Blks were major in boosting young Americas capital, (railroads, paving away wilds, cotton etc.), blks were crucial building blocks, non-debatable.
Otherwise, via building factories, homes, northern/western enterprise (because blks were still a minority & there's no logical or logistical way a 10-13% minority built a country beat for beat, especially a country that was founded & existed before blacks entered the chat) etc.
No, Blks did not literally build America. They boosted the capital & even that wouldn't have been possible if the other 70-80% of whites in the north and west just chilled on beach and burdened the 10-13% to do literally everything: Which would then be blacks actually building the country, but that's not what happened.
So it's more accurate to say blacks' slave labor (on top of the labor of the rest of the country) accelerated the capital growth to Superpower status faster than it would've; which is more than enough of a bragging right without embellishment;
-It makes for a nice headline tho-
Other than that, agreed. Dr.Umar needs to bow from the internet & just retire, should have more than enough by now to do just that. Done enough damage, that man. He's the type that can't perform on a council because he has to be the authority, can't have a person like that in a community and expect it to function. Blacks want a leader when they need to invest in an assembly, a core assembly. Not that much different from how some African sects operate.
While some women still subscribe to the soft feminine model- alot of women in general don't want to be "soft" because soft in the minds of some women means vulnerable or dependent.
We need to accept that women have been conditioned to be harder than necessary and meet them where they are now; hold them accountable 100% (I do it all the time) but not shame them for what they've been groomed to be in the first place.
I agree that the statue was one unsubtle diss to BW, it really is the modern mammy stereotype. And notice how the guy who made the statues. the majority of the statues body language is agitated & unwelcoming, ZERO approachability or desirability.
Liberal white ppl will praise it now, but wouldn't befriend or hang out with any BW that looked that unappealing in just the body language. No one would. And in fact, women with that body language are more than likely not how they portray, like myself, some women exude that exterior as a tactical mask to ward off unwanted engagement but are totally different when they start talking with someone casually-- and yet others actually are that unpleasant.
Otherwise, redirecting back--- Fact is femininity is not soft, it's a more subtle force, & it's unifying just as masculinity is. Women are the hearts of the community regardless of race, that's a human species constant- women & children are what unifies community.
Women as vessels of life (not creators of life, unlearn that bullshit vs VESSELS, thresholds of life), are symbols of hope--- I RARELY hear that sentiment, despite it being a biological / social reality.
Conversations surrounding women in outlets from Buzzfeed to The Guardian is always so goddamn negative, men doing something wrong by women this week, this minute; always a damn fight. Women are not mascots of misery & controversy, that's modernity proving it's a damn failure.
Women as vessels of life, are symbols of hope. People need to project that narrative & perpetuate that reality more than just "soft" femininity as a binary. And the perpetuation of Women & Men in a headline equals "STRIFE".
Femininity can be soft, it's not just soft is the point. (Tl;dr)
Masculinity is foundation, evolution, it builds. Femininity unifies, it's progress, it is hope. It's supposed to be a maintaining force, than the invasive, destabilization force it's been molded to be.
Women will be less likely to be intimidated or rightfully turned off by a implication of softness, which for a lot of men just means a woman that's non-threatening. Let's just put that out there.
Many BW are protecting status quo, yes, I stand by that. Agreed.
But not all of this is white supremacy boogeyman; Asian, white, black, Indian, women are women.
We need to look at what exactly it is we're saying to describe femininity & ask ourselves is "softness" flattering in any way as the world is now? Vs what we want it to be in fantasies or how things were.
More importantly is it accurate to even describe femininity as soft vs an emotionally unifying force that drives society's social progress (for better & worse) or is it just comforting to say "soft" from the male perspective?
Because it can be soft, as in "gentle" or "graceful" but too often I hear "soft" and nothing more than that. And Feminism as it is doesn't much better descriptors either, in fact even less flattering. This "power" fetish, which is just dick envy masked as confidence.
We really need to slow down before we go pathologizing how women react to things & put yourself in their situation.
As for the specific no-named person that attacked the book, yeah they likely got turned off by the cover itself; that much Shawn is correct on.
If it was an action driven comic or more pop culturally relevant or had an animated trailer like ISOM- there'd be a wider window to reach the audience Shawn wants, because people as a whole like COOL shit.
If Isis had like a Youtube exclusive trailer that looked anime or Boondocks inspired or John Haynes trailer fighting some villain or something, or hiring someone to ANIMATE a fight from the book: That would boost retention & reach people.
The marketing of these books of Shawn's really needs to evolve as well.
The vast ratio of blks that actually read like that isn't even over 50%, well below, so the medium itself is a turn off to most blacks to begin with & yet that group is exactly who Shawn is trying to reach.
Self-defeating because formula & format and the target demographics aren't clicking. That also factors into a reaction like that persons.
He may have been writing for a minute, multiple decades worth but the marketing game has to change if he wants to compete in the current wavelength.
I get it, Shawn's dissent of Luna is both aesthetic but more so substance, fine.
And Isis in practice is more pro-black, easily a better character from how he described; so the whole core of this counter-argument is she's pro black & there's lore behind her look despite her looking more latina than an actual traditional black woman of healthy darker complexion which would be better.
*Yet technically still she's not a BW by our standards nor entirely human, so she's an outsider assimilating someone else's fight,* playing savior with good intentions essentially but she's not white so she gets to be an honorary black woman despite having no stake in the struggle, so she's an adoptee to the culture, an alien; Not a daughter of the community being a solution for the community. Which is an overtone in itself.
W_hich i personally don't have an issue with, but the factor here is consistency to the agenda which Shawn harps on often with rhetoric like insinuating people self-hate or whatnot if their creative liberties are not how he likes them to be._
The only difference between her and luna really on a basic visual level is the hair. Because the only reason why these Konkret cats spoke on Isis is reactionary to what was said about their work to begin with. They didn't initiate this.
*All this really says is that going-in on people's work not cause of merit but because of creative decisions/a character doesn't look black enough by hair (which is hypocritical because reddish hue isn't traditional either regardless of why) or dates who you want them to is just unnecessary no matter who's doing the BBQing. Case and Period.*
Because naturally, I repeat- NATURALLY people are going to hold the other accountable by the same token of criticism they receive especially if it's inflammatory & over aesthetic instead of execution, and it's only fair, that goes for any topic.
And no BW do not fear losing BM they push away or walk away from to begin with because of lack of humility & house training, which is not their fault, thats a parenting skill issue. Same goes for the brothas who do the same to the ladies.
*They don't trust BM because the dysfunctional BM they have as options were raised by dysfunctional BW, plain and simple.*
The system has it's hand in sabotaging the community no doubt, regardless it doesn't make anyone commit to bad personal life decisions.
Blaming "supremacy" is just not holding BW accountable which is why women will always be the weaklink (of any race) if they're constantly told they're victims, and when you're forever a victim, the less agency you have, the less desire you feel to go out of your way to evolve or fix anything.
That's the curse of the black community. If you are victim 24/7, then the burden of evolution is on the oppressor not you, so you never change, but when things don't get better because YOU don't change, then you also blame that on the boogeyman. A Paradox of decline and failure.
like whether or not you give a dysfunctional man an heir anyway despite every reason not to, that's not on white supremacy, that's on her, that's on them.
Gotta stop using that "white supremacy" term as a scapegoat when all people have to do is just be responsible and nut up & do better. And WANT their own community to succeed.
Because YES, light or dark the system sees a black person but more importantly better wake up and understand the system has it's biases but it doesn't about color that much, masses are the masses, if a nuke drops right now, it's not going to discriminate between whites and blacks, nuclear warheads don't care about your color bruv. I guarantee you that.
