Wednesday, April 27, 2011

MAIN MENU PAGE

          This page will direct you to all the blogs on this site: Violent Crimes: Black On White & White On Black                       
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          WHITE  Violent Crimes - Black  Victims 
                         (99 black victims of white violence)     
          
                                  --------------------------------------------                               
                         --------------------------------------------------------  

                       BLACK  Violent Crimes - White  Victims 
                        
       Below is a Resource Guide for black-on-white violent crimes under the  Compulsory Inclusionism laws (i.e. Civil Rights Act 1964 ; Fair Housing Law 1968).  These two federal laws created unprecedented new freedoms  for people of African descent to work, live in and roam freely in white communities.  


          (I found, without great effort, a staggering 2540 white victims of black violence! -  - note: as of 2016, no longer adding incidents) 

Please note:  By no means is the long long list of white victims represented in the Links below ALL the victims.  Not even the proverbial tip of the iceberg. In 2005, for example, blacks committed more than 580,000 acts of unprovoked violence against white people, well over 90% of all the violence that crossed racial lines! (LINK). Finally, I have spent a very good deal of time - well over a decade - researching black crime in America. Many of the incidents I have come across in which white people are the victim(s), the attacks are simply so inhumane, so cruel and so diabolically savage that it seems to me that many of these attacks are calculated to instill a presentment of terror into the hearts and minds of the white population. But you be the judge. Just click on a link below ... and see what this race has subjected white people to, what no other race would ever tolerate.


Sub Categories: 

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

     Below is a Resource Guide for African-American crime rates, high school dropout rates, illegitimacy rates and co-habitation rates before and after 1964.  
                                         (still under construction)
                               


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

                    BLACK  HISTORICAL  EVENTS &  HISTORICAL  FIGURES
                                   --------------------------------------------
                                  --------------------------------------------
    
"MAP" Of Known Occupational Ranking Societies                          
                                                (under construction) 
                                   -------------------------------------------- 

Creators Of Capitalism
           (Under construction) 
                                   -------------------------------------------- 
Posted by at 24 comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

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


Main Menu Page                       
   
                                                                 Page [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
II. Occupational Ranking & The Evolution Of Integration
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, on page one,  I addressed the fact that those of African descent in America after 1865 were in fact legally free, free as a distinct people could be. The effort being on the part of white people was to make the Negro race a self-reliant race - a race that would not be permanently, and in perpetuity,   dependants of the white race. Of course, for Negro men, particularly those who were former slaves, becoming leaders and providers for their people, as well as moving their race toward self-reliance, this was an edification process that was going to require some time.  But the message from white males was always consistently clear, and many times even violently demonstrated, that white males did not want Negroes in their living arrangements, in their working environments, or involved in their political environments. Many Negroes were certainly frustrated by this attitude, many understood and others, they wanted in...but had to believe that that was not likely ever to become a reality. After all, it was white males that created all the economic environments and all the political environments in America - in which they jealously regarded as their status environments. The solution for the Negro race was obvious: A homeland in America. 

This leads us, again, to  our ONE question from page one: 

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

     Since integration was so vigorously sought by Negro males (achieved in 1964 with the Civil Rights Act),  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 hypothesis:
 
     Negro males intuitively believed what existed in the living/ working environments of the American males (the American males’ society i.e. his social stratification system) 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
Posted by at 5 comments:
Labels:

Sunday, April 10, 2011

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

  Main Menu Page For All Blogs


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


                                                                                      Page [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I.                        Integration As A "Right" 



           Most of us have watched documentaries from the 1960s concerning civil-rights (i.e. integration rights).  And while we watched we listened to a narrator tell us the marches, the sit-ins,  the pray-ins,  the protests, etc.,  are about a people (the black race) demanding their "equal rights,"  "equal opportunity,"  "freedom now" and "manhood." And white people in these documentaries are always depicted as the miscreants ... fighting to deny blacks their just rights and pursuits.  The black race, that is, is being denied integration rights, and not just being wronged by white people ... white people are deliberately oppressing them.  But was the black race really being wronged and/ or oppressed where and when white people desired racial separation?  After all, separate living and working arrangements prior to 1964 was completely consistent with American history. And even human history.  In other words, prior to 1964 there is in fact no recorded example of two distinct racial groups living in mutual harmony and sharing the same political system and/or living arrangements.1 So if racial integration had no basis in American history, no basis in legality in American history, and no basis in recorded human history,2 how is it that white people were wronging the black race where and when they practiced separation? Well, the plain and simple fact is, and despite what grade school, high school and college texts books insists, white people were obviously not wronging the black race were and when they practiced racial separation. Again, one distinct people living separate from another distinct people was not only the norm in American history but also human history as well.

The black race's so-called 'fight' for justice, freedom, manhood and equality from the late  1950s and early 1960s also produced some very strange inconsistencies in human nature. A few examples : 
  • African-Americans are remonstrating for the complete nullification of the existence of their distinctness as a people (i.e. they want civil rights legislation that forbids the recognition of race, which eliminates them as a distinct people in America).
  • African-Americans are claiming their very manhood and "freedom" can only be achieved within the structure of another male-group - the very group they are claiming is their oppressor.  (also this LINK)                                                             
  • African-Americans want integration - into white male society  -  to relinquish all effort among their people to achieve self-reliance as a distinct people (which would make them the only people in human history to never achieve this human requirement). 
     My friends,  I am not trying to be divisive in any way here. No distinct people in human history ever did any of this. Never.  What occurred between 1955 and 1964 is simply off the chart in terms of expected human behavior. Human male-groups, according to recorded human history,  DO NOT demand to be integrated into another male-group (i.e. into another male-group's social stratification system).  Allow me to drive home this point with the following short narrative::  The year is 1770. The feared Sioux Indian tribe, their mighty warriors along with their women and children,  march over to the mighty Crow Indian tribe's recognized boundary, and there the Sioux remonstrate against being forced to live separately from the Crow.  They want to hunt on Crow land. They want to eat at the Crow table.  They want their children to learn from the Crow children. They want IN!  "Down with the lines of segregation" the mighty Sioux warriors and their women and children bellow out - being led by their medicine man. The Crow leaders confront the remonstrators and ask what they want...what do they really want. The mighty Sioux warriors claim that all they want is their "freedom," "dignity" and "equality," and the right to achieve "manhood"...and all this can only be achieved within the Crow tribe. The Crow tribal leaders, realizing they are wronging the mighty Sioux tribe with their separate living arrangement, relent and bestow across-the-board  integration rights for the Sioux people.  Now does this sound even remotely possible? Of course not.  No Indian tribe would ever do such a thing.  In fact, throughout human history no racial group - no male-group  - had ever demanded to be integrated into another male-group!  Yet, there it was, African-Americans remonstrating for racial integration rights i.e. civil rights, which includes the complete nullification of their existence as a distinct people.3 It shouldn't be happening.

 (Note: A male-group consists of males who are located within a contiguously defined geographic area and are similar racially, linguistically and religiously.  Male-groups are the primary building blocks  for every society/ nation  in human history i.e. the 'male-group' is the creator of the social stratification system, which is the prerequisite to a society).  

     So, if we base our opinion for predicting human behavior on all of recorded human history, what should we have witnessed in the late 1950s and early 1960s regarding Negro demands?  This:  The Negro people in America, after almost 100 years of being brutally oppressed, facing persistent racism and bigotry directed at them (they claim), and a denial of freedom, dignity and manhood, being lynching for sport, or for "general purposes"  (they claim), beating them on the streets for the sheer joy of it, forcing them to live in substandard housing, exploiting their labor, etc., they simply cannot bear the persecution, the exploitation, the calculated injustices and misery any longer.  So they collectively demand what has numerous and undeniable historical precedents : a homeland.  A homeland, so after almost 100 years of oppression and misery they can finally achieve the cherished dream of self-determination (i.e. the right to create their own Dominate Male Group -  DMG).   A place where true freedom, dignity and manhood can be achieved. Where they can finally have the opportunity to be master of their own destiny.
  
Well, we are all acutely aware that the American Negro never made even the slightest movement toward the goal of achieving self-determination. Indeed, they actually did the COMPLETE opposite!  This incredible and unprecedented act of demanding integration into another male-group, again, a group they are also claiming is their brutal oppressor, I firmly believe, has to be explained. It simply should not be good enough to attempt to explain away this unprecedented demand by saying that civil rights was/is about the fight for "equality,” "freedom," and "manhood" and that these attributes (for the Negro) could only be achieved by forcing their Anglo oppressor to give them integration rights i.e  Compulsory Inclusionism. 

 So, 
 
(1) Why didn’t people of African descent in America from 1865 to 1964 demand a homeland in America, whereby they could achieve mastery over their own destiny,  and create their own DMG - their own society - separate and autonomous from the American DMG?


Note: I want to emphasize that my theoretical outline from here on only concerns pre 1964. 

First, let's address one of the biggest deceptions in American history:: the belief that the civil rights movement was about achieving "freedom" for the Negro people in America. The black race was in fact free. In every sense of the word they were a free people. They were free to build their own industries, their own towns & cities and thereby create their own political environment(s); or, with the vast amount of unsettled land in America, they were completely free to colonize a place in America and create their own autonomous living arrangement(s) (e.g. like the Mormons).

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

Citations:

 1.   Blacks did have political seats in state and local legislatures. However, they did not have any control of what legislation was actually made into law. That power rested, in every legislature in America, with white Christian males.

 2. Race nullification is not in the US Constitution. Plessy v. Ferg. settled that dilemma in 1896. However, states could create their laws with respect to integration rights for the negro, as consistent with the 10th Amendment. New York, for example, required race-nullification in their states' school system. It should also be noted that presidents Roosevelt (1940) and Kennedy (1961) both issued executive orders forbidding racial discrimination in the federal workforce and government contracts, respectively. Though both were largely unenforceable i.e. white males refused to follow these laws (it was their economic environment - status environment - created by white males and for white males). 

 3.  It should also be noted that the 1964 Civil Rights Act nullified white Christians in America as the recognized 'Americans', stripping them of their DMG status as well their identity as a people. Today, the former 'Americans' are now referred to simply by a color: white people.  


                                                                                             Page II >>CLICK HERE
Posted by at 4 comments:
Labels: , , ,

Saturday, April 9, 2011

Japan - Agrarian To Occupational Ranking (1853)

 (Main Menu Page For All Blogs )

         Japan Alters Its Social Stratification System

       In 1853, at the behest of American merchants, US President Millard Fillmore sent Commodore Perry with a letter to Japan’s ruling body to seek a trade treaty.  Japan at this time, and throughout her history, was primarily an agrarian, subsistence farming nation - a people who had not yet discovered coin currency. It was also a country which fiercely protected its isolation.  With an exception made only to Dutch traders, any attempt by other Western nations to land on Japanese soil for the purpose of trade or any other reason,  was under the threat of immediate attack (Western merchants were primarily interested in Japan as a place to dock their ships and pick up supplies).  When Commodore Perry arrived in the Bay of Tokyo with three steam-powered warships, and fixed with cannons, the Japanese, whose only means of defense was the sword and the bow and arrow, had little choice but to receive him. Perry delivered his letter and promised to return within a year to receive the Japan's reply. The following year Perry did return, but with even a bigger fleet, comprised this time of seven war ships. The Japanese, gazing at the site of these mammoth warships, and forced also to witness a demonstration of the power of their cannons, knew they had no option and promptly negotiated a trade treaty. 

     Certainly the Japanese had to feel bullied by the weapons these Americans possessed. And how could they also not fail to  realize the overt threat to their own sovereignty should these Americans decide to exercise their very apparent superiority?  While we have to assume the Japanese saw themselves as intellectual equals to these white skinned men, nevertheless, how could they explain this very evident superiority? That is, what allowed these Americans  to achieve it?  Obviously the Japanese saw that it was the structure of the American’s society that allowed them to create their weapons. We can logically assume this since from approximately that year (1853) the Japanese, on their own volition, set about to structurally overhaul their political and economic arenas and model them after the American system. In other words, they set about to create an Occupational Ranking social stratification system.  They were, as we know, successful. By 1900 (less than 40 years), Japan had not only replicated America’s societal structure (i.e. creating wealth using occupational titles to stratify its male group), but was also producing material items very similar in quality to the Americans.  However,  this success had another ramification to it.  Up until this time, only Europeans had Occupational Ranking systems.  This transformation by the Japanese from an agrarian societal structure to an Occupational Ranking one, demonstrated that it was not just those of the European race who were capable of creating this type of social stratification system.    


By 1964, those people/ male groups that were capable of a creating an Occupational Ranking stratification system were now apparent. 

  
Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: ,

Marcus Garvey: Negro Separation, Self-Improvement & Self-Sufficiency

   (Main Menu Page For All Blogs)



A man who wanted to be a King


Marcus Garvey (1887 –  1940)

  Marcus Garvey was born in Jamaica in 1887. According to Garvey, his father, a freed slave, earnestly counseled him on the necessity of getting an education. Whether inspired by his father or his own innate desire to learn, Marcus Garvey became a very well-read man by his early 20s. He was intelligent, a great orator, and also a very eloquent writer, though he never did finish high school. Oddly enough, Garvey’s lack of a high school diploma did not stop him from attending (or visiting?) colleges in England.  In 1914, Garvey decided to turn his attention and god-given abilities to help his people (people of African descent) achieve a sense of dignity and power over their lives … that he believed the European males were conspiring to deny them. To that end, in 1914 Marcus Garvey founded the Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA), which he believed could be an instrument to unite all peoples of African descent, including the African continent and those in the Western Hemisphere.

        In 1916, Garvey arrived in the U.S. to promote his new ideology of African unification to America‘s Negroes.  Among Marcus Garvey’s concerns were the European powers that had colonized Africa, and by so doing, Garvey believed, deprived its native people of operating as their own rulers; and thereby denying them the right to determine their own destiny. However, as vexed as he was at European powers seizing land in Africa, Garvey’s more important concern, which he would dedicate the next decade to, was the plight of the American Negro. Garvey believed the Negro in America could never achieve equality (i.e. integration rights). He believed the white man would not allow this. Over the course of the next eight years he would give hundreds of passionate speeches to Negro audiences in almost all of the major cites of North, Mid-West, and even the South. His speeches to America’s Negroes were some of the most well-honed diatribes on the Negro's state of affairs in America to that date.

            Marcus Garvey was not an integrationist. He was a black nationalist ... who wanted America’s Negroes to move back to their ancestral homeland (Africa). His stated destination for them was the state of Liberia. With that goal in mind, Garvey launched a shipping line called the Black Star Line in 1919.  In this same year, he was also able to convince a sufficient number of his people to loan him enough money to actually purchase a ship. However, the short of it is, this line, managed and run entirely by Negroes, was continually plagued by internal corruption, as well as Garvey’s own mismanagement. Not surprisingly, it ran up massive debts in a very brief time and subsequently failed in 1922. It also never made a single voyage to Africa.  Garvey’s fault was not that he was corrupt. He just didn’t have the wherewithal to manage a company the size of Black Star - at least there is no evidence he was running a scam.  His shipping line though was actually quite a audacious and  fanciful idea, and not because he wanted to use it to transport people of African descent back to their ancestral homeland. Rather, because it was so grandiose  even the biggest financial tycoons of the day would have scoffed at the possibility of launching such an endeavor.  Yet, Garvey actually did get his shipping line up and going. It took a man of extraordinary talents to get as far as he did, even though, in truth, his enterprise was certainly doomed from the beginning. Garvey being a terrible businessman simply accelerated the inevitable.

     As for Garvey’s inspiration to reunite the American Negroes with their ancestral homeland, he was up against two formidable challenges: 1) the economic boom of the 1920s; 2) the NAACP.  With regard to America’s economy in the 1920s, American Negroes were not in that bad of shape in urban America. At least most were working. And those that were unemployed, all Negroes certainly knew - for the evidence was all around them - it was only a matter of finding remunerable work to end their indigence.

      And regarding the NAACP at this time, its agenda was in direct conflict to what Garvey was preaching. Garvey was telling the Negro that it was his fault for his present predicament because he was failing to recognize his true home (Africa), and failing to do what was necessary to get there. The NAACP, however, was telling the Negro to seek integration into America’s Anglo power base; and that his present state of affairs was entirely the white man’s fault i.e. for failing to provide the Negro integration and race-nullification.  Obviously, Garvey and the NAACP were simply canceling out the message of the other.  

       Finally, regarding Garvey's organization, he claimed a membership of 4 million members worldwide in 1920. The NAACP's membership stood at about 62,000 (the book Chronological History Of The Negro reports that the NAACP had 85,000 members in 1919 - pg. 387).

     Garvey's Conviction:: Other than rumors,  there is no concrete evidence - that I could find - that exists today that the NAACP applied pressure (or money?) to U.S. government officials to pursue a fraud charge against Garvey.  Regarding the evidence presented against Garvey, and ultimately used to convict him, it was shockingly flimsy. Garvey received a five year prison sentence. However, President Calvin Coolidge, perhaps perusing the evidence and wanting to do the right thing,  did intervene after two years of Garvey's sentence and commuted his  term. Upon Garvey's release, he was deported back to his native Jamacia (1927).    

Garvey's Conviction: "Garvey blamed Jewish jurors and a Jewish federal judge, Julian Mack, for his conviction.  He felt they had been biased because of their political objections to his meeting with the acting imperial wizard of the Ku Klux Klan the year before. In 1928, Garvey told a journalist: "When they wanted to get me they had a Jewish judge try me, and a Jewish prosecutor. I would have been freed but two Jews on the jury held out against me ten hours and succeeded in convicting me, whereupon the Jewish judge gave me the maximum penalty.""   Wikipedia

>>> Garvey forgot to mention two other Jewish males, and prominent members of the NAACP's Executive Committee at this time:: Arthur and Joel Spingarn.  Jewish conspiracy? Possibly. There is one absolute certainty here: the NAACP, still a fledgling organization and economically destitute at this time, benefited the most when Garvey was deported. <<<

      Marcus Garvey remains the only man of African descent prior to 1964 that gained a substantial following among American Negroes…advocating for black separation, self-improvement and self-sufficiency. 

          Garvey: “At maturity the black and white boys separated, and took
                          different courses in life. I grew up then to see the
                          difference between the races more and more….” “I
                          asked, "Where is the black man's Government?" "Where
                          is his King and his kingdom?" "Where is his President, his
                         country, and his ambassador, his army, his navy, his men
                         of big affairs?" I could not find them, and then I declared,
                         "I will help to make them.””
Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: ,

Friday, April 8, 2011

Mary White Ovington - Creator Of NAACP



Mary White Ovington was born in 1865 in Brooklyn, NY. Her childhood and adolescence were (okay, not surprisingly) completely unremarkable. Her adulthood, however, once she emerged into it, from then on she seems to have been determined to be a contradiction to what others of her people were doing : She was a life-long spinster when just about every other female desired marriage; she was Unitarian when virtually all Christians believed in the Trinity; she was a socialist when the overwhelming majority of Americans were for capitalism. So it should not be surprising to see Miss Ovington in 1908 conceive of an organization (the NAACP) for which the stated purpose was what the vast, vast majority of her people were dead-set against:: integration of one race into another - black into white. 

Half a Man…

 Half a Man is a book written by Miss Ovington (released in 1911). As the title implies, Miss Ovington did not believe the Negro male was a full man, only but  “half a man."1   Full manhood for the Negro male, Miss Ovington suggests , was only obtainable with integration into another race; that is; the Caucasian male society (her race), which the black man continually sought out and juxtaposed himself. Miss Ovington’s opinion of those of African descent was derived mainly from her observations of them in the Negro section of Manhattan, New York (she actually lived among the Negro people there - in a Negro tenement - to get a better understanding of them). Her book is basically a description of Negro life from slavery to the beginning of the 20th century. It entails the struggles and trials and tribulations of a people in a world they were forced to accept (the white man's ways). 2    It is also a book about the Negro male’s struggle in the urban environment of Manhattan, his legacy of slavery, his persistent unemployment, the menial jobs he is almost always assigned to (when he does find work), his criminal propensity, his inability to be a provider for his family … among many other seemingly extraneous details of daily Negro life in this borough that is more than a bit taxing on any reader's time and patients. 

  Miss Ovington was blessed with a very long life, dying in 1951 at the age of 86. Note: I wonder what Miss Ovington would have thought of her little creation (The NAACP)  had she lived long enough to see the black male-initiated Watts Riots? 

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

 1.   Miss Ovington in her book claims to have acquired this description, “half a man”, through a conversation she had with a college-age Negro male, but her account, at least to me, simply does not ring true.

 2. I refer to blacks being "forced" as individuals to accept the ways of the white man. The black race collectively, however,  had the right and opportunity to live separate from the the white population. Of course, there was no law against this. They had the right to build their own towns, their own cities, or colonize a place in America's vast amount of unsettled land (1865 to 1964). In other words, American blacks after 1865 were in fact a completely FREE people. However, free from the white man, his towns, cities...and his way of life was not what the average black man in America wanted. They integration...and integration by any means necessary. The Johnson Administration gifted them what they so desperately coveted i.e. across-the-board forced integration rights. 
Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: ,

Town of Boley - Negro Males Only Large Town In America

   (Main Menu Page For All Blogs )

A Town That Just Couldn't Become A City

Boley, OK. was established in 1904  (incorporated in 1905) and was, at the time, located in the Creek Nation of the Indian Territory. It is credited with becoming the largest and most long-lasting prominent Negro town in the United States. 

Boley was founded on September 22, 1904 by two Negro men, T. M. Haynes and James Barnett.  At its peak (1910),  it had two banks, two cotton gins, a newspaper, a hotel,  and a railroad stop.  It was also a town that was run entirely by Negro men   Its population peaked in 1911 to about 4000 (this number is likely over-estimated by about 2500).  It dropped steadily over the next 20 years, settling at about 1000 in the 1930s.  It has remained at about that number ever since.   As for why I am dedicating a blog to this small Negro town, it's because Boley serves as an excellent example of a town that should have, if white and black were indeed the same,  blossomed into a great and thriving Negro city (Negro males established no cities in America).  The best feature of the Negro town was the railroad, which was an enormous advantage for any marketable product.  


However, for reasons that must have remained a mystery to the Negro leaders of Boley, during the two Great Migration periods for blacks (1910 to 1930 &  1940 to 1970) ,  southern Negroes (males & females) simply refused to make Boley their destination when they decided to leave their rural farms for other economic opportunities.


Oh , by comparison , in 1910, the city of Tulsa, OK , created and run entirely by white males, had a population of over 18,000 people.  About  4% (800 apprx.) of the city's population was black in 1910.  By 1920, the black population had swelled to over 9000.

Of further note, Boley, OK, declared bankruptcy in 1939.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)