Tuesday, April 12, 2011

American Negroes : Their Own Country - Why It Din't Happen (1865 to 1964) - Page 2


Main Menu Page                       
   
                                                                 Page [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
II. Occupational Ranking & The Evolution Of Integration
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Again, our ONE question from page one is: 

     Why didn’t people of African descent in America from 1865 to 1964 ever demand a homeland in America, whereby they could  be masters of their own destiny,  create their own DMG - their own society - separate and autonomous from the American DMG? 

     Since integration was so vigorously sought by Negro males,  and for such a long period of time (since 1865), it stands to reason that something within American males’ society had to be very attractive to them to make such a lengthily supplication. So let us form the following assumption:
 
     Negro males intuitively believed what existed in the living arrangements of the American males (the American males’ society) existed because of the racial group's culture … and very likely would not exist among the Negro race - because of Negro culture - if they sought separation and autonomy. 

First, how the word “culture” is going to be used here requires a short explanation. The word culture, as it relates to a human society, is going to be divided into innate and non-innate.
  • Innate-culture:  The innate-culture resides within the male and becomes discernible when his male group forms its society i.e. its social stratification system.1  Essentially, an innate-culture is a grouping characteristic shared by the whole male group. And, for the sake of our discussion here,the innate-culture will only be used to identify whether the male group can form an occupational ranking social stratification system.  In other words, a male group's innate-culture is either occupational ranking or  non-occupational ranking. So if the innate-culture within the male group will not allow a social stratification system based on occupational ranking of the males, then the male group will use a non-occupational ranking social stratification system (e.g. animal husbandry; subsistence farming). 

  • Non-innate-culture:  Non-innate-culture within a society involves all those things that make the male group’s society distinct, other than race (e.g. language, status symbols, religion, style of dress, diet, folklore, etc). Naturally, only a non-innate-culture can be taught.
  
Note: I am not going to delve into the theoretical origin of the Occupational Ranking culture. I have included a MAP (under construction) tracing the origins of the Occupational Ranking system as it concerns Western Civilization. This is not theoretical.


Occupational Ranking & The Production of "Wealth" 


"Occupational Ranking is an innate-culture of the male group (excluding females) that allows the male group to achieve the necessary grouping and organizational behavior conducive to the production of "wealth."  Wealth is basically the production of marketable material items.  The better the male group is at stratifying itself under occupational titles, the more marketable wealth they will - theoretically - be capable of creating."     


-------------------------------
1. The creation of a human  "society" has essentially always followed the same pattern: A male group (males racially, linguistically and religiously similar) first claim a geographic area. This same male group then creates a social stratification system  (to rank males within their own male group).  When the social stratification system is created,  a "society" now exists. The male group that created the society becomes the Dominant Male Group (DMG).  Historically, societies have stratified their DMGs by either Occupational Ranking or Non-Occupational Ranking.  
-----------------------------------------------

                                                        PART III>>CLICK HERE 

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


The Evolution Of Integration Link

3 comments:

  1. Very interesting. Where's pg 3?

    ReplyDelete
  2. We're living on page 3. Everything's the same other than the right to actually call a black person 'black', a black murderer a 'murderer', a black lazy worker 'lazy' or anything negative toward blacks. We have to pretend that everywhere you go there is at least one black person hanging out with your friends (see television) but oddly, due to lack of population control by blacks this is becoming a reality. One month a year we have to pretend blacks contributed remarkably toward white culture. We have to pretend 'diversity' means 'everyone' when really it means 'more blacks'- not American indians, not Chinese or Russian immigrants, just more blacks. We have to pretend 'diversity' (more blacks) is ALWAYS a good thing no matter who the black is, where they come from, who they are as an individual, or anything about them. In fact, just imagining a black will hurt you (even when you see this every night on the news) is bad- it's 'racist', but you can't say it. You have to shame anyone who uses their instinct or lifetime of evidence that blacks are a violent, dangerous people. You have to pretend their contribution to culture (poor sportsmanship, lack of civility, lack of impulse control, lack of simply acquiring the common language) is GOOD and beneficial.

    Page 3 is modern America. How I wish I could go back to the founding fathers and show them video of it. They wouldn't believe their eyes. This was never their intention.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am curious sir, what book did you get this information from?

    ReplyDelete