blackS have supported democracy since we got rid of kings

Black History in the United States began when the first African indentured servants and enslaved people were brought west in the early seventeenth century. They were forced to do back-breaking labor on plantations and separated from their homes and families. Despite their unjust inferior status, they fought against Great Britain in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and against the Confederate South in the Civil War. During the Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation freed all those enslaved in Confederate states and territories. Then at the end of the war, the 13th Amendment was ratified, freeing all enslaved individuals within the United States. Though they had freedom on paper, Black Americans faced significant discrimination in the workplace, the education system, and the political and social spheres. In the South, they suffered under the discriminatory Jim Crow laws that kept them segregated in all public places. In the mid-1950s, the civil rights movement began in earnest and Blacks protested across the United States until the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964. Though this improved their position in American society, Black Americans still face prejudice and discrimination today.Continue Reading ›

Source Information

Fold3, Black History (https://www.fold3.com/collection/african-american : accessed Nov 9, 2025), database and images, https://www.fold3.com/collection/african-americanTotal Publications35Total Records805,317

Millions of people marching in the streets across the United States and 10,000 – 20,000 marching here in Spokane. The marchers are asking a fundamental question: How do we preserve democracy when so many of our neighbors seem willing to trade it for the promise of security?

It appears that there is a great deal of fear dividing our country in two. Why these fears, what needs to be done, and how can we do it? What do our readers think? What does our community think? What do others think?  

This is a three part series.  The first part describes the fears and what needs to be done to address them. The second part addresses why Black people should resist the loss of democracy, the third part deals with what needs to be done. Later articles can follow the progress of the Spokane fight for democracy.

The articles discuss various evidence-based approaches to enhance democratic resilience and social cohesion at government, institutional, and individual levels. They highlight the importance of economic interventions, leadership strategies, educational reforms, media responsibility, and personal engagement. The text outlines measures for specific demographic concerns while emphasizing the need for systemic changes and the importance of measuring success. Key factors for success include authenticity, inclusivity, patience, consistency, local focus, and bipartisan support.

Feedback from social media posts and interactions can be used to invite them to remove the fear, save democracy and participate in building a better community they want to live in.

Read the first article in the Fighting Fear series:

1. Why Are People So Afraid That They Choose Tyranny Over Democracy

2. Why Blacks Will Resist the Loss of Democracy

3. What Needs To Be Done to Relieve Fear?

4. Join Fighting Fear and Volunteer

SUBSCRIBE: If you want suggestions on what we must do in addition to protesting in the streets, subscribe to 4comculture.com. Go to the top of the sidebar and send us your email address.

October 18th millions marched. They said NO TRUMP! In order to stop tyranny now what do you want to do?

When the choice is tyranny or revolution, to keep your head in the sand is to choose tyranny. If you choose revolution the question is nonviolent or violent.

The Scenario

1. A presidential candidate has won the election and gained control over all branches of government.
2. The new administration refuses to follow court rulings and historical norms.
3. Democratic processes and checks and balances have broken down.
4. The leadership style is modeled after authoritarian regimes like Russia, North Korea, and China.

This situation represents a significant threat to democratic institutions and the rule of law, which are fundamental to a functioning democracy.

Can We Trust This Man?

Options for Grassroots Movements

In such a scenario, grassroots movements and civil society organizations face a critical decision: whether to accept the new regime or to resist. Based on historical examples and research on civil resistance, there are several potential courses of action:

Nonviolent revolutions have endured longer

1. Nonviolent Revolution

Historically, nonviolent revolutions have been more successful and led to more stable democratic outcomes than violent uprisings. Research by Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan has shown that nonviolent campaigns are twice as likely to succeed as violent ones.

Strategies for nonviolent revolution could include:

a) Mass Mobilization: Organizing large-scale protests, strikes, and boycotts to demonstrate widespread opposition to the regime. This was effectively used in the Philippines People Power Revolution (1986) and the U.S. Civil Rights Movement (1950s-1960s).

b) Civil Disobedience: Engaging in coordinated acts of nonviolent resistance, such as sit-ins, blockades, or refusal to pay taxes. The Indian Independence Movement led by Mahatma Gandhi successfully employed these tactics.

c) Alternative Institutions: Creating parallel governance structures or “shadow governments” to challenge the legitimacy of the regime and provide essential services to the population.

d) International Solidarity: Appealing to international organizations and foreign governments for support and sanctions against the regime. This strategy was crucial in the South African Anti-Apartheid Movement.

2. Civic Engagement and Grassroots Organizing

Even in challenging political environments, there are legal and peaceful methods to resist authoritarianism:

a) Stakeholder Engagement: Identifying and mobilizing key stakeholders who can influence the political process.

b) Effective Communication: Using clear, consistent messaging to articulate grievances and demands.

c) Technology and Social Media: Leveraging digital platforms for organizing, information sharing, and mobilizing support.

d) Educational Interventions: Implementing programs to promote civic engagement and democratic values.

e) Building Trust and Relationships: Establishing networks of trust within communities to strengthen resistance efforts.

3. Seeking International Support

Grassroots movements can appeal to international democratic support systems and diplomatic channels:

a) International Organizations: Engaging with bodies like the UN, OSCE, and International IDEA to highlight democratic backsliding and seek support.

b) Foreign Diplomatic Pressure: Encouraging democratic nations to exert diplomatic pressure on the regime, similar to Sweden’s “Drive for Democracy” initiative.

c) NGO Partnerships: Collaborating with international NGOs like Freedom House to document and publicize human rights violations and democratic erosion.

Violent Revolution as a Last Resort

While violent revolution might seem like an option, it’s important to note that:

1. Violent uprisings are statistically less likely to succeed than nonviolent movements.
2. They often lead to prolonged conflict and instability.
3. Violent revolutions can delegitimize the movement in the eyes of both domestic and international observers.
4. They may provide justification for increased repression by the regime.

Conclusion

In the face of democratic breakdown and the rise of authoritarianism, grassroots movements have historically been most successful when employing nonviolent strategies. These strategies, combined with effective civic engagement and international support, offer the best chance for restoring democratic norms and institutions.

The choice between accepting tyranny and forming a revolution is a complex one, with significant consequences. However, the historical record suggests that nonviolent revolutions, when well-organized and widely supported, can be effective in challenging even the most entrenched authoritarian regimes.

It’s crucial for grassroots movements to carefully consider their options, build broad coalitions, and maintain a commitment to nonviolent tactics to maximize their chances of success and minimize the risk of further destabilization or violence.

When tyranny and revolution appear to be the choices, which do you think we ought to choose? The choice should be made with deep thought. If you keep your head in the sand and refuse to recognize the current conditions, you have chosen tyranny. But if you choose revolution the question is nonviolent or violent.

If you want suggestions on what we must do in addition to protesting in the streets, subscribe to 4comculture.com. Go to the top of the sidebar and send us your email address.

The psychological traits of true believers in mass movements can be observed in the followers of contemporary political figures like Donald Trump, Kamala Harris, Barack Obama, and Bernie Sanders.

See the article for details: CLICK HERE

Ann Marie Danimus engages with a man about abortion prior to U>S> Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s speedh at a Kootenai County GOP dinner in downtown Coeur d’Alene. 2022

The marchers are asking a fundamental question: How do we preserve democracy when so many of our neighbors seem willing to trade it for the promise of security?

It appears that there is a great deal of fear dividing our country in two. Why these fears, what needs to be done, and how can we do it? What do our readers think? What does our community think? What do others think?  

This is a three part series.  The first part describes the fears and what needs to be done to address them. The second part addresses why Black people should resist the loss of democracy, the third part deals with what needs to be done. Later articles can follow the progress of the Spokane fight for democracy.

The articles discuss various evidence-based approaches to enhance democratic resilience and social cohesion at government, institutional, and individual levels. They highlight the importance of economic interventions, leadership strategies, educational reforms, media responsibility, and personal engagement. The text outlines measures for specific demographic concerns while emphasizing the need for systemic changes and the importance of measuring success. Key factors for success include authenticity, inclusivity, patience, consistency, local focus, and bipartisan support.

Feedback from social media posts and interactions can be used to invite them to remove the fear, save democracy and participate in building a better community they want to live in.

Why Are People So Afraid That They Choose Tyranny Over Democracy

Robert “Bob” Lloyd info@4comculture.com 4comculture.com

Fighting Fear Articles

1. Why Are People So Afraid That They Choose Tyranny Over Democracy

2. Why Blacks Will Resist the Loss of Democracy

3. What Needs To Be Done to Relieve Fear?

This page provides examples of how you can be empowered. Feel free to look around 4comculture.com. Please also do research outside of the site.

Join Fighting Fear

Historical Context and Deep-Rooted Resistance

African Americans whose families have been in America since the 1400s and experienced slavery until the 1860s carry a unique and profound understanding of what happens when democratic institutions fail and authoritarian power goes unchecked. This lived experience across generations creates distinct motivations for resisting authoritarianism that differ significantly from more recent immigrant communities.

Generational Memory of Systemic Oppression

For African American communities with deep ancestral roots in America, the fight against Project 2025 and strongman leadership is informed by centuries of experiencing what happens when one group holds unchecked power. Their ancestors lived through:

• Slavery as a legal institution supported by government structures
• Jim Crow laws that used legal frameworks to enforce racial hierarchy
• Systematic exclusion from democratic participation despite constitutional promises
• State-sanctioned violence when they challenged existing power structures

This historical memory creates an acute awareness that democratic institutions, when weakened, can quickly become tools of oppression rather than protection.

Recent Immigrant Communities

The resistance motivations differ significantly from those of recent immigrants because:

For Long-Standing African American Communities:

• They cannot “go back” – America is their only home, making the stakes existential
• They’ve seen this playbook before – recognizing patterns of authoritarian consolidation
• They understand that “rocking the boat” is necessary – their ancestors’ progress came through resistance, not compliance
• They know that initial promises of stability often precede greater oppression

For Recent Immigrant Communities:

• May prioritize economic stability and fear jeopardizing newfound opportunities
• Might have different reference points for what constitutes dangerous authoritarianism
• Could be more willing to “wait and see” rather than immediately resist
• May fear that activism could threaten their status in ways that don’t apply to established communities

Understanding Project 2025’s Specific Threats

Project 2025 represents a particular threat to Black communities because it “includes a long list of extreme policy recommendations touching on nearly every aspect of American life, from immigration and abortion rights, to free speech and racial justice” [1]. The plan “would severely harm Black communities across the country” through its “radical proposals to restructure the federal government and increase the president’s authority” [2].

For communities with generational experience of oppression, these proposals echo historical patterns where concentrated executive power was used to maintain racial hierarchies and suppress civil rights progress.

The Stakes of Democratic Backsliding

African American communities with deep American roots understand that when presidents position themselves “as kings or strongman leaders,” the communities that suffer first and most severely are those who have historically been marginalized. Their resistance isn’t just political preference—it’s survival instinct informed by historical experience.

This creates a unique perspective where challenging authority isn’t “rocking the boat”—it’s preventing the boat from capsizing entirely. Their ancestors learned that waiting for gradual change or hoping that authoritarian leaders will self-limit often leads to deeper oppression, not eventual liberation.

The fight against authoritarianism, for these communities, represents a continuation of a centuries-long struggle for true democratic participation and protection under law.

What needs to be done?

What can be done to relieve these fears and concerns – by government, by leadership, by institutions, by individuals? What Needs To Be Done To Relieve Fear

4.

Fighting Fear Articles

1. Why Are People So Afraid That They Choose Tyranny Over Democracy

2. Why Blacks Will Resist the Loss of Democracy

3. What Needs To Be Done to Relieve Fear?

4. Join Fighting Fear and Volunteer

This page provides examples of how you can be empowered. Feel free to look around 4comculture.com. Please also do research outside of the site.

CORE’s (Congress of Racial Equality) Rules for Direct Action became a model for nonviolent resistance worldwide. Their emphasis on preparation, discipline, and moral clarity ensured that their actions were both effective and ethically grounded. These principles continue to influence modern social movements, from environmental activism to racial justice campaigns. By combining strategic planning with cultural tools, CORE and similar organizations demonstrated the power of nonviolence in achieving systemic change.

CORE’S Rules for Direct Action full article CLICK HERE

History and Influence of CORE article CLICK HERE

1. Empowering Marginalized Communities

CORE’s rules emphasized nonviolent direct action as a way for marginalized communities to assert their rights and demand justice without resorting to violence. This approach:

• Gave agency to oppressed groups: By training individuals in nonviolent tactics, CORE empowered ordinary people to participate in protests, sit-ins, and boycotts, making them active agents of change .
• Built solidarity across racial lines: CORE’s interracial founding and commitment to equality demonstrated that social justice could be pursued collectively, transcending racial and cultural barriers.

For example, CORE’s early sit-ins in the 1940s and 1950s successfully desegregated restaurants and public facilities in northern cities, proving that nonviolent action could achieve tangible results.

2. Establishing Nonviolence as a Moral and Strategic Tool

CORE’s rules were inspired by Gandhian principles of nonviolence, which emphasized the moral high ground in the fight for justice. This approach had several key impacts:

• Moral legitimacy: Nonviolence exposed the brutality of segregation and racism, particularly when peaceful protesters were met with violence. This shifted public opinion and garnered sympathy for the civil rights movement.
• Strategic effectiveness: Nonviolent tactics like sit-ins, Freedom Rides, and boycotts disrupted systems of oppression without alienating potential allies. For example, the Freedom Rides of 1961, organized by CORE, challenged segregation in interstate travel and drew national attention to the injustices of Jim Crow laws .

By adhering to nonviolence, CORE and other civil rights organizations were able to frame their struggle as a fight for universal human rights, forcing the U.S. to confront its contradictions between democratic ideals and racial inequality.

3. Inspiring Broader Social Justice Movements

CORE’s rules and tactics became a blueprint for other social justice movements, both in the U.S. and globally:

• Civil Rights Movement: CORE’s success in using nonviolent direct action inspired other organizations, such as the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), to adopt similar strategies .
• Global Movements: The principles of nonviolence and direct action influenced anti-apartheid activists in South Africa, as well as other movements for racial and social justice worldwide.

4. Highlighting the Role of Leadership and Organization

CORE’s rules emphasized the importance of investigation, documentation, and negotiation before taking direct action. This structured approach ensured that protests were well-organized and focused on specific goals:

• Leadership and training: CORE provided training in nonviolent resistance, preparing activists to remain disciplined even in the face of provocation .
• Strategic planning: By thoroughly investigating issues and negotiating with authorities before resorting to direct action, CORE demonstrated that social justice efforts could be both principled and pragmatic.

However, as CORE’s influence waned in later years due to internal divisions and shifts in leadership, some critics noted that a lack of organization and functional leadership hindered its ability to sustain participation in social justice efforts.

5. Bridging the Gap Between Local and National Movements

CORE’s decentralized structure allowed local chapters to address specific issues in their communities while contributing to the broader civil rights movement:

• Local impact: CORE chapters in places like Mississippi played a critical role in desegregating public facilities and registering Black voters during the 1960s .
• National influence: CORE’s actions, such as the Freedom Rides and the March on Washington, brought national attention to the fight for racial equality and pressured policymakers to enact civil rights legislation.

This dual focus on local and national action demonstrated how grassroots organizing could drive systemic change.

6. Challenges and Limitations

While CORE’s rules for action had a significant impact on social justice, they also faced challenges:

• Internal divisions: As CORE’s leadership shifted in the late 1960s, the organization moved away from its nonviolent roots and adopted more conservative positions, leading to a decline in its influence .
• Resistance to nonviolence: Some activists, frustrated by the slow pace of change, questioned the effectiveness of nonviolence and turned to more militant approaches. This tension highlighted the limits of CORE’s strategy in addressing systemic racism .

7. Cultural and Symbolic Impact

CORE’s rules for action also shaped the cultural dimensions of social justice movements:

• Symbols of resistance: CORE’s use of sit-ins, Freedom Rides, and other forms of civil disobedience became iconic symbols of the civil rights struggle .
• Music and art: CORE and other organizations used songs like “We Shall Overcome” to unite activists and convey the moral urgency of their cause.
• Media influence: By adhering to nonviolence, CORE ensured that images of peaceful protesters being attacked by police or mobs would resonate with the public and expose the brutality of segregation .

Conclusion

CORE’s Rules for Direct Action had a transformative impact on social justice by providing a disciplined, nonviolent framework for challenging systemic oppression. These rules empowered marginalized communities, established nonviolence as a powerful tool for change, and inspired movements worldwide. While CORE faced challenges in sustaining its influence, its legacy continues to shape the strategies and principles of modern social justice efforts.

CORE’S Rules for Direct Action full article CLICK HERE

To build coalitions and bridges beyond our own special interests:

1. Identify Common Goals: Successful coalitions often start with a clear understanding of the common goals and the necessity of collaboration. The process involves identifying the problems or goals that bring organizations together, understanding the community’s needs, and assembling a diverse group of stakeholders who can contribute to achieving the coalition’s objectives [7].
2. Engage Diverse Stakeholders: Include those most affected by the issue and leverage their unique perspectives and resources. This diversity can lead to more comprehensive and effective solutions.
3. Focus on Shared Interests: Cross-racial coalitions, for example, have been successful in addressing issues like voting rights and economic opportunities by focusing on shared interests or common threats [8].
4. Utilize Frameworks: Employ frameworks like the Health Impact Pyramid to assess local assets and challenges, coordinate activities, and monitor interventions effectively [9].
5. Promote Open Communication: Foster a culture of open dialogue and shared responsibility among coalition members to ensure all voices are heard and valued.

The phrase “the good old days” typically refers to a nostalgic longing for a past time that individuals perceive as better or simpler than the present. However, the meaning and implications of this phrase can vary significantly depending on the context and the speaker’s perspective: personal memories, cultural context, privilege and exclusion, selective memory, dissatisfaction with modernity. The Good Old Days

timeline: the Last 100 Years

To compare the last century, let’s break this down into key categories: cost of living, wages, population, culture (movies, slang, toys, hairstyles, clothing), and the experiences of marginalized groups highlighting changes over time and providing context for marginalized communities where relevant.

1. Cost of Living and Housing

• 1925: The average cost of a home in the U.S. was around $6,000. Rent was about $20–$60 per month, depending on location. The cost of living was significantly lower, but wages were also much smaller [1].
• 2025: The median home price in the U.S. is now over $400,000, with rent averaging $1,700 per month. Housing costs have skyrocketed, making homeownership increasingly difficult for younger generations.

Marginalized Communities:

In 1925, Black Americans and other marginalized groups faced systemic barriers to homeownership due to redlining and discriminatory lending practices. These inequities persist today, with racial wealth gaps making it harder for marginalized groups to afford homes.

2. Minimum Wage and Wages

• 1925: There was no federal minimum wage in the U.S. until 1938, when it was set at $0.25/hour. Many workers, especially women and minorities, earned far less in informal or agricultural jobs.
• 2025: The federal minimum wage is $7.25/hour, though many states have higher rates. However, adjusted for inflation, wages have stagnated since the 1970s, meaning purchasing power has barely increased.

Marginalized Communities:

Historically, women, immigrants, and Black workers were often excluded from wage protections. Today, these groups are still overrepresented in low-wage industries, such as service and caregiving jobs, where wage growth has been slow.

3. World Population

• 1925: The global population was approximately 2 billion.
• 2025: The world population is now over 8 billion, with significant growth in Asia and Africa.

Marginalized Communities:

Population growth has brought challenges like resource scarcity and climate change, which disproportionately affect marginalized communities in developing nations.

4. Movies and Entertainment

• 1925: Silent films dominated, with stars like Charlie Chaplin and Clara Bow. A movie ticket cost $0.25–$0.50. Popular films included The Gold Rush (1925).
• 2025: Movie tickets now average $10–$15. Streaming services dominate entertainment, but blockbuster films like Avatar: The Way of Water (2022) still draw crowds.

Marginalized Communities:

In 1925, Hollywood largely excluded Black actors and other minorities, relegating them to stereotypical roles. Today, representation has improved, but disparities remain in opportunities and pay.

5. Toys and Games

• 1925: Popular toys included teddy bears, yo-yos, and tin soldiers. These were simple and often handmade.
• 2025: Toys are now high-tech, with video games, drones, and AI-powered gadgets dominating the market.

Marginalized Communities:

In the 1920s, toys often reflected societal norms, with few options representing diverse cultures. Today, there’s a growing push for inclusive toys, such as dolls with different skin tones and abilities.

6. Slang Terms

• 1925: Popular slang included terms like “bee’s knees” (something great) and “cat’s pajamas” (something stylish).
• 2025: Modern slang is heavily influenced by internet culture, with terms like “slay” (to succeed) and “vibe” (a mood or feeling).

Marginalized Communities:

Slang has often originated in marginalized communities, particularly Black and LGBTQ+ cultures, before being adopted by mainstream society.

7. Hairstyles and Clothing

• 1925: Women embraced the bob haircut and flapper dresses, symbolizing liberation. Men wore tailored suits and hats.
• 2025: Hairstyles are diverse, with natural hair movements celebrating Black hair textures. Clothing trends are casual, with athleisure dominating.

Marginalized Communities:

In the 1920s, Black women faced pressure to conform to Eurocentric beauty standards. Today, natural hair movements challenge these norms, promoting acceptance of diverse styles.

8. Marginalized Communities: Then and Now

• 1925: Segregation, lack of voting rights, and systemic discrimination defined the experiences of many marginalized groups. Women had just gained the right to vote in 1920, but opportunities were limited.
• 2025: While progress has been made, systemic inequities persist. Wage gaps, housing discrimination, and underrepresentation in media and politics continue to affect marginalized groups.

Black and White

Population Trends Over the Last 100 Years

1. Early 20th Century (1920s-1950s):

• In the early 20th century, the U.S. population was overwhelmingly white, with white Americans making up approximately 90% of the population. Immigration policies, such as the Immigration Act of 1924, heavily restricted non-European immigration, reinforcing this demographic dominance.
• People of color, including African Americans, Native Americans, and smaller populations of Asian and Hispanic Americans, made up a much smaller percentage of the population.

1. Mid-20th Century (1960s-1980s):

• The Civil Rights Movement and changes in immigration laws, such as the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, began to reshape the racial makeup of the U.S. population.
• The African American population grew steadily, while immigration from Latin America and Asia increased significantly, diversifying the population further.

1. Late 20th Century (1990s-2000s):

• By the 1990s, the percentage of white Americans began to decline as immigration surged and birth rates among people of color outpaced those of white Americans.
• The Hispanic/Latino population, in particular, grew rapidly, becoming the largest minority group in the U.S.

Current Trends and Projections

1. Current Demographics:

• As of the 2020 Census, non-Hispanic white Americans made up about 57.8% of the population, a significant decline from the 1960s when they accounted for over 85% [1].
• People of color, including Hispanic/Latino, Black, Asian, and multiracial individuals, now make up a growing share of the population. For example, children of color became the majority of U.S. youth by 2020 [2].

1. Future Projections:

• The U.S. Census Bureau projects that by 2045, non-Hispanic white Americans will fall below 50% of the total population, making the U.S. a “majority-minority” nation[3].
• This shift is driven by higher birth rates among people of color and the aging of the white population. Generation Z is expected to be the last generation with a white majority, while Generation Alpha (born after 2010) will grow up in a majority-minority society [3].

Key Factors Driving These Changes

Immigration from Latin America, Asia, and Africa has been a major driver of population growth among people of color since the mid-20th century. Birth rates among Hispanic and Black populations have historically been higher than those of white Americans, contributing to the demographic shift. The white population is aging rapidly, with lower birth rates and higher mortality rates compared to other racial and ethnic groups.

The strongman leaders, oligarchs and White Christian nationalists have declared war on Blacks. The only way we will survive is to build coalitions. What are your thoughts on the demographics above?

Over the last century, the U.S. has transitioned from a predominantly white nation to one of increasing racial and ethnic diversity. This trend is expected to continue, with people of color projected to outnumber white Americans by 2045. The only way Black people will survive is to build a broad coalition with people of color, lower economic communities and the internationally disenfranchised.