Black Friday

What I remember verifies this account so I’ll keep it here.

UPDATED: ORIGINAL: 

What’s the Real History of Black Friday?

The retail bonanza known as Black Friday is now an integral part of many Thanksgiving celebrations, but this holiday tradition has darker roots than you might imagine.

The first recorded use of the term “Black Friday” was applied not to holiday shopping but to financial crisis: specifically, the crash of the U.S. gold market on September 24, 1869. Two notoriously ruthless Wall Street financiers, Jay Gould and Jim Fisk, worked together to buy up as much as they could of the nation’s gold, hoping to drive the price sky-high and sell it for astonishing profits. On that Friday in September, the conspiracy finally unraveled, sending the stock market into free-fall and bankrupting everyone from Wall Street barons to farmers.

The most commonly repeated story behind the post-Thanksgiving shopping-related Black Friday tradition links it to retailers. As the story goes, after an entire year of operating at a loss (“in the red”) stores would supposedly earn a profit (“went into the black”) on the day after Thanksgiving, because holiday shoppers blew so much money on discounted merchandise. Though it’s true that retail companies used to record losses in red and profits in black when doing their accounting, this version of Black Friday’s origin is the officially sanctioned—but inaccurate—story behind the tradition.

In recent years, another myth has surfaced that gives a particularly ugly twist to the tradition, claiming that back in the 1800s Southern plantation owners could buy slaves at a discount on the day after Thanksgiving. Though this version of Black Friday’s roots has understandably led some to call for a boycott of the retail holiday, it has no basis in fact.

The true story behind Black Friday, however, is not as sunny as retailers might have you believe. Back in the 1950s, police in the city of Philadelphia used the term to describe the chaos that ensued on the day after Thanksgiving, when hordes of suburban shoppers and tourists flooded into the city in advance of the big Army-Navy football game held on that Saturday every year. Not only would Philly cops not be able to take the day off, but they would have to work extra-long shifts dealing with the additional crowds and traffic. Shoplifters would also take advantage of the bedlam in stores to make off with merchandise, adding to the law enforcement headache.

By 1961, “Black Friday” had caught on in Philadelphia, to the extent that the city’s merchants and boosters tried unsuccessfully to change it to “Big Friday” in order to remove the negative connotations. The term didn’t spread to the rest of the country until much later, however, and as recently as 1985 it wasn’t in common use nationwide. Sometime in the late 1980s, however, retailers found a way to reinvent Black Friday and turn it into something that reflected positively, rather than negatively, on them and their customers. The result was the “red to black” concept of the holiday mentioned earlier, and the notion that the day after Thanksgiving marked the occasion when America’s stores finally turned a profit. (In fact, stores traditionally see bigger sales on the Saturday before Christmas.)

The Black Friday story stuck, and pretty soon the term’s darker roots in Philadelphia were largely forgotten. Since then, the one-day sales bonanza has morphed into a four-day event, and spawned other “retail holidays” such as Small Business Saturday/Sunday and Cyber Monday. Stores started opening earlier and earlier on that Friday, and now the most dedicated shoppers can head out right after their Thanksgiving meal.

A Visual History of Black Friday: From Financial Crash to Shopping Mania

 
Thanksgiving Trivia-1st Macys Thanksgiving Day Parade-Getty-515134184

https://www.history.com/news/whats-the-real-history-of-black-friday 

Loading

They Stole My Election

This Post Reflects information taken from this article by JEFFREY LORD. Please read the entire article to see the context.
“https://spectator.org/stop-the-steal-start-the-audit/”

It may be true.”Philadelphia did in fact keep poll watchers out.” The ‘Poll Watches’ are appointed as such from applicants and are officials.

Look at the ‘If’ part of the next claim – “If no social distancing is OK for social justice protests and election celebrations, then no social distancing is most certainly OK for poll watchers.” AGREED but not accepted. It is not OK!

Then look at this which negates the first argument and upholds the second, Not OK. “Quite clearly, once allowed into the polling place they were told they had to stand six feet away from the person doing the counting.”

 And then the last claim that – “Plain old-fashioned common sense says there is no way in the world anyone can thoroughly examine a ballot from six feet away.” And, Oh Boy, is that true! No ONE ‘thoroughly examines my ballot’ after I mark it and put it in the ballot box. How Stupid. And I stopped reading.

With early voting underway in a growing number of states and Donald Trump talking about a “rigged” election and warning about what he says will be voter fraud, there have been significant discussions about “poll watchers,” and concerns that certain individuals may try to intimidate their fellow voters.

But what are the rules governing polling places and poll watchers?

As it turns out, the US Constitution gives states the power to regulate the “time, place, and manner” of elections — which means, in practical terms, that most of the rules governing voting and polling places are made at the state level — and can therefore vary widely from one jurisdiction to the next

The general idea behind poll watchers is that they help promote transparency and openness — not through their actions so much as by simply being in the room. Most states (and the District of Columbia) allow at least some kind of observer in polling places, but the rules for how poll watchers are picked (and by whom) vary from state to state. 

1) Who/what is a poll watcher and why do states allow them?

Most importantly, poll watchers are not just individuals who show up at the precinct on Election Day; virtually every jurisdiction requires that official poll watchers be identified and approved in advance—usually at least two weeks beforehand. And to avoid conflicts of interest or the potential for implicit intimidation, most states do not allow otherwise eligible law enforcement officers or state officials to serve as poll watchers.

2) What are poll watchers allowed to do? What can’t they do?

As the name suggests, poll watchers are generally expected to watch what happens in individual polling places and not play an especially active role in the actual voting process.

Poll watchers generally have two functions: Ensuring that all votes cast in that polling place are counted correctly and reporting suspected irregularities to local officials, be it the poll workers at the polling place, the election board or some other body. This last point is the potential source for controversy, because most states’ laws allow poll watchers to challenge individual voters’ right to vote — not directly, but through the poll workers — which has provoked concerns about poll watchers trying to intimidate voters.

5) What should you do if a poll watcher or someone else at your polling place acts in a manner that you believe is inappropriate?

They wisely do not allow fire arms in a polling place. Enough Said.

Loading

For Reasons

A number of influential commentators who firmly opposed Donald Trump in 2016 recently announced their intention to vote for him in 2020.

But the fact is that Trump presents a much greater danger to key constitutional values, and does more than anyone else to lend apparent credibility to extreme forms of protest as well as an unremittingly negative appraisal of America. Voting for Trump to stem the rising tide of illiberalism is about as pure an example of cutting off your nose to spite your face as political life can afford.

Loading

New Normal

The new Normal is working itself out by taking the path-of-least-resistance. People are accepting what they no longer want to fight. As usual the best way is harder than the worst way. The acceptable is now finding a middle position and we are losing the chance to make things better!

Our current President is a Master Deal Maker and is not worried about how he looks to people who cannot hurt him as he completes the steps of the Deals he is making.

Officially he is positive for the Virus but no one can really be sure about a liar and his team of liars. It is what liars do that makes them liars. The team is not worried about keeping the lies straight. Contradictions are commonplace.

People in the population are seeing the opportunity to further their cause by making statements and claims only meant to incite and publicize and maybe gain a little ground in the process. Protesters would be startled if they were granted their demands because getting their demands is not the goal.

I had been pushing for everyone to take responsibility for their acts, good and bad, but the opportunity has past and reality is coming to light. Responsible People are at a disadvantage in the new normal. The new normal is ‘irresponsibility wins’. I feel I am the first to understand this. Self interest is now the goal of most active people in our nation. This has always been the case but it was not the main driving force in all interactions as it is in this New Normal of the 2020 year of opportunity.

Personal Freedom is dominant and requires no Responsibility!

Loading

July 4th 2020

One Day in 20 years (1763-1783) became Independence Day – On July 4, 1776, the 13 colonies claimed their independence from England, an event which eventually led to the formation of the United States. Each year on the fourth of July, also known as Independence Day, Americans celebrate this historic event.

The Revolutionary War (1775-83), also known as the American Revolution, which arose from growing tensions between residents of Great Britain’s 13 North American colonies and the colonial government, which represented the British crown, started as an insurrection.

The French and Indian War, or Seven Years’ War (1756-1763), brought new territories under the power of the crown, but the expensive conflict lead to new and unpopular taxes.

For more than a decade before the outbreak of the American Revolution in 1775,  the British government attempted to raise revenue by taxing the colonies (notably the Stamp Act of 1765, the Townshend Acts of 1767 and the Tea Act of 1773), which met with heated protest among many colonists. Colonial resistance led to violence in 1770, when British soldiers opened fire on a mob of colonists, killing five men in what was known as the Boston Massacre.  After December 1773, when a band of Bostonians dressed as Mohawk Indians boarded British ships and dumped 342 chests of tea into Boston Harbor during the Boston Tea Party, an outraged Parliament passed a series of measures (known as the Intolerable, or Coercive Acts) designed to reassert imperial authority in Massachusetts. Skirmishes between British troops and colonial militiamen in Lexington and Concord in April 1775 kicked off the armed conflict. It was an insurrection by colonist who resented their lack of representation in Parliament and demanded the same rights as other British subjects. Notice that the wording of this statement implies acceptance that colonists were indeed British subject. Changing this status was not a goal.

When British General Lord Charles Cornwallis and his army surrendered to General George Washington’s American force and its French allies at the Battle of Yorktown on October 19, 1781, it was more than just military win. The outcome in Yorktown, Virginia marked the conclusion of the last major battle of the American Revolution and the start of a new nation’s independence.

Though the movement for American independence effectively triumphed at the Battle of Yorktown, contemporary observers did not see that as the decisive victory yet. British forces remained stationed around Charleston, and the powerful main army still resided in New York. Though neither side would take decisive action over the better part of the next two years, the British removal of their troops from Charleston and Savannah in late 1782 finally pointed to the end of the conflict. British and American negotiators in Paris signed preliminary peace terms in Paris late that November, and on September 3, 1783, Great Britain formally recognized the independence of the United States in the Treaty of Paris. At the same time, Britain signed separate peace treaties with France and Spain (which had entered the conflict in 1779), bringing the American Revolution to a close after eight long years.

Loading

Diversions

Look at this! Another thing I had nothing to do with. Washington, D.C., D.C. in full District of Columbia, city and capital of the United States of America. Its population ranks it 50 out of 52 (2 states are smaller) and its size ranks it 51 out of 51. Source It is coextensive with the District of Columbia (the city is often referred to as simply D.C.) and is located on the northern shore of the Potomac River at the river’s navigation head—that is, the transshipment point between waterway and land transport. The state of Maryland borders the District of Columbia to the north, east, and west, and the state of Virginia borders the District on the southern shore of the Potomac River.

After the American Civil War (1861–65), the city of Washington expanded beyond its originally planned boundaries and became legally indistinguishable from the District of Columbia. Washington, D.C., remains a territory, not a state, and since 1974 it has been governed by a locally elected mayor and city council over which Congress retains the power of veto.

Washington, D.C., remains a territory, not a state, but where is it listed? I don’t see it here.

Territories

The Washington metropolitan area covers nearly 4,000 square miles (10,360 square km) and encompasses 10 counties, 5 in Maryland (Montgomery, Prince George’s, Frederick, Charles, and Calvert) and 5 in Virginia (Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, Stafford, and Prince William).

Area District, 68 square miles (176 square km). Pop. (2000) 572,059; Washington-Arlington-Alexandria Metro Division, 3,727,565; Washington-Arlington-Alexandria Metro Area, 4,796,183; (2010) 601,723; Washington-Arlington-Alexandria Metro Division, 4,377,088; Washington-Arlington-Alexandria Metro Area, 5,582,170.

The role Washington plays as the capital of the United States often overshadows its lively local history and its complex political, economic, and social issues.

About half the land in Washington is owned by the U.S. government, which pays no taxes on it. Several hundred thousand people in the D.C. metropolitan area work for the federal government.

House set to vote on DC statehood to create Washington …abcnews.go.com › Politics › story
 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Democrats were working “to correct an injustice.” but it indicates that she doesn’t know it was their choice to live in a territory as with all other residents of territories.

“For more than two centuries, the residents of Washington D.C., the District of Columbia, have been denied their right to fully participate in their democracy,” Pelosi, D-Calif., said during a news conference at the Capitol in the lead up to the vote. “Instead, they have been dealt the injustice of paying taxes, proudly serving in uniform in great numbers and contributing to the economic power of our nation while being denied the full enfranchisement which is their right.”

Loading

What White

Contemporary anthropologists and other scientists, while recognizing the reality of biological variation between different human populations, regard the concept of a unified, distinguishable “white race” or “white people” as socially constructed. With this fact in mind I am offended by the term and reject it. Or maybe more specially, that the majority it is meant to represent is the actual target. I accept the existence of “white people” as a social group of “Irresponsible, anonymous, controlling, exploitative, greedy, … mostly European people” that is proving to be detrimental to the Social Health of our Nation.

These clips are from – DiAngelo, Robin J.. White Fragility. Beacon Press. Kindle Edition.

“As powerful forces of white racism again swell, ”  Agree

To eradicate racism, she encourages white people to relinquish ingrained hyper-attachment to individualism and embrace predictable patterns of their own racial group. Disagree with using racial group, should be social group.

throughout history, race has been black culture’s issue;
however, I understand racism as a system into which I was socialized, Agree

If your definition of a racist is someone who holds conscious dislike of people because of race, then I agree that it is offensive for me to suggest that you are racist when I don’t know you. I also agree that if this is your definition of racism, and you are against racism, then you are not racist. Now breathe. I am not using this definition of racism, Agreed but most readers are so it is misleading

Race science was driven by these social and economic interests, which came to establish cultural norms and legal rulings that legitimized racism and the privileged status of those defined as white. Agree that race science has done this but for the privileged “white people” social group.

As Ta-Nehisi Coates states, “But race is the child of racism, not the father.” He means that first we exploited people for their resources, not according to how they looked. Exploitation came first, and then the ideology of unequal races to justify this exploitation followed. Agreed

From wikipedia.org/wiki/Race A race is a grouping of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into categories generally viewed as distinct by society.[1]The term was first used to refer to speakers of a common language and then to denote national affiliations. By the 17th century the term began to refer to physical (phenotypical) traits. Modern scholarship regards race as a social construct, an identity which is assigned based on rules made by society. While partially based on physical similarities within groups, race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning.[1][2]

 

Loading

My Ancestors

I come from European Stock. English, German, Swedish mainly. My grandparents came to this country as immigrants. That. is the only difference in the early history of the American States that may differ from yours unless you are one of the few wealthy families from the start. They worked, they were working class immigrants. Most of the country’s immigrants were also. They were not part of city life but being from cooler areas of Europe landed in similar climates in the new land. My parents were born here and stayed, more-or-less, in those same areas. Even when towns and cities formed, ethnic areas composed these because immigrants tended to settle with like family units; ie.English on the north side, Swedish on the southeast, etc.; for support and protection. After all the immigrants did displace the Indians who already here.

The people that I grew up with were also this type but based on Italian, Polish, Irish, Scottish, . . . There were not many African, Caribbean, Chinese, Mexican, Islanders, etc. immigrants because their paths did not came to or through what I call our area. And my ancestors had yet to fight the ‘Civil War’ to free the slaves in the south. We were not rich and I did not know we were poor. We controlled and helped our families. Our families were large and that was as close as we came to having slaves. We could never afford to take care of slaves because we were busy caring for our families. I remember being told very young, “Don’t give your word easily, but when you do, keep it”. Given this history I am sure you can see why I resent anyone implying that I owe someone from my past. This also makes it easier for me to feel ‘bad’ when someone implies I did not honor my responsibilities.

The first time this questioning came around in the 50’s and 60’s I was confused because I did not understand that ‘White’ referred to me. I did not know where ‘White’ was. ‘Redneck’ referred to my friends on the farm because they were not allowed to go shirtless. I was pretty dark at the end of summer. Even a few years ago I was ask ‘How much African-American I had in me?’ I had to say ‘None. It is Swedish.’ Lately I came to understand that that term referred to me and others as a majority term. I had turned ‘White’ when I wasn’t looking! I had always thought of myself as a ‘minority of one’, and fought for myself against friend and foe alike.

Language History – White people – Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org › wiki › White_people

Modern racial hierarchies. The term “white race” or “white people” entered the major European languages in the later 17th century, originating with the racialization of slavery at the time, in the context of the Atlantic slave trade and the enslavement of indigenous peoples in the Spanish Empire. As I analyze this definition 2 things stand out. “the racialization of slavery at the time” means that it was not that way before! AND “enslavement of indigenous peoples in the Spanish Empire” means it too was brought to America!

White people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

White people is a racial classification and skin color specifier, used mostly and often exclusively for people of European descent; depending on context, nationality, and point of view. The term has at times been expanded to encompass persons of Middle Eastern and North African descent (for example, in the US Census definition), persons who are often considered non-white in other contexts. The usage of “white people” or a “white race” for a large group of mainly or exclusively European populations, defined by their light skin, among other physical characteristics, and contrasting with “black people“, Amerindians, and other “colored” people or “persons of color“, originated in the 17th century. It was only during the 19th century that this vague category was transformed in a quasi-scientific system of race and skin color relations. Prior to the modern age, no European peoples regarded themselves as “white”, but rather defined their race, ancestry, or ethnicity in terms of their nationality. Moreover, there is no accepted standard for determining the geographic barrier between white and non-white people. Contemporary anthropologists and other scientists, while recognizing the reality of biological variation between different human populations, regard the concept of a unified, distinguishable “white race” as socially constructed. As a group with several different potential boundaries, it is an example of a fuzzy concept. 

Various social constructions of whiteness have been significant to national identity, public policy, religion, population statistics, racial segregation, affirmative action, white privilege, eugenics, racial marginalization, and racial quotas.  The concept of whiteness has particular resonance in the Anglosphere: e.g., in the United States (White Americans), Canada (white Canadians), Australia (white Australians), New Zealand (white New Zealanders), the United Kingdom (white British), and South Africa (white South Africans). In much of the rest of Europe, the distinction between race and nationality is more blurred; when people are asked to describe their race or ancestry, they often describe it in terms of their nationality.

WOW. Prior to the modern age, no European peoples regarded themselves as “white”. Sooo, NOW they do? What happened to defining their race, ancestry, or ethnicity in terms of their nationality? Why would European peoples regarded themselves as “white”? Who designated “European Peoples” as “White” and designated “enslaved indigenous peoples” as “Black” then “negroes” then “Afro-American” then “Colored People” then “People of Color” then …? The people who would do such a thing are the same group of “??????? People” that benefit from the division; The same group that fears the power of the resulting combined group of “Victims”. Is it the same group that claims “No Responsibility” for anything? 

And finally as I see it: The term “white race” or “white people” entered the major European languages in the later 17th century, originating with the racialization of slavery at the time. The term “black people” came with it as an opposing term. These terms have no scientific standing. They are Social terms. As social terms their origins are slavery. “black people” understood this at a deeper level. For many individuals, communities and countries, “black” is perceived as a derogatory, outdated, reductive or otherwise unrepresentative label and it has been rejected in favor of “person of color”. Both of these terms, “white or  black”, perpetuate Slavery by their use. 

Loading

Media

On June 15, 2020 I inquired to AXIOS.COM about an article presented by APPLE. news@axios.com.

In an article yesterday https://apple.news/Au79C6C-PRna1uNK5q_bihQ you warn me of fraud schemes. What is being done about this environment? What is being done about the perps? Is anything being done more than telling me it happens?
I feel this is THE area we need to change in this new normal. The laws has made this possible just as police abuse?

jennifer.kingson@axios.com replied with “Thanks for writing. There have been a number of prosecutions related to the latest fraud schemes. Law enforcement agencies and other interested parties are tracking things closely and tell me they are doing all they can to fight back — and also that it takes vigilance on the part of consumers to report what they see. I appreciate your concern for the issue and thank you for reading Axios!”

I replied for more information with “Hello Jennifer, The statement you made is just what I have been hearing.  “Law enforcement agencies and other interested parties are tracking things closely and tell me they are doing all they can to fight back“. I fear What that actually means is ’there is nothing they can do’ . This seems to be because they involve text messages and websites. I’m hearing it has to do with jurisdictions. Examples that I have reported: 1. text/email msg from Verizon and Wells Fargo that come from a Gmail account. 2. ATT suport email that says there is a problem with subscriber email account sent from Yahoo and Gmail addresses. 3. text msg about covid-19 that says to contact a website given in the text that is still operational until I lookup the website stats and report the abuse to the ISP and the website is taken down.  Instances like these indicate to me that “all they can do” is very far from enough. And it is ridiculous to see Police departments issue warning to be careful instead of Prosecuting. If it is the laws as written that form this barrier the laws need to be exposed and changed. Can you help verify these seemingly accurate conclusions? Thank you.” I received no response

so I concluded on Jun 17, 2020 “I assume, because I have not seen your reply to the contrary, that my fears about your statement being without material content is true! I have been hoping the ’New Normal’ could include a completion of the Freedom movement of the mid 20th century which deteriorated into an effective Rights movement. The concept that Freedoms, from the constitutions, is composed of Rights and Responsibilities, was too complex for the times and may still be. The idea that Rights can be violated without incurring the Responsibility for the action is too ingrained in our Judicial System and Way-of-Life to be questioned. I regret the first computer virus that was injected into PCs was tolerated instead of prosecuted. But it did start a whole new industry of antivirus programs. I will continue my efforts at https://ooh-icu.spiritways.us Thank you for your attention but no thanks for the followup.”

Loading

Justice

What is Justice that we are seeking IT for BLM. Is it something that you can get? Is it something that you came give. What are in the pans of the Scale of Justice?

Maybe IT is not Justice that they/we seek. Could it retaliation for violations of the Right that we already have! Are these violators that will not accept any Responsibility for their violations. Responsibility is not something we decide to Accept, It is something we Have by way of our Actions.

Loading