Alberta and Alfred King, Taking MLK's Consciousness Further

December 10, 2013



Over the years, the study of Dr. Martin Luther King’s life has been very influential as to how I view the world in which I live. I will not bore you with the general history of what people are usually taught about Dr. King and his struggle for human and civil rights, but I would like to reveal some very important information that will forever change how you look at the world in which we live. In my quest for seeking truth, and consciousness, I came across some information that further enlightened me to the matrix society in which we currently live.

What do you know about Dr. Martin Luther King’s mother (Alberta Williams King), his brother (Alfred Daniel Williams King), and the strange circumstances surrounding their deaths?
I will not proceed to share his information with you. I would like for you to form your own ideas and views on this, so I challenge you to research this information on your own.

I’m pretty sure most of you have no knowledge of this information, but I want to explain to you why and how it is important. So there is a statue in the nation’s capital, and a national holiday named after Dr. King. Now how many people have a holiday named after them in America? It’s time to put on your thinking cap. Once you have researched the death of his mother and brother, try to comprehend why this information was never taught to you, or has never been discussed in modern educational circles and forums. Isn't Dr. King supposed to be an important figure in American history to many, regardless of if he is championed by them, or not? How could intellectual and educated minds neglect to examine the strange circumstances surrounding the deaths of his mother and brother?

Obviously, I was able to research this information, so it is available to the general public. So why did I have to dig so deep to find this information? Not to mention, there was limited information to examine. It recently occurred to me that only conscious minds will seek this knowledge, even after it is introduced to them.

My question to the critical thinker is this, why are the strange circumstances surrounding the deaths of Dr. Martin Luther King’s mother (Alberta Williams King), and his brother (Alfred Daniel Williams King), not discussed, and examined openly, within the educational system in America? Why has this information been kept away from the masses?

Please share your views and thoughts with me on this subject matter.

If you enjoyed this article, make sure to also check out some of my other literary works.

 

Dr. Martin Luther Kings Speech, Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence

December 10, 2013



Many of you are familiar with Dr. Kings Speech "I have A Dream." As a person who likes to think critically, I often find my
self researching and looking for information to evaluate and o learn from. Inspired by the "I have A Dream" speech, I became interested in what else he had said in his other speeches, so I began my quest to find and listen to as many of his old speeches as possible. During my research, I came across a speech that was delivered years after the "I have A Dream Speech". This Speech was where King Had evolved over the years. The speech is titled, "Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence." It was a declaration of independence from the war in Vietnam. This speech was delivered by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr in April of 1967 at Manhattan's Riverside Church. After listening to this speech, I was also able to read the words of the speech. After putting things into perspective, it was clear he was not happy with the American Government and some of the policies that were currently in place. He was not afraid to point out what he considered to be, some of the wrong doings of his own country, which was probably like the Jeremiah Wright controversy of those days. For those not familiar with the Jeremiah Wright controversy, below is an insert from Wikipedia on the issue.

Wright spoke of the United States taking land from the Indian tribes by what he labeled as terror, bombing Grenada, Panama, Libya, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, and argued that the United States supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and South Africa. He said that his parishioners' response should be to examine their relationship with God, not go "from the hatred of armed enemies to the hatred of unarmed innocents." His comment (quoting Malcolm X) that "America's chickens are coming home to roost" was widely interpreted as meaning that America had brought the September 11, 2001 attacks upon itself. ABC News broadcast clips from the sermon in which Wright said: "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye... and now we are indignant, because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost." {Read the entire Wikipedia outlook here}

Below is the entire "Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence" speech by Martin Luther King. This was originally published on Thursday, January 15, 2004 by CommonDreams.org. Also attached to this article is a video with the actual audio of the original speech.

Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burning of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam, many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns this query has often loomed large and loud: Why are you speaking about the war, Dr. King? Why are you joining the voices of dissent? Peace and civil rights don't mix, they say. Aren't you hurting the cause of your people, they ask. And when I hear them, though I often understand the source of their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have not really known me, my commitment or my calling. Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live.

In the light of such tragic misunderstanding, I deem it of signal importance to try to state clearly why I believe that the path from Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, the church in Montgomery, Alabama, where I began my pastorage, leads clearly to this sanctuary tonight.

I come to this platform to make a passionate plea to my beloved nation. This speech is not addressed to Hanoi or to the National Liberation Front. It is not addressed to China or to Russia.

Nor is it an attempt to overlook the ambiguity of the total situation and the need for a collective solution to the tragedy of Vietnam. Neither is it an attempt to make North Vietnam or the National Liberation Front paragons of virtue, nor to overlook the role they can play in a successful resolution of the problem. While they both may have justifiable reasons to be suspicious of the good faith of the United States, life and history give eloquent testimony to the fact that conflicts are never resolved without trustful give and take on both sides.

Tonight, however, I wish not to speak with Hanoi and the NLF, but rather to my fellow Americans who, with me, bear the greatest responsibility in ending a conflict that has exacted a heavy price on both continents.

Since I am a preacher by trade, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle, and others, have been waging in AmericaA few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor - both black and white - through the Poverty Program. Then came the build-up in Vietnam, and I watched the program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political play thing of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic, destructive suction tubeSo I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.

Perhaps the more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the young black men who had been crippled by our society and sending them 8000 miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in Southwest Georgia and East HarlemSo we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. So we watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would never live on the same block in Detroit. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.

My third reason grows out of my experience in the ghettos of the North over the last three years - especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through non-violent action. But, they asked, what about Vietnam? They asked if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today, my own government.

For those who ask the question, "Aren't you a Civil Rights leader?" and thereby mean to exclude me from the movement for peace, I have this further answer. In 1957 when a group of us formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, we chose as our motto: "To save the soul of America." We were convinced that we could not limit our vision to certain rights for black people, but instead affirmed the conviction that America would never be free or saved from itself unless the descendants of its slaves were loosed from the shackles they still wear.

Now, it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read "Vietnam." It can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over.

As if the weight of such a commitment to the life and health of America were not enough, another burden of responsibility was placed upon me in 1964; and I cannot forget that the Nobel Prize for Peace was also a commission, a commission to work harder than I had ever worked before for the "brotherhood of man." This is a calling that takes me beyond national allegiances, but even if it were not present I would yet have to live with the meaning of my commitment to the ministry of Jesus Christ. To me the relationship of this ministry to the making of peace is so obvious that I sometimes marvel at those who ask me why I am speaking against the war. Could it be that they do not know that the good news was meant or all men, for communist and capitalist, for their children and ours, for black and white, for revolutionary and conservative? Have they forgotten that my ministry is in obedience to the One who loved His enemies so fully that He died for hem? What then can I say to the Viet Cong or to Castro or to Mao as a faithful minister of this One? Can I threaten them with death, or must I not share with hem my life?

And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam, my mind goes constantly to the people of that peninsula. I speak now not of the soldiers of each side, not of the junta in Saigon, but simply of the people who have been living under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades. I think of them, too, because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution there until some attempt is made to know them and their broken cries.

They must see Americans as strange liberators. The Vietnamese proclaimed their own independence in 1945 after a combined French and Japanese occupation and before the communist revolution in China. Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France in its re-conquest of her former colony.

Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were not "ready" for independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long. With that tragic decision, we rejected a revolutionary government seeking self-determination, and a government that had been established not by China (for whom the Vietnamese have no great love) but by clearly indigenous forces that included some communists. For the peasants, this new government meant real land reform, one of the most important needs in their lives.

For nine years following 1945 we denied the people of Vietnam the right of independence. For nine years we vigorously supported the French in their abortive effort to re-colonize Vietnam.

Before the end of the war we were meeting 80 per cent of the French war costs. Even before the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu, they began to despair of their reckless action, but we did not. We encouraged them with our huge financial and military supplies to continue the war even after they had lost the will to do so.

After the French were defeated it looked as if independence and land reform would come again through the Geneva agreements. But instead there came the United States, determined that Ho should not unify the temporarily divided nation, and the peasants watched again as we supported one of the most vicious modern dictators, our chosen man, Premier Diem. The peasants watched and cringed as Diem ruthlessly routed out all opposition, supported their extortionist landlords and refused even to discuss reunification with the North. The peasants watched as all this was presided over by U.S. influence and then by increasing numbers of U.S. troops who came to help quell the insurgency that Diem's methods had aroused. When Diem was overthrown they may have been happy, but the long line of military dictatorships seemed to offer no real change, especially in terms of their need for land and peace.

The only change came from America as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept and without popular support. All the while, the people read our leaflets and received regular promises of peace and democracy, and land reform. Nowthey languish under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow Vietnamese, the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps where minimal social needs are rarely met. They know they must move or be destroyed by our bombs. So they go.

They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers destroy their precious trees. They wander into the hospitals, with at least 20 casualties from American firepower for each Viet Cong-inflicted injury. So far we may have killed a million of them, mostly children.

What do the peasants think as we ally ourselves with the landlords and as we refuse to put any action into our many words concerning land reform? What do they think as we test out our latest weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe? Where are the roots of the independent Vietnam we claim to be building?

Now there is little left to build on, save bitterness. Soon the only solid physical foundations remaining will be found at our military bases and in the concrete of the concentration camps we call "fortified hamlets." The peasants may well wonder if we plan to build our new Vietnam on such grounds as these. Could we blame them for such thoughts'? We must speak for them and raise the questions they cannot raise. These too are our brothers.

Perhaps the more difficult but no less necessary task is to speak for those who have been designated as our enemies. What of the NLF, that strangely anonymous group we call VC or communists? What must they think of us in America when they realize that we permitted the repression and cruelty of Diem which helped to bring them into being as a resistance group in the South? How can they believe in our integrity when now we speak of "aggression from the North" as if there were nothing more essential to the war? How can they trust us when now we charge them with violence after the murderous reign of Diem, and charge them with violence while we pour new weapons of death into their land?

How do they judge us when our officials know that their membership is less than 25 per cent communist and yet insist on giving them the blanket name? What must they be thinking when they know that we are aware of their control of major sections of Vietnam and yet we appear ready to allow national elections in which this highly organized political parallel government will have no part? They ask how we can speak of free elections when the Saigon press is censored and controlled by the military junta. And they are surely right to wonder what kind of new government we plan to help form without them, the only party in real touch with the peasants.They question our political goals and they deny the reality of a peace settlement from which they will be excluded. Their questions are frighteningly relevant.

Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and non-violence, when it helps us to see the enemy's point of view, to hear his questions, to know of his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition.

So, too, with Hanoi. In the North, where our bombs now pummel the land, and our mines endanger the waterways, we are met by a deep but understandable mistrust. In Hanoi are the men who led the nation to independence against the Japanese and the French, the men who sought membership in the French commonwealth and were betrayed by the weakness of Paris and the willfulness of the colonial armies. It was they who led a second struggle against French domination at tremendous costs, and then were persuaded at Geneva to give up, as a temporary measure, the land they controlled between the 13th and 17th parallels. After 1954 they watched us conspire with Diem to prevent elections which would have surely brought Ho Chi Minh to power over a united Vietnam, and they realized they had been betrayed again.

When we ask why they do not leap to negotiate, these things must be remembered. Also, it must be clear that the leaders of Hanoi considered the presence of American troops in support of the Diem regime to have been the initial military breach of the Geneva Agreements concerning foreign troops, and they remind us that they did not begin to send in any large number of supplies or men until American forces had moved into the tens of thousands.

Hanoi remembers how our leaders refused to tell us the truth about the earlier North Vietnamese overtures for peace, how the President claimed that none existed when they had clearly been made. Ho Chi Minh has watched as America has spoken of peace and built up its forces, and now he has surely heard the increasing international rumors of American plans for an invasion of the North. Perhaps only his sense of humor and irony can save him when he hears the most powerful nation of the world speaking of aggression as it drops thousands of bombs on a poor, weak nation more than 8000 miles from its shores.

At this point, I should make it clear that while I have tried here to give a voice to the voiceless of Vietnam and to understand the arguments of those who are called enemy, I am as deeply concerned about our own troops there as anything else. For it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each other and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for our troops must know after a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy and the secure while we create a hell for the poor.

Somehow this madness must cease. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam and the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop must be ours.

This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of Vietnam. Recently, one of them wrote these words: "Each day the war goes on the hatred increases in the hearts of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism."

If we continue, there will be no doubt in my mind and in the mind of the world that we have no honorable intentions in Vietnam. It' will become clear that our minimal expectation is to occupy it as an American colony, and men will not refrain from thinking that our maximum hope is to goad China into a war so that we may bomb her nuclear installations.

The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit that we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam, that we have been detrimental to the life of her people.

In order to atone for our sins and errors in Vietnam, we should take the initiative in bringing the war to a halt. I would like to suggest five concrete things that our government should do immediately to begin the long and difficult process of extricating ourselves from this nightmare:

1. End all bombing in North and South Vietnam.

2. Declare a unilateral cease-fire in the hope that such action will create the atmosphere for negotiation.

3. Take immediate steps to prevent other battlegrounds in Southeast Asia by curtailing our military build-up in Thailand and our interference in Laos.

4. Realistically accept the fact that the National Liberation Front has substantial support in South Vietnam and must thereby play a role in any meaningful negotiations and in any future Vietnam government.

5. Set a date on which we will remove all foreign troops from Vietnam in accordance with the 1954 Geneva Agreement.

Part of our ongoing commitment might well express itself in an offer to grant asylum to any Vietnamese who fears for his life under a new regime which included the NLF. Then we must make what reparations we can for the damage we have done. We must provide the medical aid that is badly needed, in this country if necessary.

Meanwhile, we in the churches and synagogues have a continuing task while we urge our government to disengage itself from a disgraceful commitment. We must be prepared to match actions with words by seeking out every creative means of protest possible.

As we counsel young men concerning military service we must clarify for them our nation's role in Vietnam and challenge them with the alternative of conscientious objection. I am pleased to say that this is the path now being chosen by more than 70 students at my own Alma Mater, Morehouse College, and I recommend it to all who find the American course in Vietnam a dishonorable and unjust one. Moreover, I would encourage all ministers of draft age to give up their ministerial exemptions and seek status as conscientious objectors. Every man of humane convictions must decide on the protest that best suits his convictions, but we must all protest.

There is something seductively tempting about stopping there and sending us all off on what in some circles has become a popular crusade against the war in Vietnam. I say we must enter that struggle, but I wish to go on now to say something even more disturbing. The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality we will find ourselves organizing clergy, and laymen-concerned committees for the next generation. We will be marching and attending rallies without end unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy.

In 1957 a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution. During the past ten years we have seen emerge a pattern of suppression which now has justified the presence of U.S. military "advisors" in Venezuela. The need to maintain social stability for our investments accounts for the counterrevolutionary action of American forces in Guatemala. It tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Colombia and why American napalm and green beret forces have already been active against rebels in Peru. With such activity in mind, the words of John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investment.

I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. When machines and computers, profit and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. A true revolution of values will soon look easily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say: This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America and say: " This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just. A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war: "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing, except a tragic death wish, to prevent us from re-ordering our priorities, so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood.

This kind of positive revolution of values is our best defense against communism. War is not the answer. Communism will never be defeated by the use of atomic bombs or nuclear weapons. Let us not join those who shout war and through their misguided passions urge the United States to relinquish its participation in the United Nations. These are the days which demand wise restraint and calm reasonableness. We must not call everyone a communist or an appeaser who advocates the seating of Red China in the United Nations and who recognizes that hate and hysteria are not the final answers to the problem of these turbulent days. We must not engage in a negative anti-communism, but rather in a positive thrust for democracy, realizing that our greatest defense against communism is to take: offensive action in behalf of justice. We must with positive action seek to remove those conditions of poverty, insecurity and injustice which are the fertile soil in which the seed of communism grows and develops.

These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression, and out of the wombs of a frail world, new systems of justice and equality are being born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. "The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light." We in the West must support these revolutions. It is a sad fact that, because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, and our proneness to ad just to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch anti-revolutionaries. This has driven many to feel that only Marxism has the revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgment against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated. Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism.

We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing world, a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.

Now let us begin. Now let us re-dedicate ourselves to the long and bitter, but beautiful, struggle for a new world. This is the calling of the sons of God, and our brothers wait eagerly for our response. Shall we say the odds are too great? Shall we tell them the struggle is too hard? Will our message be that the forces of American life militate against their arrival as full men, and we send our deepest regrets? Or will there be another message, of longing, of hope, of solidarity with their yearnings, of commitment to their cause, whatever the cost? The choice is ours, and though we might prefer it otherwise we must choose in this crucial moment of human history.

 

1up Black History of Freedom Fighters, Part I

February 21, 2013

As a freedom fighter who promotes the importance of social entrepreneurship and critical thinking, it has come to my attention that many young black men and women living in America are limited in their knowledge of the struggles of their forefathers, whom fought, and put their lives on the line, for freedom and liberation.  I am inspired to write a literary work, which provides information about organizations and individuals often overlooked, despite their struggles and contribution towards the fight for liberation and freedom for blacks living in America.  As a child, I remember being lectured to about America’s revolutionary war and about the great men who were brave enough to stand up to England.  I was told that men like George Washington and many ordinary colonialists took a stand against their oppressors, and were willing to put their lives on the line for freedom, equality and liberty.  I was told that the American flag was something to be proud of.

There’s only one problem, I’m a black man living in America, so that history does not resonate to my full understanding of the term “freedom”.  Indeed, the American revolution was very real, and many heroic figures, and a wealthy and very powerful nation proceeded from that moment, but the information that was lectured to me seemed to be limited in it’s spectrum of Americas history, mainly due to the lack of information expanding on blacks personal struggles, contribution, and our attempt at revolution for our freedom and liberty in the nation known as, “The United States of America.”  Every year come February, the ritual is to show a video of Rev. Martin Luther Kings Jr. “I have a dream ‘ speech, and then debate about the importance or the need of black history month.  Am I right?  Instead of focusing on the oppression that blacks have experienced in America, I would like to introduce a few new individuals whom I label as freedom fighters, and I would also like to elaborate on some of the many important organizations, which were vital and effective in the fight for black liberation in America.  

Prince Hall (1735-1807) was one of the early blacks speaking on behalf of black equality, and promoting a “back to Africa movement,” way before Marcus Garvey.  He’s the founder of the African Lodge of the Honorable Society of Free and Accepted Masons of Boston, which is the world's first lodge of black Freemasonry.  Despite his efforts in America, Hall also gave recognition to the black revolutionaries in the Haitian Revolution.

Nathaniel “Nat” Turner (1800 – 1831) led a slave rebellion in Virginia in 1831 that resulted in over 100 blacks, and at least 60 white deaths.  Turner was put to death, and the blacks that were accused of being part of Turner's slave rebellion were put to death as well. History also has it that two hundred blacks were also beaten and killed by whites, in response to the rebellion.  When people talk of revolution, the saying is, “one most be able to put their life on the line to fight for freedom, just as the colonialist and some of the forefathers of America had done”, so many have embraced the bravery of Turners and celebrate his attempt for freedom and liberation.   Of course there are others who look at him as a controversial or disturbing figure.

Martin Robison Delany (1812–1885) is known as the father of “American Black Nationalism.”  He was also a journalist (Worked with Frederick Douglass on the North Star), abolitionist, physician, and writer.  After being one of the first blacks admitted to Harvard Medical School, he became the first African-American field officer in the United States Army during the American Civil War.  In 1859 Delany visited Liberia (West Africa), to negotiate the possibility of a new black nation in the area. History has it that an agreement was signed with eight chiefs in the Abeokuta region that would permit black American settlers to live on unused land. The same quest Marcus Garvey would later pursue.  Unfortunately, the treaty was eventually disregarded due to warfare in the region.  It was obviously opposed by many white missionaries and the American Civil War was also a major set back.  One of his well-known works is “The Condition, Elevation, Emigration, and Destiny of the Colored People of the United States

Henry Highland Garnet (1815-1852) is the founder of the “African Civilization Society”, promoted the idea of the, go back to Africa movement, with the idea of starting a western colony in the country now known as, Nigeria.  He was one of the first to advocate for black colonies in the America.  History has it that he was also outspoken about the emigration of blacks to Liberia (West Africa), Mexico, and the West Indies. While being one of the first aggressive voices pushing an anti slavery agenda, he presented the literary work in the link below called, “The Past and the Present Condition, and the Destiny, of the Colored Race” in 1848.

Harriet Tubman (1820-1913) is known for her courage and bravery for escaping from slavery, and for later going back to free over 60 other slaves, using a secret network of safe houses, now known as the, “Underground Railroad.”  In her later years Tubman was an advocate for women’s suffrage and history has it that she recruited men for abolitionist, John Browns, raid on Harper Ferry, a failed initiative to spark a slave up rise throughout the south. Scenes in the Life of Harriet Tubman: Electronic Edition Here:

Edward Wilmot Blyden (1832-1912) is regarded as the “Father of “Pan-Africanism”.  Blyden served as an ambassador for Liberia (West Africa) and traveled to the United States promoting to blacks in America the idea of blacks moving back to Africa to help develop it. One of his major literary works (1887) is titled, Christianity, Islam and the Negro Race”, hinted on the idea that practicing Islam would unite and encourage Africans much more than Christianity.

Booker T. Washington (1856-1915) was an author, educator, motivational speaker, and an advocate for blacks living in America.  History has it that in 1895, Washington spoke at the “Cotton States and International Exposition in Atlanta”, where he publicly accepted disfranchisement and social segregation, as long as whites would allow black economic progress, fair court justice, and equal educational opportunity.  This is known as, “The Atlanta Compromise”.  Despite the fact he received criticism for not advocating for more inclusion, Wikipedia, states, “His work greatly helped blacks to achieve higher education, financial power and understanding of the U.S. legal system. This contributed to blacks' attaining the skills to create and support the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, leading to the passage of important federal civil rights laws.”  Washington “Tuskegee Normal And Industrial Institute” successfully provided education for black students.  Washington’s’,Up from Slaverywas the most popular autobiography of a black person living in America until the autobiography of Malcolm X. 

W.E.B. Du Bois (1868-1963) was one of the early leaders of the Niagara Movement, now known as the NAACP.  He and his supporters opposed the “Atlanta Compromise” of Booker T Washington.  They were advocates for full civil rights and pushed for elevated political representation.  Du Bois promoted the concept of the “Talented Tenth”, which sought to create an atmosphere for one in ten black men becoming leaders of their race, and throughout the world, through methods expanding education, promoting the ideas of others to become directly involved in social change, and by encouraging the writing of books. He strongly believed that blacks needed a classical education to be able to reach their potential, the direct opposite of the industrial education promoted by Booker T Washington.  He believed that capitalism was the primary cause of racism and promoted socialist ideals.  Du Bois is the author of the book,The Black Reconstruction of America.”  “Wikipedia reference to the book is that, “It is revisionist approach to looking at the Reconstruction of the south after its defeat in the American Civil War. On the whole, the book takes an economic approach to looking at reconstruction. The essential argument of the text is that the Black and White laborers were divided after the civil war on the lines of race, and as such were unable to stand together against the white propertied class. This to Du Bois was the failure of reconstruction and the reason for the rise of the Jim Crow laws, and other such injustices.”

Henry Sylvester Williams (1869-1911) is known for forming the African Association, now known as the “Pan-African Association.” Pan-Africanism sought African unity as a continent and as a people.  This was backed with the promotion of historical and cultural awareness, nationalism, independence, and economic and political cooperation.  Williams stated, "the time has come when the voice of Black men should be heard independently in their own affairs."   As a writer, Trinidadian lawyer, and councilor, he was an outspoken advocate against racism, imperialism, and was for promoting accurate information to all matters involving individuals of African decent. 

Marcus Garvey (1887-1940) “and his organization, the Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA), represent the largest mass movement for blacks in American history. Proclaiming a black nationalist "Back to Africa" message, Garvey and the UNIA established 700 branches in thirty-eight states by the early 1920s. While chapters existed in the larger urban areas such as New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles, Garvey's message reached into small towns across the country as well. Later groups such as Father Divine's Universal Peace Mission Movement and the Nation of Islam drew members and philosophy from Garvey's organization, and the UNIA's appeal and influence were felt not only in America, but in Canada, the Caribbean, and throughout Africa.” By David Van Leeuwen.  Marcus Garvey promoted a Pan-African philosophy, which resulted in a global movement.  It also promoted economic empowerment among blacks and the movement became known as Garveyism. History has it that the intent of the movement was for those of African ancestry to "redeem" Africa and for the European colonial powers to leave it. The UNIA, as an organization, and Garveyism, as a movement, would eventually inspire the Rastaafari movement. Read the Philosophy and Opinions of Marcus Garvey

Elijah Muhammad (1897-1975) was the spiritual leader of the  “Nation of Islam.”  Along with teaching spiritual lessons and self/race pride, he promoted economic empowerment to blacks living in America.  The Nation of Islam created black owned barbershops, bakeries, grocery stores, coffee shops, laundry halls, retail stores, real estate holdings, owned farm land in several states, and had multiple schools across the United States.  He also used the Nation of Islam to inspire many black men and women to give up alcoholism, gambling, and other forms of delinquent or criminal behavior. Free online books written by Elijah Muhammad Teachings of Elijah Muhammad

C.L.R. James (1901-1989) was a journalist, socialist theorist.  His works dealing with Caribbean and Afro-nationalism were influential and his writings on the Communist International stirred debates in many circles.  His works on the “Haitian Revolution” and “The Black Jacobins, are staple literature of the African Diaspora.

George Padmore (1903-1959) was a socialist and writer who promoted Pan-Africanism and African independence.  He used publishing as a strategy for political change. Padmore organized the 1945 Manchester Conference, attended by W.E.B. Du Bois.  The Manchester Conference helped set the agenda for decolonization in the post-war period. He was known for networking and sending articles to newspapers across the world, while maintaining contact with both W. E. B. Du Bois and novelist Richard Wright.  History has it that Padmore urged Wright to write the book “Black Power” (1954). 

Malcolm X (1925-1965) was a Muslim minister and a human rights activist. After leaving the Nation of Islam, he formed the Organization of Afro-American Unity.  He was open to work alongside civil rights leaders, but he felt civil rights needed to change it’s’ focus to human rights to become an international issue.  He wanted to bring the complaints of blacks living in America to the United Nations to gain support from emerging nations.  He was an advocate for Black Nationalism and self-determination for black communities. Malcolm X saw a direct connection between the domestic struggles of blacks in America for equal rights with the liberation struggles in third world nations. He felt that blacks were a majority and not a minority in a global context and he criticized capitalism.  He advocated for people to defend themselves from aggressors, and to secure freedom, justice and equality by whatever means necessary if the government was not willing to protect them.

Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968) was a Christian minister and a civil rights leader who sought equality for blacks living in America.  He co founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, serving as its’ first president. He received the Nobel Peace Prize for his nonviolent approach in dealing with racial inequality through.  He was the head figure in the “March on Washington” where he delivered the famous, “I have a Dream” speech.  King and the SCLC organized peaceful marches, which expanded his focus to speak out against poverty and the Vietnam War.  History has it that his stance against the Vietnam War, and a speech titled, speech titled "Beyond Vietnam", alienated many of his liberal allies.  Before his death, King was planning a national occupation of Washington, D.C., called “The Poor Peoples Campaign” to alleviate poverty regardless of race, economic justice, and promoting the idea that idea that all people should have what they need to live.  MLK"S Philosophy

In my next article, 1up Black History of Freedom Fighters Part II, I will focus on the objectives, codes, and disciplines of several of the organizations, which should be recognized for their efforts in the fight for Black Liberation in America, and, all over the world.  Individuals like Ralph Albernathy, Ella Baker, Huey Newton, Bobby SealeFred Hampton, Eldridge Cleaver, Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin, Stokely Carmichael, Geronimo Pratt, Assata Shakur, Mutulu Shakur, and Omali Yeshitela, are not highlighted in this work, but they, and so many others, were and still are founders, and the current backbone of several of the organizations, which I will be presenting in part II of this article.  Feel free to contact me at @Staryor@gmail.com, on Facebook or Twitter, if you have any questions.

 1up Black History Of Freedom Fighters, Part 2
 

I Was Played

July 11, 2012

As a child, I was told to go to school, but no one ever taught me that depending on student loans to gain higher education was a financial trap.  No one ever showed me how to detect misinformation, useless information, contradictions, and baseless opinions on the television, in the newspapers, and the classroom books. No elders held my hands and taught me the value of thinking critically, and other techniques, in which to improve how I examined the world around me.  There was no knowledge passed down to me expressing the importance of social entrepreneurship, and how to become a social entrepreneur.  Instead, I was encouraged to embrace capitalism, unable to detect capital exploitation, and the mental and physical slavery of humanity.

I was played

I was told to embrace my skin color and my African roots, but the images of black culture, which I learned to embrace, came from hours of watching, “Black Entertainment Television”.  I learned how to guzzle down 40-ounce alcoholic beverages, I gained interest in smoking weed, and I accepted the exploitation of women, while embracing capitalism, and the value of material wealth.  Swearing and having a large ego was also part of the narrative.  No one ever taught me the philosophies held between Marcus Garvey and W.E.B. Du Bois, or asked me to compare the two.  I was never challenged to use critical thinking techniques to determine which philosophies I valued or agreed with most between the two men.  I was never educated on the objectives and strategy used by, and against, the original Black Panther Party.  I was never encouraged to use critical thinking techniques.  Meanwhile, I was “trained” how to feel about the principal concepts of capitalism, socialism, and communism, without being taught a balance approach, and study, behind all three philosophies.  I was told to be proud of my African roots, but all the television and schoolbooks showed me about Africa were, war driven countries stuck in poverty and ignorance.  I was taught that I came from a land of divided men and weak people, and most of the Africans I knew were in America because there countries were in the middle of civil wars. Not to mention, most young Africans I knew were just like me.  We mostly wanted to emulate and celebrate the individuals we were watching daily on “Black Entertainment Television”

I was played

My introduction to spiritual life (religion) was to worship Jesus, who looked just like the people who had enslaved my ancestors, or to accept forever-lasting hell in the after life.  While searching for the truth and a righteous path to follow, all I found were contradictions and confusion.  While looking for leaders, all I found were hypocrites and exploiters.  I went to church on Sunday, only to be told it was a sin, and that I should be going to church on Saturday instead.  I was told to not be broken as a Christian, only to learn that the Christian church had been broken for some time now.  All of this, while I was told, “God is not a God of confusion.”  (Protestants/Catholics/Jehovah Witnesses/Mormons/Seventh Day Adventists/Non Denomination Christians)

I later learned about Orthodox Islam, The Nation of Islam, The Five-Percent Nation, The Kabbalah, Buddhism, Judaism, Ancient Egyptian religions, Kemetism, and Paganism.  I quickly realized that truth, freedom, wisdom and the righteous path, in which I was seeking, would not come to me, by me embracing my race, or one specific religious or political organization.  I could no longer depend on, or trust, my elders, blindly, because the elders were divided, un-disciplined, and un-organized, while fighting among themselves.

I was played

Once I reached a certain age, and had gone through certain life experiences, I stepped back and did a self-evaluation check.  I decided to take self-responsibility for my actions.  I lost my so-called family and friends in the process.  Evil, contradictions, confusion, hate, and trickery showed their faces at my door.  I was determined to revitalize my spirit, and I started to embrace the concepts, and techniques, of critical thinking.  The more I learned about capitalism and capital greed, the more I feel in love with the concept and strategies of the social entrepreneur, as a way of rebuilding communities and societies.  So now, I’m an advocate of these two ideas, as a fundamental approach in developing, mentoring, and inspiring young men and women, to avoid being played.  Let’s all stay 1up.

 

Umi of P.O.W/RBG aims towards social entrepreneurship path

December 13, 2011
  Schohreh Golian Esfahania

With all due respect to the reader, some of the language in this article is strong, but none of the language was used in malice, or meant to disrespect anyone, or any group. 

As an advocate of social entrepreneurship and critical thinking education, I was thrilled when the artist, Umi, of, P.O.W/ RBG, reached out to be concerning the, Rap Music Manifesto, amongst other issues.  Actually, let me rephrase that.  Umi, an original native of Tuskegee Alabama, who currently resides in Brooklyn New York, is more then just an artist, he is also known as an activist, public speaker, writer, leader, owner, brother, and the list goes on. Including that long list, many have grown to respect him for his stage presence, and the substance in his lyrics.  Having performed on stage with the likes of Dead Prez, The Roots, Dave Chapelle, and many others, Umi is what we consider to be a “seasoned veteran.”   So begins our interview, nothing short of substance, inspiration, confidence, and moxy, just as expected.
 

Saye Taryor:  As a 30 something year old veteran in the music industry, what is your overall message to the younger generation of artists who wish to pursue this business?

Umi: First and foremost, I want to shout out all the hoods through out the world, all the oppressed people struggling, trying to reclaim their legacy out here … and I want to big up you and 1up Entertainment for the opportunity, and for playing a part in helping bring real information to our younger generation.  

Saye Taryor:
  Thank you.  That’s what it’s all about family.

Umi: For those who may not know, my name is Umi, and I am the last of a dying breed.  From the beginning of my career to present date, I’ve embraced a message of empowerment.  I’ve tried to motivate my community with tactful, yet entertaining music, and to push the agenda on content that others have ignored.  For the younger cats trying to get into the music game, my advice is stay honest and true to you.  Don’t allow others to build your image, let your personal experiences do that.  I would also like to say… don’t wait around for someone to “put you on”… put yourself on!  True success comes from hard work! 

Saye Taryor:  I hear that you are looking to start working with younger artists in the near future.  Could you elaborate a little more on that?

Umi: I’m currently building up a non-profit organization called “Humble Moments” that serves as a launching platform for upcoming artist.  The organization helps talented young artists polish their craft, and gain recording, film, and business experience, as they embark on a career in the world of entertainment.  As a young artist, I often times found myself needing advice and assistance.  I would love to provide that for upcoming artist.  I hope I can inspire young cats to sharpen their content and play bigger roles in their communities, more than current artist do. 

Saye Taryor:  What are your overall perspective and outlook of the Rap Music Manifesto, and current status of the music industry?

Umi: I definitely checked out your, Rap Music Manifesto, and I was feeling it.  In my opinion, hip-hop is merely a reflection of our community.  Look around, our whole sh#t is in shambles… The dude’s look like chicks, the chicks look like dudes… we’re lost at the current moment, still searching for our identity.  I really don’t expect much from the younger artist. This is because most of their fathers, and their family structures, failed them.  N####’s is out here lost.  We have no attachment to each other.  We make no attempt to tie our flags and lives together.  Until we build up a bridge of communication, where we can all see eye to eye, and really start helping and motivating each other, don’t expect sh#t from the younger generation.  N####’s is trying to get rich, so their music is only going to fit the fold of the check writer.  It’s up to us to become the check writers, fully extend ourselves, and then we’ll expand the young artist’s content and options.

Saye Taryor:  How do you feel about the codes and philosophies of the original black panthers, in reference to today’s society?

Umi: When speaking on the Black Panthers, I could only stand at full salute.  I give them ultimate props.  For the strength, the organization, and the examples.  The Black Panthers more than inspired me, they made me active!  When you go back and revisit their, ten-point platform, all 10 points are still issues we are struggling to acquire today.  Do I think we need to go out with the gats and murder some pigs?  Well, sometimes (jokingly) … but I know that is not the answer.  The panthers were fighting the same oppressor we are fighting today, but the oppressor has revised its schemes and tactics, so we too must revise our schemes and tactics.  We have to come with an agenda that the masses of people can gravitate towards.  Back in Huey, Bunchy and Fred Hamp’s day, cats were G’s, now day’s, cats are chumps.  Besides my RBG and Outlaw riders, whom else could we depend on?  We have to gain wisdom from combining their experiences and insight, with our strategies and efforts.

Saye Taryor:  Are you familiar with the term social entrepreneurship?  What is your outlook on the concept?

Umi: Yea, I take that to mean building a business that helps benefit the community or a social problem.  I think that’s the only reason we should be doing sh#t!  In my opinion, our country is Swiss cheesed out (full of holes) because everyone is doing for self.  Our values no longer extend beyond our households, so our communities suffer.  The minority community will never know its worth until we learn to pool our resources. Practicing social change by creating or organizing a profitable venture is a dope way of offering support to a cause or community.

Saye Taryor:  Did you just say social entrepreneurship is “ a dope way of offering support to a cause or community?”  That may be my new slogan.  To move along, is there a particular business model, or individual, you pattern your business style from?

Umi: You know I never look at one thing or person for anything.  I have a tendency to take from multiple things, and add all that to the loud noises I hear in my head.  That’s with everything I’m into.  With business, it’s no different.  I find myself studying the models of corporations like Scion and Kia, to filmmakers and writers like, Spike Lee and Mario Puzo.  I learn from entertainers like Sam Cooke and Chris Rock, and I even study Obama, Oprah, and of course Gates, and the late, Jobs.  Each model offers pieces of info that I can relate to, and then adapt, to help me build my sh## up.

Saye Taryor:  Where do you see your movement, and your career, ten years from now?

Umi: Ten years … sh##, that’s right around the corner!  We’re moving in light years!  In ten years, I will be doing a number of things.  In the music game, I will be strictly in a executive position.  I will be helping to brand artist, and distributing product.  In the film industry, I want to be directing movies, and creating historical driven TV series.  And of course, I’m going to be back and forth to South America rolling up my signature brand of cigars.  Expect big things from your boy!

Saye Taryor:  How do you balance time between family and career as an artist?

Umi: Well my immediate fam is all those around me.  We balance each other.  I need real people around me to stay motivated.  I don’t have any kids yet, so my comrade’s sons and daughters are my kids!  My sister has three kids, so as far as I’m concerned, I have three kids …  sh##, my career is my family! I’m from down south, and I live in Brooklyn, so I just try to get down to Bama, and SC, any and every time I can.  That’s where my heart is ... down there with my pops, my moms, and my 2 sisters.

Saye Taryor:
  That’s real Umi.  Why don’t you go ahead and talk about the current projects you have going on.

Umi: Check for me… I got a lot of new videos that I directed and shot with my guy, Dynomite Tony.  You can see the most recent ones here: The next few records I’m dropping are all compilations… In no particular order, I have: Umi Ft. Justin Kase, Umi Ft. Duo Live, Umi and DJ Child ft. M1, and of course, a couple of surprises in the bag from RBG affiliate Mic Blaque.  It’s def going down!

Saye Taryor:  How can the reader’s track future projects?

Umi: Look for me on the Web… right now we are working on building our on line presence. Just goggle, UMIRBG, and the latest should pop up.  Umisworld.com, or itunes, can be used to purchase the latest music.  Don’t be out here supporting no bullsh##.  Play your part, help spark a change, and catch me on the frontlines!  Follow Umi on Twitter and Facebook.

 

 

Zayd Malik, Rap Artist, Family Man, & Revolutionary

November 28, 2011


Those familiar with my writings know I am not a big fan of artists who promote messages of sex, drugs, and violence to our youth.  As a fan of, Los Angeles born rapper, Zayd Malik, whom now resides in Georgia, I decided to interview the socially conscious artist, who sometimes pushes the envelope, while finding room for substance and reflection.  Read the entire interview below.

Saye Taryor:  For individuals who may not be familiar with you, would you please give them a little background information about yourself?

Zayd Malik:  Yes.  My name is Zayd Malik, and I was born in LA, California, into a politically conscious family.  My parents are founding members of the New African Peoples Organization, and Mutulu Shakur is my God Father.  It is he who got me started in hip-hop.  When I started rapping, he gave me the opportunity to help produce an album called, "Dare to Struggle", which was in part a tribute to his son, my god-brother, Tupac, as well as a tribute to political prisoners such as himself.  Later in my career, I began the Outlaw “Rbg movement”, in response to the different crews I came up through, which I studied under for years.  I’ve learned from groups like the legendary, "Outlawz", as well as the founders of the, "Rbg movement”, Dead Prez.  It only made sense for me to do this, because it was so natural to my person.  It was how I came up.

Saye Taryor:  What are some of the watered downed content, and stereotypes in the music industry, you would like to educate people about?

Zayd Malik:  I want to educate our followers and fellow generals and soldiers alike about the imbalance that we see in hip hop so much.  There’s nothing wrong with the music in and of itself, for music is just an expression of what’s really going on, but what we see taking place is a lop sided account of black life, as portrayed by hip hop.  In my opinion, there’s nothing wrong with stating what’s negative about your hood, your life, or the people around you, its just that, I would like to hear just as much, what you love about your situation, in a positive way, so that people outside our community get a better picture of “Nu Afrikan” life within the empire of “Amerikkka”, and not only for outsiders, but for our children as well.

Saye Taryor:  Do you allow your son to listen to your music, and what lessons do you wish to pass down to him, as a father, and as a musician?

Zayd Malik:  I don’t allow my son to listen to all of my music, only that in which I deem his ears ready to understand.  He's only three, so something’s are just simply out of the reach of his consciousness.  I would hate for him, at his age, to get a snapshot of what I may say in a song, without gaining a full understanding of it, so I spoon feed him, and watch his mental growth like a hawk, to see what he may be ready to be introduced to.  The main lesson I want to pass down to him are to consider other peoples opinions, but first always think for yourself, and to be aware of where your ideas actually derive.  Too many of us think other people thoughts without even knowing it.   That, as a father, I believe is a good basis to a good life.  As a musician, I would like him to understand that music is our most powerful tool for healing and getting through to people, and if so inclined to do it, be good at it…LOL.

Saye Taryor:  Describe the relationship in which you have with your son.

Zayd Malik:  Aw man, my son is like my lil brother.  I love him more than life.  We train, and we have great conversations.  He might walk up to me out the blue like,  "Baba, lets talk", and we talk about anything from Star Wars, his favorite movie, to Malcolm X, or even ice cream.  I just try to keep him talking to me, so when he gets older, he'll be used to it.  My biggest fear is that we wont be able to talk when he becomes a teen, so I’m riding on that.  He can do twenty push ups straight, and about two pull ups with no help.  He's on his sit up game, he’s got a “cooooold” fighting stance, and I let him hit me in the face every now and then, just so he can see what it feels like.  I try to let him keep his lil manhood in something’s, if you feel where I’m coming from, which comes back to bite me sometime, but overall, we have a good balance and a good relationship.

Saye Taryor:  What are your spiritual or religious philosophies?

Zayd Malik:  I tell people all the time that, I’m not religious, and, I’m spiritual.  What I mean by that, or what I’m saying, is that there's never been one way to believe in God.  I take the best of all religions and attempt to apply it to my life.  I treat my life like a research paper, and any good research paper has multiple sources.  In my opinion, a life that only knows one truth is more limited, than that which knows three.

Saye Taryor:  Describe the blueprint of a political philosophy in which you would support?

Zayd Malik:  I support the philosophy of Malcolm X, when he said something to the effect of, “when they come at you, they not coming at you because of your different ways of life, they come at you because you black", and with that said, me, and some of my comrades, from the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement, have come up with 6 principles that any conscious “Nu Afrikan” (black person) can agree with.  Those are, reparations, an end to sexist oppression, human rights, an end to genocide, freedom for all political prisoners and prisoners of war, and the right to self-determination, which we lack as a whole.  These are the things we believe have been used to oppress us, and if we were to attain these principles, freedom will be actualized.

Saye Taryor:  When you prefer to yourself as a revolutionary, what exactly are you trying to revolutionize?

Zayd Malik:  Understand that all revolution means is change.  All of the things I referred to in the last question are things that need to be revolutionized.  When we talk about self-determination, were talking about everything from what “Nu Afrikan” children are taught in schools across this country, to how we spend our money.  We must support ourselves, period.  Our concept of a woman's role must be revolutionized to the tune of Nehanda Abiodun, Assata Shakur, Queen Mother Moore, Cynthia McKinney, etc.  "A revolution without women aint happening.”  These things would be a good start.  I’m sure the readers of this interview got some ideas also.

Saye Taryor:  Beyond the music, what other methods do you use, as a revolutionary, to educate others and to promote values, organization, and discipline?

Zayd Malik:  Music is my main way to speak to people.  Apart from that, the actions I take are being a living example of what my music says.  We train because we understand that health, or bad health for that matter, is an issue in the “Nu Afrika” community, as well as self-defense.  I raise my family, because I also understand that the family is the first unit of struggle.  I believe it to be important for people to see me with my family, to contradict the thought that black men aren't there for their families.  As a general, I must say comrade; I can’t go into too many details about how I move.  I hope our readers understand that.

Saye Taryor:  I can dig it.  So what does the term, “Nu Afrika”, mean to you?

Zayd Malik:  The term “Nu Afrkan” means this.  We are Africans, in the empire of America, with a new experience.  We must give acknowledgement to that which occurred in relation to the Maafa (slave trade) and how it has affected “us” here in “Amerikkka.”  A brand new struggle was born when we came here from our homeland, creating a new culture, thus the term, New African.  In this way, we pay homage to those that died on the shores of Africa, fighting to stay, those that sacrificed their lives by jumping off slave ships, refusing to be a slave, and those that were murdered once here, due to countless atrocities levied upon us by our slave masters.  The way we have struggled to survive in this country has pulled us together, creating by default, a new breed of African, no better, or worse, than continental Africans.

Saye Taryor:  What is your outlook on the current political and economic landscape of America?

Zayd Malik:  I believe we are moving into the "next phase" of capitalism.  The kind of capitalism that is built on fear of government, which is what its always been built on, but still, I believe we're going into yet, another phase of it. The most dangerous thing that can happen to a person is to loose hope, and with the election of a black president, I fear a lot of people are becoming even more disenfranchised than they were before.  For some of us, this was our "last chance", which was wrong to think in the first place.  After he's out, it may be harder to get people to fight for self-determination.  For black people particularly, it’s getting progressively worse at an accelerated rate.  Optimistically, I sometimes think maybe this is a good thing that'll force us to stick together, at an "accelerated rate".

Saye Taryor:  What is your opinion, or outlook, on my article titled, “Rap Music Manifesto”?

Zayd Malik:  I agree with this article.  I believe the manifesto can be improved if we were to add a list of priorities.  A list of where do we begin, and where do we end, as it relates to improving the hip-hop industry.  A good beginning toward that end would be to start with the labels, the program directors, and then the artists themselves.  As I've stated before, I believe the problem isn't content, but balance and programmers control that because they choose what gets played and what doesn’t, and the labels control what the directors pay attention to.  More often than not, they choose to play what may be considered, a "negative" song, under the guise of, "that's what people want to hear.”  We know this not to be the case, just by looking at the change in music from the 90s, to now.  In the 90's, music had more balance.  You heard artists like Tupac, Arrested Development, Public Enemy etc., alongside gangster rap.  To me, that speaks to the industry heads, and not to the artists themselves, though they hold some responsibility in the matter.  They can choose collectively what kind of music they make.  Even still, should it all be "positive" rap?  No.  That would create another imbalance.  How we go about these things remains the question for another article, I guess.  Zalute comrade! (For the “Rap Music Manifesto” article) Great work.

Saye Taryor:  Thanks.  I hope you and I can have a more in depth conversation about this, in the near future.  To move along, do you have any current or future projects you would like to let the readers know about?

Zayd Malik:  Geah…My current project out now is "The South Is, “Nu Afrika Vol.2: OUTLAW RBG in the FLESH", which was released in March.  I am currently planning to release two more albums soon.  I also have a good size catalogue of music videos, interviews, and performances on, www.youtube.com/zaydmalikoutlawrbgz.  I am featured on Dead Prez's latest mixtape, "Revolutionary But Gangsta Grillz", hosted by Dj Drama, “RBG til I Die”, and also on Stic.man of Dead Prez latest solo album, "The Workout", on the song, "Joe Louis", as well as the Outlawz mixtape, "Killuminati2k11", on the song, "Bring it Back".  I will also be on the, "Tupac Family and friends Tour", In Africa, coming up in January, with the legendary Outlawz, and Tupac's brother, Mopreme.

Saye Taryor:  Sounds like you’re on the grind, as a fan, I hope you continue to stay 1up brother.  I’ve enjoyed this interview so much; I just realized I’m down to my last question.  Where should the readers go to purchase previous and new musical projects, and how can they contact you if they are interested in booking you for performances, or public speaking engagements? 

Zayd Malik:  All of my music can be purchased at www.zaydmalik.bandcamp.com.  "The South Is Nu Afrika Vol.1, and 2” are also available on Itunes, and most online distributors.  Anyone interested in my services may contact zaydmalikmusic@gmail.com Zalute!  Free the Land!  Find on Facebook and Twitter

 

What is the 1up Movement, and 1up Entertainment?

November 22, 2011


The idea of the 1up movement is for individuals and organizations, to collaborate, to enhance economic and social conditions, using a process of social entrepreneurship, while maximizing critical thinking techniques.  The 1up movement only exists when there is a conscious effort, or collaboration, of organizations and individuals putting words into action. Its very essence stems from the combining and sharing of knowledge and resources, all used in a positive way to enhance the economic and social conditions of everyone involved. The movement funnels through social entrepreneurship, and its effectiveness is maximized using critical thinking techniques and practices.

Most people see the name “1up Entertainment” and think our main focus is entertainment.  Others read our articles, and assume, we’re just another group of disgruntled individual letting out our frustrations. 

These assumptions are far from the truth. So what is, “The 1up Movement,” and 1up Entertainment, and what are the purpose of all these articles you continue to see circulating on social media?  For starters, 1up Entertainment/Consulting is only one aspect of “The 1up Movement.”  When I use the phrase, “stay 1up”, it means to stay focused on making positive self-elevation and social change.  It means to avoid the evils and traps of the world, and to think more critically, while making good decisions. Staying 1up means, avoiding the drama, confusion, deceptions, and daily pitfalls.  It does not mean to 1up someone in a malice way, to outdo someone, to belittle them, or to brag and boast in success. 

The idea of the 1up movement is for individuals and organizations, to collaborate, to enhance economic and social conditions, using a process of social entrepreneurship, while maximizing critical thinking techniques.  We do not promote any religious organization or theology, but we accept those who promote non-divisive values and morals, while acknowledging their creator. We have also adapted the idea of embracing a resource based economy over the current monetary one.  Our codes, below, are the guidelines we expect all individuals involved in our movement to uphold, promote, and follow.  Strategically, we like to reach out to start up nonprofit organizations that have great missions and ideas for problem solving, but limited manpower and resources.

Instead of waiting for financial resources from the government (or the establishment), we try to figure out ways to work together to create revenue, awareness, and to obtain resources.  We are anti-capital greed, and pro social collaboration, wealth building, and sharing.  We encourage positive social change, and we denounce anything that has proven to be harmful and destructive, to enhancing the minds and lives of young men and women.  The articles we write reflect a new wave of effective media coverage, which highlights problems, but counters with solutions.  We aim to avoid hate mongering and verbal attacks, while addressing real serious issues.  We allow debates, or perspectives from all sides of the isle, to be presented side by side, for the readers to evaluate both sides of the coin, without using vulgar dialog and hateful rhetoric.  When interviewing musicians and entertainers, we go beyond the music, and we deal with issues concerning their outlook on family, and their codes and philosophies in life.  For those who may not be on board with the movement, we ask that they to try to be more conscious in the content of the work that they create, and to try to be involved in some of the activities that we create for social awareness.  1up Entertainment/Consulting is the organizational and business part of the 1up movement. We provide digital marketing, social media management, and strategic event planning, for an affordable price. With that knowledge, thank you for your time, and please contact us if you would like to build together.  Email: 1upentertainment@gmx.com

In order for a movement to be successful, the individuals involved in the movement have to follow and abide by certain disciplines and codes.  Below are the codes and guidelines for those whom are interested in being involved with the 1up Movement. 

Example of the 1up Entertainment Business Strategy Broken Down into its Simplest Form
Join us on Facebook 
Join us on Twitter
 

Ten Alarming Issues Within Society

November 22, 2011


Below is a list of ten alarming issues that I feel society needs to address and take more seriously.  This list by no means eliminates many of the other serious issues going on in society, it just happens to be the ones that have caught my attention for some time now.

1)      It’s more expensive to purchase food and gas in low income, and urban communities, compared to wealthier, suburban locations.  The idea that people can set up shop in low income communities, knowing that there are limited resources, and to hijack the rates of goods, for capital gain, is tragic and unethical.  Not to mention the fact that people with more wealth have more options and resources, often paying cheaper rates, allowing them to save more of their wealth.

2)      Parents and high school counselors are still pushing young men and women to begin their adult life going into debt, by acquiring student loans for college.  You would think by now, there would be a curriculum provided to students to avoid going into debt behind student loans.  If a student cannot earn an academic scholarship, it’s best that he or she only apply to affordable institutions.  Graduating in the middle of the pack in college, while owing $60,000, is far from a good career move, being that they will spend most of their working lives in debt, subject to paying off a loan, that is constantly growing with interest.

3)      We are told that professional athletes and entertainers make millions, and not once have the wealthiest of these individuals have the conscious mind to collaborate and invest their earnings to create a dynamic network, which primarily deals with economic empowerment through social entrepreneurship, community development through the creation of education and training centers, investment in production oversight, or team management and ownership, and investment in creating or jumpstarting some form of political movement, or agenda.

4)      There are too many communities with more liquor stores than parks, resource centers, and economic and structural development.  That makes no sense at all.  Where I currently reside, there are three liquor stores north, east and west of me, all in walking distance.  Not to mention that the one north of me is next door to a day care center.  There is nothing 1up about that. 

5)      Corporate tycoons, who own alcoholic beverage companies, always seem to be the ones to sponsor local, and many national, hip-hop events.  Let’s not forget that most of the music promoted, and played on mainstream radio, often promotes sex, dugs, violence, and alcohol use.  There seems to be a perfect marriage with the two.

6)      I’m always amazed at the divisive role of religion within society.  Members of each organization all have a testimony to support their organizations beliefs and theology.  I personally like when individuals introduce their congregation to me by asking me to participate in functions, which directly effect individuals within the community.  The pantry and food drives are cool, but I’m talking about social entrepreneurship structures that help create jobs, and that that provide learning, and financial resource centers, not just for members of the church, but for the entire community.  I also dig programs that deal with communication skills and relationship problem and resolution techniques. 

7)      It’s amazing how we can live in a society where two separate news channels can tell us the exact opposites, on so called factual events.  It’s one thing to have a different perspective, but it’s and entire different issue to hold opposite and conflicting facts.  This creates the lane for manipulation and social divide, when everything is based on perspective, and nothing is based on facts. This creates an uncensored and dogmatic society, which does well for opportunist, con artist, and exploiters.

8)      As long as government has existed, isn’t it strange that there are no bi partisan evaluation systems in place to monitor the success and failures of legislation and bills, once political leaders pass them?  Isn’t it strange that there seems to be no regard for fact checking and accurate historical record keeping of results and accomplishments?  I understand that people have different opinions as to what is good or bad, based on their individual outlook, but the fact that politicians are given a pass to spread information without having to be held accountable for the accuracy of their words, and outlooks, is ridiculous.  Even more ridiculous is the fact that old ideas and old legislations are constantly reintroduced to society, with no regards as to what effects they have had previously.  Each political party has organizations that speak on their behalf, but there is no neural process, or guideline, that separates the facts from the opinions.  Worse, there is no structure in place to clearly define the objective of bills and legislation, and then to monitor its accomplishments, rather annually or quarterly.

9)      There seems to me an unsolved mystery, and hidden message to American society, surrounding the deaths of Martin Luther king Jr., Malcolm X, John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and many other leaders during the 60’s.  The fact that so many leaders, having influence and impact, were all maliciously removed, is something that surely needs to be examined and explored.

10)  The pain, suffering, and misery of the world, that is presented to us by the local news and by television, and the entertainment industry in general, is very alarming.  As presented to us by the media, it seems that most musicians/entertainers suffer horrific tormented, miserable, and depressing lives.  Beyond the money and material wealth, how often do we hear about entertainers committing suicide, dying of drug abuse, being killed in disputes or accidents, or just being miserable and depressed?  The list goes on from Gary Coleman, Biggie Smalls, 2-pac, Kurt Cobain, Brad Renfro, Michael Jackson, Jimi Hendrix, etc. 

 

With that being said, I hope I can work along side individuals to improve our individual condition, and to help create the necessary awareness, within society, that will be needed for a massive self evaluation, and collaborate social change.  I’m willing to work along side religious leaders, educators, musicians, and even politicians, if your objectives are in line with promoting social entrepreneurship and critical thinking education, with regards to treating others, as you would like to be treated.  I say, let’s stay 1up and shake off, avoid, and remove the evils and traps of society.



 

The 1up Codes

November 18, 2011


In order for a movement to be successful, the individuals involved in the movement have to follow and abide by certain disciplines and codes.  Below are the codes and guidelines for those whom are interested in being involved with the 1up Movement.  

·         There is absolutely no room for fear

·         Trust has to be earned

·         They can say whatever they want, just monitor the moves they make.  Put them on the spot by offering to give them a hand, and they have no choice but to show if they are serious

·         Always look to work with others.  Never look to work for others.

·         Acknowledge your creator as often as you can

·         Observe and acknowledge the contradictions around you

·         Treat others as you would like to be treated, and if they continue to disrespect you, try to avoid their presence.

·         Never speak or make a decision while angry.  Your decision making is best in a calm state of mind.

·         Laziness is unacceptable, but working smart keeps you from working hard, without reward

·         Search for the individuals who can make you laugh without degrading themselves or someone else.

·         Promote critical thinking techniques and social entrepreneurship values to the youth

·         Using alcohol and drugs keeps you from staying 1up

·         Staying 1up means no one can push your buttons.

·         Recognize the actions and words of others that are not in your best interest.  Know your enemy.

·         Don’t become your own enemy. Always take time out of your life for self-evaluation.

·         Constantly search for truth, while practicing critical thinking techniques.

·         In search of truth, it's often best to first denounce everything you’ve ever known, and start from the beginning.

·         Love and respect yourself

·         Mentally be ready to adapt to any situation

·         Place no value in material wealth














































































































































 

The Saye Debates - Capitalism vs Socialism

November 13, 2011


With all the problems of this world, I advocate for more civil debate and less hate. I’ll debate, while you decide.

Debate Topic: “Capitalism vs Socialism” In this segment, Saye debates Peter Gray

Saye:  If you make $10 an hour, working 10 hour shifts daily, why should you not make a profit when the corporation has a successful quarter, due to your labor? At the end of the year, if the corporation makes millions in profits, why should you have to continue to earn $10 an hour, or have a yearly review in which you only receive a 5 or 10 cent raise? That is exploitation of one’s labor, and pretty much free labor. Your labor creates wealth for the already wealthy, and you do not get to enjoy the wealth that your labor has created…that is complete foolishness and highway robbery. They also determine what “your” labor is worth, and they control if you work, or make money as an entrepreneur, through monopolies and the banking system.

They will send jobs overseas for cheaper labor, if you decide to join ranks (unite with other workers) and demand fair paying wages and reasonable work demands. And then they (the elite) will find a spokesman to speak against those who are demanding fair treatment, by using terms that describe the opposition as Marxist, or just plain un-American (not a “True American”). This is a divisive way to relate to the ignorant and uneducated, while promoting their cause and agenda of exploitation, in disguise of freedom and justice. Capitalism has no monopoly on freedom, since we all know that people of color were oppressed during America’s rise under capitalism. The mere fact that we conclude that socialism takes away freedoms and capitalism gains freedom is a false and misleading observation.

Peter Gray:  You do make a profit! Your share of the profit is the wages you received that you agreed to work for. If a corporation continually loses money, at some point in time, there would not be any profit to even pay your wages.

Many corporations do also have profit sharing plans that will pay bonuses when the corporation has a great quarter. If they are more profitable, they are also more likely to increase wages, to keep a happier and loyal workforce. It is in the corporation’s financial interest not to have to incur the expense of having to retrain workers constantly.  If the corporation loses money at the end of the year, do you have to give back some of those wages paid to you? Why not? If one expects to receive a greater share of the profits if a corporation makes greater profits, (which usually does happen through wage increases) why should one not receive a lesser share (a retroactive pay cut) if the corporation loses money? A corporation can lose money as well as making money.  The corporation does not have “a successful quarter” ONLY because of your labor.  A corporation must utilize various factors of production to make a profit. Labor is just one component. The most important factor of production is capital. As a worker, you do not risk the loss of your capital, the shareholders do. Why should a worker get an equal share of the profits without owning and risking any of the capital that is required to create the production? If you want an equal share of the profit, then own an equal share of the capital, and put that equal share of capital to the same risk as the shareholders do.  A corporation has to invest in machinery and equipment, buy or rent buildings, pay licensing fees, business taxes, property taxes, insurance, and pay for the costs of electricity and other utilities, plus a whole lot of other expenses. All of this is paid for with capital investment, and there is no guarantee that a profit will be made for this risk taken.  A corporation actually gives the laborer an income well in advance of the revenue from the goods they produce. Labor can only be paid in advance in relation to the estimated present value of any foreseeable output. It is possible that the value of the output will be less than the estimated value at the time of production. This is a further risk that the corporation takes.  “That is exploitation of one’s labor.”  This view is reflective of the “labor theory of value”. The “labor theory of value” is that the value of a good or service is directly proportional to the input of labor that is utilized to create that good or service.  This view has long been refuted in the discipline of economics. If it were true that labor was the measure of value in production, then if one spends 10 hours digging a hole and filling it back up again then this should have the same value to society as one spending 10 hours digging a hole and retrieving the gold ore that is buried in that hole. Labor that is utilized in creating production that the mass of consumers do not want to consume is not valued as highly as labor that is utilized for production that consumers do want to consume.

“They also determine what “your” labor is worth,”

Labor is the same as any other price in the economy. In a free market, it is determined by supply and demand. If it was true, that “they” determine what your labor is worth, then why do “they” not pay $1 per hour or nothing at all? After all, they “determine what your labor is worth”.  You speak of “fair paying wages” and “fair treatment”. How is this determined? What is “fair”? In a free market, there is a market for labor. If corporation A pays less for the same labor requirement than corporation B, then all else being equal, labor will move to corporation B. The only way this would not be true would be if all corporations colluded in a giant conspiracy to pay the same lower wages, and if this was true, then all wages for labor would be at the legally mandated lowest level, which is obviously not the case.  There is nothing wrong with deciding to “join ranks (unite with other workers)” but labor should not have the right to force others to purchase only their labor, at the price they want to be paid. Are you suggesting that an individual has to buy gas at the station that is charging $4 per gallon, instead of the one charging $3.50 a gallon? Why should it be any different for labor?  You speak of the “elite”. Most of the overall employment is created by small business. Are the owners of small businesses part of the “elite”?  As for “socialism taking away freedom”, this is true in the sense that for socialism to achieve its desired “economic” ends or results, it only can create these economic ends or results through the political power of enforced and mandated centralized decision making. For if the desired economic results or ends were the actual choices of free individuals, there would not be a need for socialism to intervene and attempt to create the economic ends or results.

Saye:  Let’s be serious here.  If you make $15 hr at your corporate job, what happens when revenue increases in the millions? You get a ten-cent raise, or some times, you get no raise at all. But when revenue falls, you are fired, or others are fired, then they expect you to do just as much work for the same pay as before, or sometimes, even take a pay cut. I embrace the socialist concept that rewards workers as a collective group, for production and revenue success.  If the corporation makes a 1 million profit, the workers pay should move up from $15 hr to at least $20 hr. After taxes, it'll be a 2 or 3 dollar raise.  My idea of an ideal working condition is this. 500 people live in a community.  Many have different strengths and weaknesses. For the longevity of the community, they decide to work WITH one another, to improve their conditions. They are expected to use their talents, and they will all combine their resources, so that all of them can improve their conditions. The harder they work as a unit, the more each individual makes. Yes, they are mostly making the same, (spreading, or balancing the wealth) but no one individual, or group, is exploiting the majority. Hard work in this socialist economy means, more production for the group. More production for the group means, more wealth for each individual in the group, and the community. 

In all seriousness, I understand that it would never work if every single person played the role of a king, within society. Here is the problem with the capitalism you are promoting.  Self-pride and self worth can come as a result from working hard, but economic empowerment has little to do with working hard. The mother who works as a bus driver, and a cashier at the local grocery store, works hard, and is dedicated to her employers, but she struggles to pay her bills. She may be a great driver, and awesome at dealing with customer service issues, but she may never be as great of a doctor, or engineer, even if she attends school for it, and receives a degree. The engineer, or doctor with a degree may fail, if they are put in a situation where they have to manage driving a bus. No matter how long they train for handling customer service, their results and outcome may never be the same as the mother, because her instincts for the job just comes natural to her. The personality of the individual may determine how complex certain jobs are to them. No matter how one studies the position of the professional athlete, he or she may never excel at the job, which would have nothing to do with their lack of hard work. In life, there will always be people able to do some things better than you, just like you will be able to do some things better than others. The objective should be to find out what you are best at, and to try to train, and expand your skills in that particular field. If you excel in physical labor, and you find more comfort in digging ditches, or moving heavy boxes, than in sitting near a desk, at a cubicle making spreadsheets, and talking on the phone, why should you be penalized? Everyone cannot handle physical labor and perform at a high rate, while others find it more difficult to concentrate while sitting in one place for a long period of time. If both individuals spend hours of their lives to fulfill the job requirements of each job, why should one make greater wages then the other, or one struggle to make ends meet, while the other does not? The idea is that individuals work together, in a process, to accomplish a goal, and every contributor is needed, or the operation does not flourish. For efficiency, you find out which person is best at which duty, or responsibility, and you assign duties to individuals based on their strengths. Only in a backwards society do you reward the decision makers more than the individuals who actually do the work on the ground. Good decision-making, and hard and smart labor, unfolds well when combined. One is no more important than the other. Compensation, and currency wages, creates the divides, and adds the false sense of superiority, and importance, among individuals. It creates the, “I’m better then you”, complex.  Have you ever heard of the term monopolies, and crony capitalism?

Peter Gray:  “I embrace the socialist concept that rewards workers as a collective group for production and revenue success.”  Does this mean that the workers as a collective group all have equal shares in the capital invested in the production enterprise? Do they all pay the same costs and take the same risk if the enterprise fails? If so, then yes they all should get an equal share of the profits.  Capital is required to create and operate a business. The creation of capital requires saving. If an individual does not consume all of his/her income, he or she saves. This saving is known as capital. The reason why the “real” average standard of living is greater today than 100 years ago is a result of this capital formation (saving). For if all the production is consumed and none is saved, there cannot be the capital formed to invest in more efficient means of production. It is more efficient means of production (creating more output with the same or less input per capita) that lowers the real price of production and because of this the aggregate average “real” wage rate increases. If we increase the total production with the same population, we get a higher production per person, and the aggregate average “real” standard of living increases.  Savers sacrifice and are rewarded for this sacrifice, and the society as a whole is also rewarded with greater production and a higher average real standard of living. What is so objectionable about this? As I see it, you want some people to not share in the costs and risks but get equal rewards to those that do. Why should someone who did not sacrifice and save, get to have an equal share of the returns on the capital risked in a business venture? Why is this fair?   “My idea of an ideal working condition is this. 500 people live in a community. Many have different strengths and weaknesses. For the longevity of the community, they decide to work WITH one another to improve their conditions.”

“The harder they work as a unit” Hard work in this socialist economy means, more production for the group.”  There are a number of problems with this scenario. We do not live in an ideal community of 500 people; we live in a world with billions of people. The question of WHAT to produce and HOW much of it, apparently would have to be decided by a central decision making apparatus. How can this centralized decision making apparatus, answer these above questions? Who decides what to work hard at? How does the central decision making apparatus know that what is being produced is being produced efficiently or not, or how much value the individuals who make up the community have for THIS production over THAT production, or that more of THIS should be produced than THAT?

For production efforts to be centrally planned and directed requires the “community” to choose what it values, more of THIS production, or more of THAT production. However, to speak of the “community” valuing this or that is erroneous. Value is subjective, only individuals value goods and services, and they value goods and services differently. That is why trade exists. You value your orange less than my apple. I value your orange more than my apple. We trade one orange for one apple. Does the “community” value one orange more than one apple or one apple more than one orange?  Here is an excerpt from a previous article I wrote, “Unpredictable changes in consumer preferences and the supply and demand of the economic factors of production, is not something that can be mathematically, deduced, calculated and computed. Unforeseen technological breakthroughs, political upheavals, and natural events (i.e. earthquakes, hurricanes) can change all the variables, including the demand and supply for oil, wheat, rice, steel, gold, bonds, etc. The necessary economic information or data is so dynamic, dispersed, complex, voluminous, and mostly un-ascertainable that there is no way for central planners to know beforehand to calculate what the ‘best’ economic use of the factors of production is. Therefore, there is no point in having a ‘ central plan’ or ‘directive’ to attempt this, or that end. It is an exercise in futility!

The price system, and profits and losses in a free market, allocates economic effort to produce what the consumers desire most. The price system conveys information that is not possible for a single mind or a small number of minds to acquire. It is simply impossible for central planners to know all of this information and superfluous to attempt to guide and micro-manage production when the price system does it anyways, much more efficiently and effectively than central planning could ever do!   “Self-pride and self worth can come as a result from working hard, but economic empowerment has little to do with working hard.”

“If you excel in physical labor, and you find more comfort in digging ditches or moving heavy boxes than in sitting near a desk, at a cubicle making spreadsheets and talking on the phone, why should you be penalized?  “If both individuals spend hours in their lives to fulfill the job requirements of each job, why should one make greater wages then the other, or one struggle to make ends meet while the other does not.” An ounce of gold is valued more than an ounce of copper. Is it unfair that gold is valued more than copper? Quite simply, there is less gold than copper! As with gold and copper, the supply and demand for labor determines the price of labor (wages).

One is not “penalized” by the market. One’s reward is based on the value one creates for others. The value preferences and free choices of individuals, determine what one’s work is worth. The aggregate of individuals in society value the services of doctors more than the services of school bus drivers. If there were as many doctors as school bus drivers, then their wages might be similar. The professional athlete’s work is valued to a greater degree to more individuals in society, than the school bus driver, and this greater value is displayed by the fact that individuals are willing to pay such high wages to them (through tickets sales and endorsements etc.).

Hard work is essentially irrelevant. What matters is the value the production has to the consumers who make up society. If one spends one’s day working very hard at sewing clothes or spends one’s day performing life saving operations what has more value to the individuals that make up society?  The value preferences of individuals (the consumers) who make up society, determine that some goods and services are valued more than other goods and services. The consumers prefer more of THESE goods and services, than THOSE goods and services As a result of these individual preferences the price of the more preferred goods and services are bid up higher than the price of the lesser valued goods and services. The bid up higher price encourages more production of these goods and services, and results in the lowering of the price of these goods and services, therefore satisfying more consumers’ preferences to consume these good and services. This is how the free market works (short of government-imposed interference). Is it not worthy to satisfy the majority of consumers with what they as individuals choose to consume?  “but no one individual, or group, is exploiting the majority.”

You frequently speak of “exploitation”. This concept of exploitation is an offshoot of the Marxist philosophy and the untenable concept of “surplus value”. Marx’s idea of surplus value comes from the fact that we use the medium of exchange “money” (the price system). If we lived in a world, where only barter existed (apples for oranges etc.) there would be no concept of surplus value.  If I trade some of my onions for some of your potatoes, am I exploiting you, or are you exploiting me? I sell my neighbor a watch that I own and I happily receive $100 for it. Then later my neighbor takes the same watch and sells it to Mr. X and Mr. X happily pays $150 for it. Would Marxist economic theory say have I been exploited? If not, why not?  I work for my neighbor and receive $100 for my labor in making a watch, and then my neighbor sells the finished watch for $150 making a $50 dollar profit. According to Marxist economic theory the $50 profit that my neighbor received by selling the watch I worked on, is “surplus value” and I have been “exploited”. Why is it surplus value in one case and not the other? The theory of surplus value is quite simply not logically sound, and I might add that a good deal of your argument rests upon this erroneous concept.

Saye:  Let me make sure the readers understand what has taken place thus far.  I asked you if you had ever heard of the terms monopoly, and crony capitalism, and you did not provide me, or the readers, with a response.  I asked, “why should you not make a profit when the corporation has a successful quarter, due to your labor?”  You responded, “The Corporation does not have a successful quarter, ONLY because of your labor.”  I asked, “If you excel in physical labor, and you find more comfort in digging ditches or moving heavy boxes, than in sitting near a desk, at a cubicle making spreadsheets, and talking on the phone, why should you be penalized?”  Your response was, “The professional athlete’s work is valued to a greater degree to more individuals in society, than the school bus driver, and this greater value is displayed by the fact that individuals are willing to pay such high wages to them (through tickets sales and endorsements etc.).

Hard work is essentially irrelevant. What matters is the value the production has to the consumers who make up society.”  All your responses explain how the capitalist system works.  None of them give solutions to the problems, which I have presented in my arguments.  Yes, we all already know that more people in society have a higher demand for corporate ran commodities, like professional sports, and that they are not willing to economically invest in the educators, and the education of their children.  This sad fact that you have pointed out is the very reason that some forms of socialism in society are very needed, and why many forms of capitalism, have been very damaging to society.  The fact that corporate driven sports leagues are more valuable to citizens in a capitalist driven economy, than the value of investing in good educators for our children, explains the heart of the problems I have with capitalism.  Greed, materialism, and limited form of critical thinking, is what it all boils down to.  If you read my article, “We need more balance” I clearly explain the implementations of socialism, I would like to see in our current capitalists economic system, and I explain how the dynamic of wages should be reevaluated.  Your entire argument, thus far, has been to use the old term and definitions that are always used to explain the current form of a failed capitalist system.  For example, I said, “My idea of an ideal working condition is this. 500 people live in a community.”  Instead of evaluating the substance and ideals of the sample working conditions, which I presented, your immediate response was to attack with a statement “We do not live in an ideal community of 500 people; we live in a world with billions of people.”  The fact that we live in a world of billions, has nothing to do with rather or not my ideals were morally just, or impractical.  In the world of billions, many do not live in a capitalist society.  You did however ask one question that I think the readers deserve for me to answer.  You asked,

“Does this mean that the workers as a collective group all have equal shares in the capital invested in the production enterprise? Do they all pay the same costs and take the same risk if the enterprise fails? If so, then yes they all should get an equal share of the profits.”  If you noticed, when I explained my ideal working conditions, I noted: Yes, they are mostly making the same, (spreading, or balancing the wealth) but no one individual, or group, is exploiting the majority.  In the initial stage of implementing this socialist concept, of course only a few will be able to provide the means for the others to have access to the resources.  Everyone may not have the financial capital of $10,000 to acquire the natural resources needed for eventual production, which then will require labor investment.   But there are so many factors of this argument, which have been untouched.  We can debate for whom the natural resources belong to within a community, but this is my last response.  The working community can allocate a certain amount of agreed ownership, or shares, for those who have invested more capital in the beginning stage, but have to work out a way where the group can eventually buy that additional ownership back to the group, to balance back the equation of the wealth.  If there is a risk involved, and the capital investment of few are lost, then the others are responsible, through their labor and combined resources, to compensate for their losses.  For example, if 20 of the 500, who invested in the financial capital, in the early stage, lost $10,000 after purchasing resources for the group, the remainder of the group can work together to help build, or prepare, $10,000 of those individuals private property.  This is just one of many things the group can collectively decide to do, to cover the risk of the initial investors.  As a reader, please do not feel pressured by anyone to accept old economic principals, and to feel that current economic principals are the only way that modern society can operate.  There are many forms of socialist concepts, which exist, and no, I am not trying to promote old forms of failed state dictatorships.  There are ways to go about new socialist democracies, or even to create productive forms of market socialism.  Please examine the specific points, which were made in my arguments, and please reexamine your outlook on modern capitalism, as seen around you everyday.  Thank you.

Peter Gray:  You stated, “All your responses explain how the capitalist system works. Non of them give solutions to the problems which I have presented in my arguments.”  I explained how many of your claims about capitalism are not conceptually sound. With all due respect, some of the claims you make are strongly indicative of someone who does not have a good grounding in what the philosophy of classical liberalism/capitalism actually is.  The solutions to the problems you pose are not workable. They are not the result of “critical thinking” that you claim to promote. You have a misconception of what capitalism actually is. You misunderstand the nature of the price system and profits and losses and the role they play in the allocation of factors of production to their most efficient uses. You do not comprehend that economic value is subjective, and evidently you also do not appreciate the nature of legal contracts.

Additionally and most importantly, you cannot explain how a centrally planned economic decision making apparatus (that would be necessary for your solution to the “problems”) can more efficiently and effectively direct the factors of production to their best use rather than the free market pricing system. The “economic calculation problem has never been satisfactorily answered by any proponents of socialism, and you are no exception.  You routinely talk of “exploitation”. You stated, “but no one individual, or group, is exploiting the majority” “that is exploitation of one’s labor and pretty much free labor.” “while promoting their cause and agenda of exploitation” However, you never give a philosophical justification of what exactly constitutes “exploitation”.  From your writings, apparently the main “problem” you have with capitalism, is that some labor is valued higher than other labor. I explained that this is due to the laws of supply and demand. Some factors of production are scarcer than other factors of production. Skilled labor is less plentiful that unskilled labor, so it is paid a higher wage. This is the world that we live in however much you may dislike it.

You apparently think that the laws of supply and demand are somehow “old terms and definitions” and are apparently outdated. Please explain to the readers of this article why the laws of supply and demand are “old economic principals” and are not valid anymore.  Your “dictator” style desire to control and direct society to your preferred state is exhibited in the following quotes from your entries.

“If both individuals spend hours in their lives to fulfill the job requirements of each job, why should one make greater wages then the other.”  “Only in a backwards society do you reward the decision makers more than the individuals who actually do the work on the ground.”  “Good decision-making and hard and smart labor unfolds well when combined. One is no more important than the other.”

“This fact that you have pointed 0out is the very reason that some forms of socialism in society are very needed, and why many forms of capitalism have been very damaging to society”  “I clearly explain the implementations of socialism I would like to see in our current capitalists economic system, and I explain how the dynamic of wages should be reevaluated.”  “Your entire argument thus far has been to use the old term and definitions that are always used to explain the current form of a failed capitalist system.”  “In all seriousness, I understand that it would never work if every single person played the role of a king within society.”

The last quote is ironic, because the reality is that you want to play the role of “king within society”. You are the judge of what is of value to society. You are the arbiter of what wages individuals should receive for their work. You want to control and direct the economic efforts of individuals according to your master plan of creating some kind of socialist collective “utopia”. You decide what is more “important” to individuals in society and how wages “should be reevaluated” according to your judgment of what is of value and worthwhile. You have the audacity to conclude what is “backwards”, what is “failed” and what is “damaging”.  From the general direction of your arguments, one can infer that your philosophy is that you prefer restricting individuals from having the freedom to choose what is of value to them. You object that they value this, more than that, and because of this, you reject individuals earning higher incomes for creating more value to consumers. You essentially abhor the economic actions of free individuals, the consumers who decide what they prefer to consume and not consume.  You presume to have the “intellectual superiority” and “higher morality” to know better than the mass of the consumers what is in their best interests and what they should want. As with all socialists, you are arrogant and delusional in your “fatal conceit” (as F.A. Hayek would have called it) that being the misguided belief, that you have the knowledge and means to shape and engineer society exactly to your liking to create your ideal utopia.  The truth is; the results and ends you desire, the aggregate of free individuals would not voluntarily choose! To move society towards your “better” socialist end or result, necessitates that you have the power of government mandated force and coercion to direct and manipulate the setting of prices, wage rates, worker’s economic roles, etc.)

All of this is the very antithesis of freedom that you supposedly support.  It would be hard to believe that the American people would freely choose to live in this socialist “utopia”.  My preference is for individuals to be free to choose what they value.  The original topic of this debate was that “capitalism has no monopoly on freedom”.

I submit that capitalism may not have a “monopoly” on freedom, but it allows individuals to have MORE freedom than your preferred socialist utopia where the “proper” values are decided by “wise philosopher kings” who are essentially just central planners (dictators?) who enforce their dictates on individuals by the force of the state.  Therefore, I can conclude that true free market capitalism provides greater freedom for individuals that your preferred state socialism.

 
 

About Me


Brother Saye Brother Saye (Saye Menlekeh Taryor) is an author, critical thinking education & social entrepreneur activist, founder of 1up Entertainment/Consulting and the leading voice for “The 1up Movement.” The Atlanta/Liberian native graduated from Piney Woods Country Life School (a historically black boarding school, located in central Mississippi) in 1992. Soon after, he enrolled in the University of Southern Mississippi, where he pursued a journalism degree. After realizing his true calling was to illuminate young men and women about the importance of social entrepreneurship and critical thinking education, he attended Georgia State University to learn more about critical thinking education and public speaking. Brother Saye has been active with “Generation Y” leadership workshops, which he first hosted with Linda A. Brooks in 2009. As an activist, he currently promotes his 1up programs and workshops, and is the "Atlanta Travel" writer for the Examiner.com. Brothers Saye’s most recent book entitled, “Overstanding With a 1up Vision, The Critical Thinking Approach to Liberation” has received praise throughout the conscious community. Other published works include, Child development and the importance of critical thinking education, Critical thinking approach to voting, Part II, “The 2009 1up Entertainment Music Guide and Directory, Vol. 1,” “Country Life School,” "What Do You Think?" and, “A Fathers Burden.”

Writings


Saye Taryor Brother Saye's New Book "Analyzing The American Divide" Will Be Available This Fall

Donations are accepted

 

 

Social Entrepreneurs


Individuals who engage in social enterprise and draw upon the best thinking in both the business and nonprofit worlds in order to advance their social agenda.  "Social entrepreneurs identify resources where people only see problems. They view the villagers as the solution, not the passive beneficiary. They begin with the assumption of competence and unleash resources in the communities they're serving."
David Bornstein, author of How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas.
| resume a previously saved form
Resume Later

In order to be able to resume this form later, please enter your email and choose a password.

Name




Address




Contact Information


1up questions






Need assistance with this form?

Make a free website with Yola