both of them can live next door to donald trump. but, ole ron would appear to be blacker than tavis, since he mentions black nationalism, while tavis holds firm to kingism to appease his white corporate sponsors, such as the rockefellers who, back in the day, would have been in cahoots with the kennedy and johnson administrations.
the last quesion should be what is black? is it the black that would somehow fit inside the white scheme of things, if only the enemy would loosen the noose around our necks some, where we'd be alright? or is it the black that ole ron appears to speaks of in the expression black nationalism? the whole problem ain't the lack of unification. it also has something to do with what would be uniting for. check!
uhuru!
Mr. Turner/Hendrix, I will stop calling him Mister when he accepts what Imam Malik really taught us. And, this is probably one of the Imam's greatest contribution to African thought and African political ideiology and strategy. What I am talking about is what the so-called "black nationalists" never like to mention about Imam Malik. They are always talking about "black nationalism". But, they never, repeat NEVER, mention the Principles of the African United Front. So, I know they do not really believe in what the Imam taught.
Imam Malik said that it is uncouth and uncivilized to air our differences in front of the enemy. When the enemy sees us atacking each other, it gives him ideas oin how best to divide and conquer us. So, we help the enemy most of all by calling each other the n-word, for example. When the enemy sees us call each other the n-wrod, he thinks that the n-word is not so bad afterall. It is in this way that the n-word looses it shock value and the enemy starts to think of us not as dignified Africans; but, as n-words and worse.
When we criticize "ole ron", we give the enemy ideas on how to undermine not just "ole Ron" but also ole Nat and ole Abudrrahman as well. Most of what the enemy does to us originates among us. We create new ways to oppress us. All the enemy has to do is watch us and copy what we do to each other.
Thus, Imam Malik taught us to avoid these un-principled attacks on each other, especially in front of the enemy. This is the First Principle of the African United Front. What amazes me is how ole Nat, I mean Mr. Turner, and "ole ron" do not seem to be aware of the fact that Imam Malik is the founding father of the African United Front. Yet, they claim to be students of the Imam.
I am an Nkrumahist-Toureist. This means that I accept the Principles of the African United Front. This means that I stand ready to find common cause and join with "ole Ron" and Mister Turner to advance the cause of the Unification and Development of Africa and Arabia. I do not particularly care what project they propose as long as it serves African Unification and Development. Let them name the project and define its scope and whatever. I will support it and join it.
In addition, I hereby renew my call to join me in the various projects that I am working hard to implement. This is what African nationalism is about. But, African nationalsim is NOT "black nationalism". And, it NOT n-word nationalism.
Let me dumb this down a little: what we are Uniting for is the Development of the African Nation. In economic theory, it is a matter of economy of scale: it is more efficient and less costly to pool our reources into a single entity in order to implement various projects. Take the All-African People's Revolutionary Army for instance. We need to defend Africa and Liberate Palestine. 52 and more armies cannot do it separately alone. In Somalia, the big powers just come in and fish out all of the seafood and then dump poison in the waters. If Somalis try to defend their coast, the big powers send in their navies. What we need to do is put all of Africa's military power under one command. This way, if the big powers trespass on Somalia, we can send one army to defend Somalia. If the israelis attack Gaza, we can send one army to defend Gaza. This is Black Power. This is what we are Uniting for.
That is about as dumb as I can dumb it down. So, I hope Mr. Turner understands what Unification is all about at long last. If not, just say so, and I will try to dumb it down some more.
yeah they were both from a different planet. in fact, malcolm was so cognizant that he and king were different in terms of mentality, that he referred to them as the negro revolution and the black revolution, both running round the black colonies of the united snakes vying with each other for control of the power potential of afrikans-n-amerikkka. he had said that king and the rest of his ilk or non-violent civil rights brethren were in the business of appeasing the enemy, the same enemy that was licking the black man and his family everyday on the plantation of the various forms of post-physical slavery.
in other words, king, along with wilkins, rustin, jackson, randolph, young and abernathy (and any other of the political whores whom i forgot to mention) were simply in the business of only improving the slave's condition and not crushing or bringing down to its knees the system of slavery itself. they were gate-keepers at best, making sure that the niggas don't get beside themselves and exact five hundred years of retribution upon an unruly and savage white supremacist system that was only democratic for white folk.
and what was the reward? a chance at being allowed access to material luxury, indulging and drowing themselves in good living, while the rest of us only dreamed about the lifestyles of the rich and famous. all the while they had cut a deal with the same people whom they were telling us was holding us back, in exchange for the raising up of a black middle class upon the amerikkkan scene to give the false percepion that black folk had finally arrived on the world stage.
and what was then has not disappeared from the black collective mindset, because of negroes like smiley, dyson, west, gates, sharpton and the neo-negroes like lamont hill. and of course, ole ron, whom i might add is just as clever as the rest of them, portraying himself as a down-ass black leader, but is no less into kingism and the pacification of black folk than the rest.
such negroes can be summed up as rockefeller men, agents of the state, controlled by the rockefeller branch of the royal institute of international affairs in service of the british crown. and all one has to do is check each of their backgounds and he or she would find the truth of the matter. they'e either connected to the rockefeller interest directly or indirectly, which is tantamount to treason in the world of black folk in the united snakes of amerikkka. and malcolm had them pegged from the beginning, except that hardly any of us was really paying attention when he referred to them no-good bastards as the big six.
then, it is no wonder that any of the afforementioned proponents of the negro revolution never spoke nor speak today a word about the black revolution or revolutionary principles when they were or have been invited to speak to large crowds of still-enslaved afrikans-n-amerikkka. those today make it their business to never stray beyond king and his i have a dream speech, for fear of white reprisal or the revoking of their privileges to live above the rest of us, as members of a black middle class. but, they know that it is sometimes alright to appear as radical or even militant, because that makes for good appeal and good standing among an unsuspecting black collective that is unable to discern the real from the fake among us.
and how ironic that ole ron makes the comment that the black nationalist concept has been put onto the fringe, when it was his kind that helped the enemy put it there. for, when marcus garvey had made inroads to build a black nation, one that called for self-determination, independent of what the white man had to say, it was w.e.b. dubois, of whom i'd be willing to bet is one of ole ron's heroes, who led the way in helping the enemy take brotha garvey down. and so black nationalism has been struggling to rear its beautiful black head again, amidst a sea of negro leaders, who are just as dangerous and the enemy before us.
mark these words: before there could ever be real genuine liberation for the black collective in the united snakes of amerikkka, the negro revolution has to be defeated, just as white supremacy, in which it works for.
uhuru!