Black women have long been called the backbone of the community. The phrase is usually offered as praise, but it also carries an uncomfortable truth: backbones bear weight. They absorb pressure. They keep bodies standing even when the rest of the structure is weak.

In families, churches, schools, nonprofits, public agencies, small businesses and civic movements, Black women are often asked to hold together what others have neglected. They manage crisis, preserve institutional memory, calm conflict, build relationships and keep services moving when resources are thin.

Yet the public gratitude rarely matches the institutional protection.

A growing body of labor data and workplace research shows that Black women have faced disproportionate employment disruption in recent years. That disruption is not only about layoffs. It includes reduced hours, labor-force exits, public-sector losses, leadership instability and a recurring pattern in which Black women are expected to repair broken systems without being given the support, resources or grace required to survive them.

BY THE NUMBERS

16.6%: Black women’s unemployment rate in May 2020, according to NWLC analysis of BLS data.

606,000: Approximate number of Black women who had left the labor force by February 2021, according to NWLC.

1.4 points: Drop in Black women’s employment-to-population ratio in 2025, according to EPI.

3.5 points: Employment-to-population drop among Black women with bachelor’s degrees in 2025, according to EPI.

During the pandemic recession, the damage was immediate. National Women’s Law Center analysis of federal labor data found that Black women’s unemployment rate reached 16.6 percent in May 2020. Months later, many had not recovered. NWLC reported that Black women remained unemployed at nearly twice their pre-pandemic rate in early 2021, while hundreds of thousands had left the labor force entirely.

Those losses were not random. A peer-reviewed study in Feminist Economics by Michelle Holder, Janelle Jones and Thomas Masterson found that Black women’s work was heavily concentrated in sectors and occupations hit hard by COVID-related shutdowns and disruption. The study described how occupational segregation, low-wage work and the structure of the labor market made Black women particularly vulnerable when the economy buckled.

Even as the broader economy recovered, Black women’s return to stable work remained uneven. Brookings Institution researchers reported that Black women were leaving the labor force during parts of the recovery while other groups were regaining ground. The numbers revealed something Black women had already been saying in workplaces and households: recovery does not reach everyone at the same time, and it does not reach everyone with the same protection.

The concern did not end with the pandemic. In 2025, the Economic Policy Institute reported that Black women suffered one of the sharpest one-year employment declines seen in the last quarter century. EPI found that Black women’s employment-to-population ratio fell to 55.7 percent, with the steepest losses among Black women with bachelor’s degrees. In other words, education alone did not shield Black women from the downturn.

That finding should trouble anyone who believes the solution is simply for Black women to work harder, credential up or prove themselves again. Many already have. They have done what America told them to do. They earned degrees, built resumes, led departments, served communities, raised families and carried institutions through fragile periods. Still, the data shows they remain exposed when systems decide who is protected and who is expendable.

The public sector is especially important to this story. For generations, government and nonprofit employment provided a pathway to relative stability for Black workers, particularly Black women. But EPI’s 2025 analysis concluded that public-sector losses played a major role in the decline in Black women’s employment. When those jobs disappear, the impact is not limited to one worker. It reverberates through households, neighborhoods and institutions that depend on Black women’s income, expertise and leadership.

There is also a leadership pattern that rarely appears in a monthly jobs report. Workplace equity researchers have described the “glass cliff,” a term used when women or people of color are placed in leadership during moments of crisis, instability or heightened risk. They are handed the hardest assignments, often with limited resources and shrinking room for error. If the institution falters, they become the face of failure. If they survive it, the system often claims the credit.

“The question is not whether Black women are strong. The question is whether communities will finally build systems that do not depend on their strength while refusing to protect them.”

Many Black women recognize this pattern before it is ever named. They are brought in after the budget is already strained. They are asked to restore trust after others damaged it. They inherit old conflicts, inadequate systems, political pressure and public expectations that were created long before they arrived. Then, when the strain becomes visible, scrutiny narrows. The woman who carried the burden becomes easier to question than the structure that created it.

This is where communities must be careful. Accountability is necessary. No leader, employee or institution should be above honest review. But accountability becomes something else when it isolates one Black woman from the full environment around her. It becomes something else when it ignores who controlled the resources, who set the policies, who delayed decisions, who benefited from silence and who was protected when blame was being assigned.

A fair review asks more than whether a Black woman was strong enough to withstand pressure. It asks whether she was properly supported. It asks whether the expectations were realistic. It asks whether others were held to the same standard. It asks whether the institution used her labor, credibility and relationships until they became inconvenient.

That distinction matters because job loss and leadership removal are not private events in the Black community. When a Black woman is pushed out of work, a family may lose its primary source of stability. When she is forced out of leadership, an institution may lose memory, trust and community connection. When she is publicly undermined after years of service, younger Black women are watching and calculating the cost of stepping forward.

Silence teaches a lesson, too. It tells employers, boards, agencies and civic organizations that Black women can be praised in public and abandoned in practice. It tells the next generation that loyalty may not be returned, competence may not be enough and service may not protect them from being treated as disposable.

Protecting Black women does not mean shielding anyone from legitimate questions. It means demanding full context before accepting a convenient narrative. It means asking who else had responsibility. It means reviewing the system, not only the person standing closest to the fire. It means refusing to turn the language of accountability into a weapon used most forcefully against those who had the least margin for error.

The response must be practical. Institutions should track employment and leadership outcomes by race and gender. Boards and executive teams should document the resources given to leaders during periods of crisis. Departures from key roles should be handled with transparency and care, especially when public trust or community service is involved. Communities should ask for facts before joining public takedowns. Black men, in particular, must do more than call Black women queens, backbones and pillars. They must stand beside them when institutional power turns cold.

There is no serious conversation about Black progress that does not include the protection of Black women. They are not merely participants in our survival. They are often the infrastructure of it.

The question now is whether communities will keep celebrating Black women after the damage is done, or whether we will build the habits, policies and courage to defend them while they are still standing.

If Black women are the backbone, then protecting Black women is not charity. It is self-preservation.

Protect them, and we protect families. Protect them, and we protect institutions. Protect them, and we protect the future we keep asking them to carry.

Selected sources

• U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey, Table A-2: Employment status by race, sex, and age — source link

• National Women’s Law Center analysis of Black women’s pandemic job loss and labor-force disruption — source link

• Michelle Holder, Janelle Jones and Thomas Masterson, ‘The Early Impact of COVID-19 on Job Losses among Black Women in the United States,’ Feminist Economics — source link

• Brookings Institution, analysis of Black women leaving the labor force during the recovery — source link

• Economic Policy Institute, analysis of 2025 employment losses among Black women — source link

• Joint Center for Political

and Economic Studies, 2025 jobs analysis — source link

• Catalyst, research explainer on the glass cliff and women of color — source link

• National Employment Law Project, analysis of occupational segregation among Black women workers — source link

Subscribe now

For much of American history, conversations about race have centered on one assumption: that minorities were exactly that — a collection of smaller groups with limited political and economic influence individually.

That assumption is becoming increasingly outdated.

According to recent U.S. Census estimates, eight states are now considered majority-minority, meaning non-Hispanic White residents make up less than half of the population. Georgia recently joined that list, alongside California, Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, Maryland, Florida, and Hawaii.

Even more notable, states such as Arizona, New York, and New Jersey are approaching the same threshold.

This is not merely a demographic story. It is a strategic one.

The Numbers Are Changing

For decades, demographic projections predicted that America would become more diverse. That future is no longer theoretical.

Communities that once represented smaller shares of the population are growing through births, migration, and immigration, while the non-Hispanic White share of the population continues to decline in many states.

But demographics alone do not create influence. History proves that.

Population Does Not Automatically Equal Power

There are many places around the world where large populations possess relatively little political or economic influence.

Why? Because influence is rarely determined simply by numbers.

It is determined by organization.

It is determined by institutions.

It is determined by ownership.

It is determined by participation.

It is determined by whether people can work together toward shared goals.

The question facing America’s changing demographics is not whether minority populations are growing. The question is whether they can convert population into measurable influence.

The Opportunity — And the Challenge

The phrase majority-minority can sometimes create the impression that one group has become dominant. That is not what it means.

Rather, it means that multiple communities — Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, multiracial Americans, and others — collectively represent more than half of a state’s population.

These communities have distinct histories, cultures, priorities, and political views. They do not vote as a single bloc, nor should anyone assume they will.

At the same time, many communities face overlapping challenges, including access to quality education, entrepreneurship, affordable housing, healthcare, workforce opportunities, and capital.

Where interests align, collaboration can increase collective influence.

What If Collaboration Became Strategy?

Imagine if communities that often operate independently began cooperating around shared economic priorities:

• Supporting minority-owned businesses across communities.

• Investing in neighborhoods rather than waiting for outside investment.

• Building regional business networks.

• Increasing civic participation.

• Creating stronger pipelines into leadership positions.

• Sharing knowledge, capital, and opportunity.

A New Era Requires New Thinking

Such cooperation would not require communities to give up their identities. Instead, it would recognize that collaboration can expand opportunity for everyone involved.

America’s demographic landscape is changing whether people acknowledge it or not.

The larger question is whether leadership will change alongside it.

Communities that organize effectively — regardless of race — have historically been better positioned to shape public policy, attract investment, build businesses, and influence the future.

Numbers matter. Organization matters more.

The Black Vanguard Perspective

At Black Vanguard Media, we believe this moment deserves more than headlines about census statistics.

It deserves a conversation about leadership. About institution-building. About ownership. About economic strategy.

Demographic change creates possibility — but possibility alone is not enough.

If America’s growing minority populations choose to work together where interests align, invest in institutions that outlast election cycles, and build economic ecosystems instead of isolated successes, they may discover that the greatest transformation is not demographic at all.

It is the transformation of influence into lasting power.

Because history has shown that the future belongs not simply to those who are numerous — but to those who are organized.

For many people today, Christianity is visually and culturally associated with Europe — towering cathedrals, Roman imagery, Renaissance paintings, and centuries of Western theological influence. But long before Christianity became deeply rooted in Europe, some of the most important centers of Christian thought, scholarship, and leadership were in Africa and the Middle East.

That is not ideology. It is history.

One of the clearest examples of this reality is what historians call the Pentarchy — the five major patriarchates, or leadership centers, of the early Christian Church:

• Rome

• Constantinople

• Alexandria

• Antioch

• Jerusalem

While Rome eventually became the dominant center of Western Christianity, two of the earliest and most intellectually influential centers of Christianity were located in Africa and the Near East — particularly Alexandria, Egypt.

Africa Was Not on the Edge of Early Christianity — It Was Near the Center

Long before Christianity spread widely across northern Europe, African theologians were helping define core Christian doctrine, preserving scripture, debating theology, and shaping how Christians understood the nature of Jesus, salvation, and the Church itself.

The city of Alexandria became one of the most important intellectual centers in the ancient world. Its theological school helped produce some of Christianity’s most influential thinkers, including:

• Origen

• Athanasius of Alexandria

• Cyril of Alexandria

These were not fringe figures. Their writings and arguments helped shape doctrines that many Christians across denominations still accept today.

Athanasius, for example, played a central role in defending the doctrine of the Trinity during one of Christianity’s most consequential theological conflicts in the 4th century.

North Africa Produced Some of Christianity’s Most Influential Minds

One of the most influential theologians in Christian history was Augustine of Hippo, who lived in Roman North Africa in what is now Algeria.

Augustine’s writings on sin, grace, free will, government, and human nature profoundly influenced both Catholic and Protestant traditions centuries later.

Another major figure was Tertullian of Carthage, a North African theologian often credited with helping develop early Christian terminology in Latin theology.

These scholars emerged from African intellectual traditions during a time when Europe itself was still politically unstable and, in many regions, not yet predominantly Christian.

Christianity Reached Africa Extremely Early

Many people are surprised to learn that Christianity existed in parts of Africa almost from the beginning of the faith itself.

According to longstanding Christian tradition:

• Christianity reached Egypt during the first century through Saint Mark

• Ethiopia developed one of the world’s oldest continuous Christian traditions

• North African churches became deeply established during the Roman era

The Coptic Orthodox Church in Egypt and the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church both trace their histories back to the earliest centuries of Christianity.

This matters because it challenges the modern assumption that Christianity was originally a European religion that later spread elsewhere. Historically, Christianity emerged in the Middle East, expanded heavily into Africa, and only later became dominant across much of Europe.

Why This History Matters Today

Understanding this history is not about replacing one narrative with another or engaging in revisionism. It is about historical completeness.

For generations, many educational systems, films, and cultural depictions minimized or overlooked the African and Middle Eastern roots of early Christianity. As a result, many people grew up unaware that African theologians helped shape some of the foundational doctrines of the faith itself.

That omission matters because representation in history influences how communities understand their relationship to civilization, scholarship, faith, and intellectual leadership.

The historical record shows that Africa was not merely a recipient of Christianity. In many ways, Africa helped preserve, define, defend, and intellectually develop Christianity during its formative centuries.

That is not opinion.

That is part of the documented history of the early Church.

Part I in a continuing Black Vanguard Media series examining the historical role of independent Black press, narrative control, and why community-owned journalism still matters today.

“The people must know before they can act, and there is no educator to compare with the press.” — Ida B. Wells

There are moments in history when communities realize that simply being represented inside existing systems is not the same as owning the ability to tell their own story.

That realization helped give birth to the Black press.

Long before social media, before podcasts, before livestreams, Black newspapers became one of the only places where uncomfortable truths about the Black experience could be documented without waiting for approval from institutions that often had incentives to minimize, soften, delay, or ignore them altogether.

Ida B. Wells Refused Permission-Based Journalism

Ida B. Wells understood this better than almost anyone.

When white newspapers justified lynchings or ignored them, Wells used the Black press to investigate what others would not. She challenged accepted narratives. She documented names, stories, motives, and patterns.

And for doing so, her newspaper office in Memphis was destroyed by a mob after she exposed the truth behind lynchings tied to economic competition and racial terror.

But because she owned her voice — and because Black press existed — they could destroy the building without destroying the story.

“They destroyed the building. They could not destroy the story.”

The Difference Between Representation and Ownership

That distinction matters.

There is a difference between Black journalists and a truly independent Black press.

A Black journalist working inside a larger structure may still have editors, advertisers, institutional pressures, legal concerns, political relationships, or professional limitations that shape what can be pursued, how far it can go, and whether it can be sustained.

That does not make those journalists bad people. Many do important work under difficult realities.

But historically, independent Black newspapers, newsletters, and publications often existed because Black communities understood something deeper:

If nobody owns the platform to investigate wrongs affecting the community objectively, some stories may never fully be told.

“If nobody owns the platform to investigate wrongs affecting the community objectively, some stories may never fully be told.”

Why Black Organizations Created Their Own Press

That is part of why many of the most influential Black organizations during the Civil Rights Movement created their own publications, newsletters, newspapers, and communications arms.

They understood that controlling distribution of information meant controlling whether abuses were exposed, whether strategies were understood, and whether communities stayed informed enough to act.

The Black press was not simply about news.

It was about survival. Documentation. Strategy. Memory. Protection. Coordination. Accountability.

And perhaps that concern still exists today.

When the Press Threatens Power

One reason certain injustices may receive limited sustained examination is because modern media ecosystems are complicated.

Stories involving power, relationships, institutions, advertisers, politics, legal risk, or access can become difficult to pursue deeply and consistently.

For example, many people in Northeast Ohio still remember the disturbing image of a Black defendant having his mouth duct-taped shut in open court by a sitting judge.

Yet despite national attention at moments, there are legitimate questions about whether the broader implications, community impact, humiliation, historical parallels, and institutional accountability surrounding that incident were explored with the depth and persistence they might have been if an aggressive independent Black press ecosystem still existed at scale.

That is not an accusation against every journalist.

It is an observation about systems.

And it raises a larger question:

Who documents uncomfortable truths when institutions become uncomfortable with the documentation?

Why Ida B. Wells Still Matters

Why do we still speak the name Ida B. Wells more than a century later?

Because she did not merely report events.

She demonstrated what happens when independent journalism refuses to wait for permission to pursue truth.

She used Black press to influence national conversations, reshape international understanding about racial violence in America, and force issues into public view that many powerful people preferred remain hidden.

That legacy still matters.

“The way to right wrongs is to turn the light of truth upon them.” — Ida B. Wells

Black Vanguard Media (www.blackvanguardmedia.com ) hopes to continue in that spirit — thoughtfully, responsibly, and beyond reproach.

This article is Part I of a continuing series examining the historical role of the Black press, the difference between representation and independence in journalism, and why independent community-centered media may still matter today.

Next Week in This Series

How Black newspapers during the Civil Rights era bypassed traditional gatekeepers, organized communities, documented injustices, and helped build movements that changed America.

There’s a moment every music lover knows.

You’re driving. Maybe it’s early. Maybe it’s late.
You scroll through stations, searching for something that feels right—
not just noise, not just songs—but something that connects.

And then you hear it.

A sound that feels familiar… but different.
Uplifting, but not overwhelming.
Faith-filled, but still flowing like the music you already love.

That’s what people are beginning to discover with FCB Faith 107.3 HD2.

It Sounds Like Your Life—Not Just a Playlist

If you love Christian music, you’ve probably experienced this:

One station plays only one style.
Another feels too traditional.
Another doesn’t quite match your day-to-day energy.

So you bounce between them.

What makes FCB Faith stand out is simple:

It brings it all together.

Instead of separating the music you love, it blends:

• Contemporary Christian hits

• Gospel influences

• Christian R&B

• Christian hip-hop

Into one smooth, uplifting experience

It’s not about categories.
It’s about creating a soundtrack for your life.

Music That Moves With You

This is the kind of station that fits into your day without effort:

• Morning drive—something positive to start strong

• Midday—music that keeps your spirit steady

• Evening—songs that help you unwind and reflect

It’s designed for real life, not just Sunday morning.

And that’s what makes it special.

You Can Listen Anywhere, Anytime

Whether you’re in your car, at home, or on your phone, this station is built to reach you:

• On the radio across Cleveland and Akron

• On streaming platforms like iHeart and Audacy

• Through mobile devices and smart speakers

Wherever you are, the music meets you there.

No searching. No switching apps. No missing out.

A Growing Community You Can Be Part Of

More and more listeners are tuning in—and it shows.

With a reach of over 50,000 people across broadcast and streaming,
this isn’t just a station… it’s a growing community

A place where:

• Faith is encouraged

• Music feels current

• And listeners feel connected

You’re not just listening.
You’re part of something.

Why It Feels Different

There’s a reason this station stands out the moment you hear it:

It’s built with intention.

The music flows like the stations you’re used to—
but every song carries a message that uplifts, encourages, and inspires.

It’s the balance many people have been looking for… but didn’t know existed.

If You Love Christian Music, This Might Be Your New Favorite Station

Sometimes the best discoveries aren’t brand new.

They’re just new to you.

And once you hear it, you’ll understand why more listeners are making the switch—
not because they have to… but because they want to.

Tune In and See for Yourself

The next time you’re searching for something to listen to, don’t settle.

Find something that lifts your mood, strengthens your spirit, and sounds good doing it.

FCB Faith 107.3 HD2 might be exactly what you’ve been looking for.

Blocking Opportunity You’re Not Using

Sometimes the greatest obstacle to progress is not the lack of opportunity.

It is the presence of someone guarding it.

There is an old fable about a dog that wandered into a barn one evening and curled up inside a manger filled with hay.

The manger was meant for the cattle. The hay was their food.

But the dog lay comfortably across the pile and refused to move.

Soon the cattle returned to the barn after a long day in the fields.

They approached the manger, hungry and ready to eat.

But when they lowered their heads toward the hay, the dog jumped up, growling and barking, chasing them away.

The cattle backed up in confusion.

The dog did not eat the hay.

Dogs do not eat hay.

But every time the cattle tried to reach it, the dog snapped and barked until they stepped away.

The farmer watching the scene shook his head and said:

“That dog will not eat the hay…”

“…but he will not let anyone else eat it either.”

The Lesson

The story became a proverb that has lasted for centuries.

A “dog in the manger” is someone who blocks access to something they are not using themselves.

Not because they need it.

But simply because they do not want someone else to have it.

It is one of the most destructive forms of human behavior.

Because it doesn’t just stop progress.

It prevents others from making progress as well.

The Mirror

Across our communities, there are opportunities that could move many people forward.

Business opportunities.

Leadership opportunities.

Economic opportunities.

Platforms that could help others grow.

Yet sometimes those opportunities become guarded.

Not always by people actively building something…

…but by people protecting positions.

People who say:

“No one else is ready.”

“No one else should do it.”

“This is how it has always been done.”

And if we are honest, this is not something outsiders always do to us.

Sometimes it is something we do to ourselves.

Instead of asking how opportunity can expand, we begin protecting the little space we occupy.

Even when we are not using it.

Even when others could turn it into something meaningful.

Over time this behavior quietly limits an entire community.

Because progress requires open doors.

Not guarded hay.

The Question

Healthy communities understand something simple.

Opportunity is not meant to be hoarded.

It is meant to be used.

And when someone is not using it, the best thing a community can do is allow someone else to try.

Because a dog in the manger may protect the hay…

…but eventually the cattle will remain hungry.

So the question for the village is simple:

What kind of village do we want to be?

Jerry Primm
Founder, Black Vanguard Media
Black Vanguard Media explores ideas that strengthen the Black community through leadership, economic understanding, and thoughtful dialogue.

Subscribe now

Sometimes the biggest obstacle to progress isn’t the wall in front of us.

Sometimes it’s the hands pulling from below.

Fishermen along the coast tell a curious story about buckets of crabs.

When fishermen catch lobsters, they must put a lid on the bucket. If they don’t, one lobster will eventually climb up the side and escape.

But when they catch crabs, they leave the bucket open.

There is no lid.

A visitor once asked a fisherman why.

The fisherman laughed and said:

“You don’t need one.”

“If one crab starts climbing out, the others will pull it back down.”

And sure enough, whenever a crab reaches the top of the bucket, another crab grabs its leg and drags it back into the pile.

Not because the other crab plans to escape.

But simply because it refuses to let the first one leave.

The Lesson

The story is often used as a metaphor for a painful truth about human behavior.

Sometimes people are less concerned with climbing themselves than they are with making sure no one else climbs either.

Instead of asking, How did you get up there? the instinct becomes:

Come back down here with us.

Over time the entire bucket stays exactly where it is.

Not because escape is impossible.

But because cooperation never happens.

The Mirror

Across the Black community there are always individuals trying to climb.

Entrepreneurs building businesses.

Leaders trying new approaches.

People experimenting with new ways of creating opportunity and wealth.

Some of them begin to rise.

And when they do, two very different reactions can emerge.

One reaction is curiosity.

“How did you do that?”
“What can we learn from it?”
“How can more of us climb?”

Communities that respond this way create ladders.

The other reaction is suspicion.

“Why them?”
“Who do they think they are?”
“They must have done something wrong.”

And if we are honest, this is not something outsiders always do to us.

Sometimes it is something we do to ourselves.

We criticize the person climbing.

We question their motives.

We pull at their legs.

And eventually many people who might have climbed stop trying at all.

Because no one wants to fight both the wall in front of them and the hands pulling from below.

The Question

Healthy communities understand something important.

One person climbing does not block the path for others.

It proves the path exists.

Success should not be something we attack.

It should be something we study.

Because every person who finds a way out of the bucket leaves behind a map.

And communities that learn from those maps eventually build ladders.

But communities that spend their time pulling down those who climb often stay exactly where they started.

Because when everyone is pulling down, no one is climbing.

So the question for the village is simple:

What kind of village do we want to be?

Jerry Primm
Founder, Black Vanguard Media
Black Vanguard Media explores ideas that strengthen the Black community through leadership, economic understanding, and thoughtful dialogue.

Everyone wants progress.

Until progress requires movement.

There is an old village proverb about a man who sat down in the middle of the road.

It was not a small path. It was the main road connecting the village to the rest of the world. Merchants traveled it. Farmers carried their goods along it. Families used it to visit neighboring villages.

But one day a man decided to sit right in the middle of it.

At first people approached him politely.

“Brother,” they said, “you’re sitting in the road.”

The man did not move.

So travelers began stepping around him.

Some walked to the left side of the road. Others stepped carefully into the grass to pass by.

But as the day went on, the man began complaining.

“People in this village have no respect,” he said.

“Everyone keeps passing me.”

Travelers continued their journey.

Merchants with their goods stepped around him. Farmers carrying baskets walked past him. Children moving quickly between homes skipped around him.

The man grew more frustrated.

“Look at this,” he said. “Everyone just keeps going around me.”

Late in the afternoon an elder walking down the road stopped and looked at the man.

He watched travelers step around him for a moment.

Then the elder said quietly:

“If you do not wish to be passed…”

“…do not sit in the road.”

The Lesson

Proverbs like this survive for generations because they capture something deeply human.

Sometimes people remain exactly where they are while the world continues to move forward around them.

And instead of asking whether they should move, they complain that others are moving too fast.

The road, however, was never designed for sitting.

It was designed for traveling.

And when someone chooses to remain in the middle of it, two things will always happen.

Others will keep moving.

And eventually they will pass.

The Mirror

Over the years I’ve spent time around leaders, organizations, and institutions across our communities. One thing I’ve learned is that progress rarely waits for anyone.

Economies change.

Technology changes.

Opportunities shift.

The road keeps moving forward.

But sometimes within our communities we fall into a familiar pattern.

We hold tightly to old systems.

Old approaches.

Old ways of thinking about leadership and opportunity.

Meanwhile others begin trying new things.

They experiment with new business ideas.

They organize differently.

They move faster.

And as they do, some people begin asking:

“Why are they passing us?”

But the more honest question might be:

“Are we still sitting in the road?”

And if we are honest, this is not something outsiders always do to us.

Sometimes it is something we do to ourselves.

Communities that move forward are rarely perfect.

But they are willing to adjust.

They are willing to stand up when the road begins to move.

Because the truth is simple.

The road does not stop for anyone.

The Question

The real challenge facing any community is not whether change is coming.

Change is always coming.

The question is whether we will move with it.

Or sit still while others continue their journey.

Because history shows something very clearly.

Those who refuse to move eventually find themselves watching others disappear down the road.

So the question for the village is simple:

What kind of village do we want to be?

Jerry Primm
Founder, Black Vanguard Media
Black Vanguard Media explores ideas that strengthen the Black community through leadership, economic understanding, and thoughtful dialogue.

The Village That Drove Away Its Best Hunter

Innovation Rejected by the Community

Every village wants a great hunter.

Until one shows up.

There is an old village story about a group of hunters.

Every morning the hunters left the village and entered the forest with their spears. And every evening they returned through the same narrow path leading back to the fires where the community waited.

Most of them came back with explanations.

The animals were too fast.

The forest had changed.

The weather was bad.

But one hunter came back with meat.

Some days it was antelope. Other days it was wild boar. Occasionally he returned carrying game so large that the entire village gathered to see it.

At first the people celebrated him.

They praised his skill.

They shared the meat he brought.

The children followed him through the village asking about the forest and the animals he had tracked.

For a time, the hunter fed everyone.

But slowly something began to change.

The whispers started.

“No one can be that successful.”

“He must be doing something unfair.”

“Who does he think he is?”

The hunter who once fed the village began to make the other hunters uncomfortable.

Eventually the whispers turned into accusations.

And one day the hunter left the village.

He took his knowledge of the forest, his skill with a spear, and his understanding of the animals with him.

Years later, when the village was hungry again, an elder spoke quietly around the fire.

“Perhaps,” he said,

“the problem was never the hunter.”

The Lesson

Stories like this exist in many cultures because they capture something uncomfortable about human nature.

Communities often celebrate success—until that success begins to reveal something about everyone else.

At that moment admiration can quietly turn into resentment.

Instead of asking:

What can we learn from this person?

People begin asking a different question:

How do we stop them?

The Mirror

Over the years I’ve spent time around community leaders, institutions, and organizations across our communities. One thing I’ve learned is that many of our challenges are not about talent or opportunity.

Often, they are about how we respond to success, change, and new ideas.

Across the Black community there are always individuals trying new approaches.

New business models.

New leadership ideas.

New ways of organizing opportunity.

Sometimes those ideas work.

And when they do, the community faces a choice.

One response is curiosity.

“What are they doing differently?”

“How can we learn from it?”

Communities that ask those questions tend to grow.

The other response is suspicion.

“Who do they think they are?”

“Why are they doing things differently?”

And if we are honest, this is not something done by outsiders to us.

Sometimes it is something we do to ourselves.

Communities that fall into that pattern often stay exactly where they are.

Because progress almost never comes from repeating the past.

It usually begins with someone willing to try something different.

The Question

The real test of leadership inside any community is not how it treats failure.

It is how it treats success.

Do we learn from it?

Or do we push it away?

Because history teaches a simple lesson:

A village that drives away its best hunters will eventually find itself hungry.

So the question for the village is simple:

What kind of village do we want to be?

Jerry Primm

Founder, Black Vanguard Media

Black Vanguard Media is dedicated to exploring ideas that strengthen the Black community through leadership, economic understanding, and thoughtful dialogue.

What Mali’s Mining Code Teaches Black America About Ownership

In 2023–2024, the government of Mali made a decision that sent shockwaves through global mining markets.

Under the leadership of Assimi Goïta, Mali revised its mining code to increase state ownership in gold projects to as much as 35%, raise royalties, and require stronger local participation.

The message was simple:

If the gold comes from our soil, we deserve a larger stake in the outcome.

This was not symbolic.
It was structural.

And it raises a deeper question for us:

If ownership determines destiny, what are we actually owning?

Mali’s Move: From Participation to Control

Mali is one of Africa’s top gold producers. Gold accounts for the majority of its export earnings and government revenue.

For years, multinational mining companies extracted billions in value. The state collected taxes and modest equity stakes. But as gold prices surged, Mali reconsidered the math.

The revised code:

• Increased the government’s free carried interest from 10% to 20%.

• Allowed the state to purchase an additional 15%.

• Adjusted royalty structures tied to gold prices.

• Required stronger domestic participation.

This was not just about revenue.
It was about leverage.

Mali shifted from being primarily a tax collector to being a meaningful equity partner.

That difference changes everything.

The American Parallel: Land Is the Gold

African Americans do not collectively control subsoil mineral rights.

We do not control oil basins.

We do not control national gold reserves.

But there is one resource that functions as gold in America:

Land.

Urban land.
Commercial corridors.
Redevelopment zones.
Infrastructure sites.

Historically, Black Americans once owned approximately 14 million acres of farmland in 1910. Today that number has shrunk dramatically.

Urban Black neighborhoods have also experienced:

• Redlining

• Highway construction displacement

• Urban renewal demolition

• Stadium and institutional expansion

Value was extracted.
Equity participation was limited.
Ownership concentration shifted.

The pattern looks familiar.

The Structural Difference

Mali can say to multinational corporations:

“If you want access to our resource, these are our terms.”

Black communities in America often say:

“If you develop in our neighborhood, please include us.”

One is a sovereign negotiating position.

The other is a request.

That is not an emotional observation. It is a structural one.

Participation vs. Equity

Jobs are participation.

Contracts are participation.

Grants are participation.

Equity is ownership.

When public dollars fund development projects in Black neighborhoods, the question becomes:

• Who owns the asset?

• Who receives the long-term dividends?

• Who benefits when the valuation increases?

• Who controls refinancing and resale?

Mali’s strategy centered on ownership percentage.

Ownership percentage determines generational wealth capture.

What a “Mali Strategy” Would Look Like Here

Without sovereign authority, Black communities still have tools:

1️⃣ Equity Mandates in Publicly Funded Projects

If tax dollars are involved, equity participation can be negotiated.

2️⃣ Community Development Entities (CDEs)

Structured vehicles that channel capital into low-income communities while retaining influence.

3️⃣ Opportunity Zone Funds

Equity-focused investment strategies rather than purely developer-driven gains.

4️⃣ Community Land Trusts

Long-term control over appreciating land assets.

5️⃣ Capital Stack Literacy

Understanding tax credits, debt layers, equity tranches, and how to structure ownership positions instead of fee-based participation.

The shift is philosophical before it is financial.

From:

“How many jobs will this create?”

To:

“What percentage do we own?”

The Hard Question

Why does electoral representation not automatically translate into proportional fiscal influence?

If we can win elections but not ownership stakes, something structural is missing.

Mali’s decision forces us to confront a similar question:

If a nation rich in gold can remain poor without leverage,
What happens to a community rich in land but poor in ownership?

A Data-Driven, Scrutiny-Proof Observation

This is not about grievance.

It is about capital structure.

Across American metropolitan areas:

• Property ownership concentration determines wealth accumulation.

• Infrastructure ownership determines revenue flow.

• Equity position determines long-term control.

Those principles are politically neutral. They are financial realities.

Mali adjusted its capital structure.

The deeper question is whether Black America is willing to do the same — within the tools legally available in the U.S. system.

The Strategic Lesson

Mali did not ask for sympathy.

It recalibrated leverage.

The lesson is not that Black America needs sovereignty.

The lesson is that ownership percentage determines economic destiny.

Land is the resource.

Capital literacy is the negotiation tool.

Equity is the multiplier.

Beginning May 1, 2026, China will eliminate tariffs on almost all products imported from 53 African countries with which it maintains diplomatic relations. The announcement, tied to ongoing China–Africa cooperation frameworks, signals something significant:

A 1.4-billion-person market just lowered the price of entry for African producers.

The headline is simple.
The implications are not.

For African nations, this is not just about tariffs.
It is about leverage, strategy, and whether they move up the value chain — or simply export more raw materials.

What Zero Tariffs Actually Mean

When tariffs are removed:

• African goods enter China without import taxes

• African exports become more price competitive

• Chinese buyers have greater incentive to source from Africa

In practical terms, this could expand exports of:

• Agricultural products (cocoa, coffee, tea, fruits)

• Minerals and critical materials

• Textiles and manufactured goods

• Processed foods

• Timber and industrial inputs

China is already Africa’s largest bilateral trading partner. Removing tariffs deepens that relationship.

But here’s the real question:

Will African nations export more raw commodities — or more finished goods?

That is where the story shifts from trade policy to strategy.

The Opportunity: Moving Up the Value Chain

If tariffs are gone, African nations can:

1. Negotiate long-term supply contracts.

2. Attract Chinese industrial investment locally.

3. Develop export-processing zones tied to Chinese demand.

4. Leverage the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) to consolidate supply chains.

Imagine:

• Ghana exporting finished chocolate, not just cocoa beans.

• Nigeria exporting processed lithium battery components.

• Ethiopia exporting branded coffee products instead of raw beans.

• Kenya exporting packaged horticulture products at scale.

Zero tariffs make this economically viable.

But only if industrial policy follows.

The Risk: Extractive Patterns 2.0

There is also a caution.

Without coordination, zero tariffs could accelerate:

• Resource extraction without value addition

• Trade imbalances

• Overreliance on one major partner

History has shown that preferential access alone does not create industrial transformation.

Market access is not the same as economic sovereignty.

African ministries of trade, finance, and industry must now ask:

• Do we have export-ready capacity?

• Do we control logistics?

• Are we financing manufacturers?

• Are we protecting local processing industries?

The difference between growth and dependency will be policy design.

What This Means for the African Diaspora

For Black entrepreneurs in the U.S., the Caribbean, and Europe, this shift matters.

Why?

Because diaspora capital can now:

• Invest in African export ventures

• Structure joint ventures targeting Chinese demand

• Build logistics and aggregation businesses

• Finance export-ready SMEs

• Create diaspora-backed supply chains

Trade agreements open doors.

Capital decides who walks through.

Lessons for Black-Led Economic Strategy Globally

This move also forces reflection.

China is using trade policy as geopolitical strategy.
It is aligning tariffs with long-term partnership goals.

The question for Black-led institutions worldwide is:

Where is our coordinated trade strategy?

• Are we building export platforms?

• Are we aligning capital stacks?

• Are we preparing manufacturers?

• Are we educating entrepreneurs about global markets?

Zero tariffs are powerful — but only if someone is ready to produce.

The Bigger Shift

This announcement signals:

• A continued pivot of global economic gravity toward the Global South

• Intensifying China–Africa alignment

• Increasing multipolar trade dynamics

It also signals something deeper:

Africa is no longer peripheral to global economic strategy.

It is central.

The question is not whether opportunity exists.

The question is whether leadership — public and private — will convert access into ownership.

Final Thought

Tariffs are being removed.

But transformation requires more than access.

It requires:

• Industrial policy

• Capital formation

• Infrastructure

• Strategic coordination

And courage.

The door is opening on May 1, 2026.

Will Africa walk through as a supplier of raw materials?

Or as a producer of value?

That decision will shape the next generation.

For decades, Ghana did what many resource-rich nations have been pushed into doing:

Dig it up here. Ship it out. Let someone else finish it.

Gold left Ghana as semi-processed dore bars. The real value—the refining, the certification, the pricing leverage, the data, the trade relationships—was captured somewhere else.

That’s what used to happen.

What’s changing now is not a small policy tweak. It’s a sovereignty move.

What Used to Happen

Ghana is one of the world’s top gold producers. But the path from mine to market often looked like this:

1. Small-scale miners sold to middlemen.

2. Middlemen exported dore bars abroad.

3. Gold was refined in places like Dubai, Switzerland, India.

4. Those countries captured the refining margins and certification value.

5. Ghana got paid for raw output, not finished value.

Along the way, billions were lost to smuggling, under-invoicing, and informal trade. The state had limited visibility into:

• Who mined the gold

• Where it came from

• How much left the country

• What it was ultimately worth as a finished bar

Ghana mined gold.
Other countries sold gold.

What’s Changing

The Government of Ghana is routing more gold through the state’s buying and processing channels, especially through the Precious Minerals Marketing Company (PMMC).

The shift is simple in wording, powerful in impact:

Buy it here → refine it here → certify it here → export it from here.

Instead of exporting semi-finished dore, Ghana is expanding local refining capacity and centralizing gold purchases so more of the value chain happens inside the country.

This does three things at once:

• Closes smuggling leaks

• Keeps refining profits inside Ghana

• Gives the country control over certification, traceability, and export value

Why Refining Is Where the Real Money Is

Most people think the money is in mining. It’s not.

The real leverage sits in:

• Refining fees

• Certification standards

• Traceability premiums

• Export pricing

• Data control

• Tax capture

When a country refines its own gold, it doesn’t just sell ounces. It sells finished, certified bars with recognized value on the global market.

That difference is enormous.

Step

Old Model

New Direction

Mining

Ghana

Ghana

Buying

Middlemen

PMMC

Refining

Overseas

Ghana

Certification

Overseas

Ghana

Export value

Other countries

Ghana

Ghana keeps more wealth without mining one extra ounce.

The Smuggling Problem This Addresses

Ghana has long battled gold smuggling, especially from small-scale (“galamsey”) operations. Informal routes meant:

• Lost taxes

• Weak forex position

• Opaque supply chains

• Enrichment of middlemen, not the nation

By centralizing buying and refining, Ghana reduces the incentive to sell through back channels.

If miners are paid fairly and quickly through official routes, the smuggling market shrinks.

Why the World Is Paying Attention

This is part of a broader African awakening:

• Process cocoa before export

• Refine lithium before export

• Cut diamonds before export

• Refine gold before export

The continent is recognizing a hard truth:

Exporting raw materials exports wealth.

Ghana is attempting to reverse that.

If this works, other resource-rich countries will copy the model.

What This Means for Ghana

This move is about more than gold. It’s about:

Economic control

More taxes, more forex stability, more domestic industry.

Industrial development

Refineries create skilled jobs, standards, and technology transfer.

Financial sovereignty

Gold is a reserve asset. Controlling its refinement strengthens Ghana’s monetary position.

Global leverage

Countries that certify precious metals influence trade relationships.

National pride

From “we dig it up” to “we sell the finished product.”

The Quiet Risk

This only works if:

• Local refineries meet global standards

• PMMC pays miners competitively

• Corruption is kept out of centralized buying

• International buyers trust Ghana-refined gold

If those fail, the informal system returns.

The Real Headline

The headline is not that Ghana started a refinery.

The headline is this:

Ghana is trying to stop being a supplier of raw wealth and start being a seller of finished value.

That is a different position in the global economy.

And if successful, Ghana won’t just be known as a gold-producing country.

It will be known as a gold-selling country.

There are few terms in modern American debate that generate as much heat—and as little clarity—as Critical Race Theory.

Mention it in public and reactions tend to be instant and polarized. For some, it represents an honest attempt to understand inequality. For others, it has become shorthand for ideological overreach, institutional guilt, or political manipulation. But here is the uncomfortable truth that rarely gets said plainly:

Most people arguing about CRT are not arguing about the same thing.

That disconnect did not happen by accident.

What CRT Actually Was

Critical Race Theory did not begin as a school curriculum, a corporate training, or a political slogan. It emerged in the late 1970s and 1980s inside law schools, developed by legal scholars—including Derrick Bell—who were asking a narrow but serious question:

Why do racial disparities persist in legal outcomes even after laws explicitly banning discrimination were passed?

CRT was designed as a tool of analysis, not a doctrine to be imposed. It examined how legal systems, court decisions, and institutional rules—while facially neutral—can still produce unequal outcomes. It did not argue that all people are racist, nor did it claim that the law is inherently illegitimate. It asked whether processes, incentives, and power structures sometimes fail to deliver equal results.

That distinction matters.

Why It Left the Law School

Over time, scholars in other fields noticed that the same logic applied elsewhere. Education researchers saw persistent discipline gaps. Public health experts saw unequal health outcomes. Housing analysts saw patterns that survived long after redlining was outlawed.

CRT’s core insight—that systems can unintentionally reproduce disparities—proved transferable. This is how academic theories normally evolve. They are tested, adapted, and sometimes discarded.

Up to this point, none of this was controversial.

When the Term Was Taken Over

The trouble began when CRT stopped being a theory and started being a label.

In political debate, “CRT” became a stand-in for almost anything involving race:

• Diversity programs

• Historical discussions

• Equity initiatives

• Workplace training

• Even conversations about bias

At the same time, many of the programs now called “CRT” do not use CRT’s methods, language, or legal framework at all. They are managerial tools, HR practices, or cultural initiatives—often poorly designed and inconsistently applied.

This is where many critics are not wrong.

Opposition did not emerge from a close reading of legal scholarship; it emerged from real frustrations with how race-based language was being used in institutions, often without clarity, consistency, or accountability. When people feel accused rather than informed, resistance is predictable.

But here’s the critical mistake:
the frustration with the application was redirected toward the theory itself.

Why This Misunderstanding Hurts Everyone

For critics of DEI or CRT, the co-option matters because it prevents honest debate. It becomes impossible to critique ineffective programs when everything is collapsed into a single term.

For communities affected by inequality, the misunderstanding matters because it shuts down serious conversations about why disparities persist—conversations that have nothing to do with blame and everything to do with outcomes.

And for institutions, the confusion creates a vacuum where symbolism replaces solutions.

What was once a diagnostic tool has been turned into a culture-war proxy.

What Clarity Actually Looks Like

Understanding CRT accurately does not require agreement with it. One can reject its conclusions, limit its use, or argue for alternative frameworks—once it is properly defined.

At its core, CRT asks:

• Do outcomes match intentions?

• Are rules producing the results they promise?

• Who benefits from systems that appear neutral?

Those are not radical questions. They are governance questions.

The tragedy is that by mislabeling everything as CRT, the country lost the ability to separate:

• Bad programs from valid analysis

• Political theater from institutional performance

• Emotion from evidence

The Line That Matters

The term Critical Race Theory has been thoroughly co-opted—but the questions it raised have not gone away.

Disparities still exist. Systems still shape outcomes. And confusion still benefits those least interested in reform, regardless of ideology.

Education begins not by choosing sides—but by defining terms accurately.

And clarity, not outrage, is where real accountability starts.

The Black church didn’t lose power overnight.

It didn’t collapse.

It didn’t disappear.

It didn’t stop existing.

It shifted.

Quietly. Incrementally. Respectably.

And that’s what makes this question so uncomfortable—because the loss wasn’t imposed. Much of it was negotiated.

From Liberation Engine to Accepted Institution

At its height, the Black church was feared because it was independent.

Independent of white oversight

Independent of donor approval

Independent of political permission

It could disrupt because it owed nothing to the systems it challenged.

But over time, a new reality emerged.

Survival began to require:

Funding

Access

Partnerships

Legitimacy in white-controlled spaces

None of these are inherently wrong.

But each came with conditions.

And conditions reshape behavior.

When Dependence Replaced Autonomy

As civil rights victories opened doors, the Black church gained proximity to power—but lost something else in the process.

Funding streams replaced congregational self-reliance.

Foundations replaced grassroots accountability.

Nonprofit language replaced prophetic language.

The church learned how to manage programs instead of confront systems.

What once threatened power began to interface with it.

And power prefers partners to prophets.

The Cost of “A Seat at the Table”

A seat at the table sounds like progress—until you notice who built the table, who sets the agenda, and who decides when you’ve overstayed your welcome.

Gradually:

Radical demands were softened

Economic critiques were postponed

Institutional loyalty replaced community risk

The pulpit still spoke about justice—but often without consequences.

Because consequences threaten funding.

And funding had become survival.

The Question Beneath the Question

People often ask:

“Why doesn’t the Black church lead movements like it used to?”

That’s the wrong question.

The better one is:

> What happens to an institution when its survival depends on not making anyone too uncomfortable?

Because liberation has never been comfortable.

The Myth of Neutrality

Some argue the church simply became “apolitical.”

History tells us that’s impossible.

Silence in the face of injustice is not neutrality.

It’s alignment—with whoever benefits from the status quo.

The early Black church understood this.

That’s why it was dangerous.

The modern version often pretends otherwise.

Can the Pulpit Be a Weapon Again?

That’s the question this entire series has been building toward.

Not:

Should the church be political?

Should pastors speak out?

But:

> Can an institution built to liberate operate effectively while dependent on the systems it once opposed?

Because you cannot weaponize what you do not control.

What History Actually Teaches Us

The lesson of Samuel Sharpe, Richard Allen, Nat Turner, Henry McNeal Turner, Martin Luther King Jr., James Cone, and others is not that faith saves.

It’s that faith organized independently disrupts empires.

Whenever the church:

Controlled its own resources

Answered directly to its people

Refused to dilute its moral clarity

It changed history.

Whenever it didn’t—history changed it.

The Final Mirror

This series was never about nostalgia.

It was about inheritance.

Every generation of Black leadership inherits institutions built through sacrifice. The question is not whether those institutions still exist.

The question is:

> What are we willing to risk to make them matter again?

Because the pulpit was never dangerous because of the Bible.

It was dangerous because of who controlled it—and what they were willing to say when power pushed back.

Subscribe now

When we talk about health in the Black community, we often focus on the body — blood pressure, diabetes, cholesterol. But anxiety? That’s chemistry too. And it deserves the same attention, compassion, and science-based care.

The Chemical Truth About Type 2 Diabetes

When you eat, your body turns food into glucose — the sugar your cells use for energy. Your pancreas releases insulin, a hormone that helps move that glucose out of your blood and into your cells.

But in Type 2 Diabetes, your cells stop responding properly to insulin — a condition called insulin resistance. The pancreas keeps producing more insulin to compensate, but eventually it can’t keep up. The result? Too much sugar stays in the blood, where it damages blood vessels, nerves, and organs.

What’s happening chemically:
- Insulin signals are weak or blocked.
- Blood glucose rises.
- Inflammation and oxidative stress damage cells.
- Energy levels drop.

Type 2 Diabetes isn’t a “willpower problem.” It’s a chemical imbalance that can be treated and controlled through medication, nutrition, exercise, and stress management. It’s biology — not blame.

The Chemical Reality of Anxiety

Anxiety isn’t “just nerves.” It’s a medical condition rooted in measurable changes in the brain.

When your brain’s amygdala detects danger — even perceived danger — it triggers a chemical cascade:
- Adrenaline and norepinephrine flood your system.
- Cortisol, the stress hormone, rises.
- Your heart races, muscles tighten, and your mind won’t slow down.

Normally, these chemicals turn off once you’re safe. But with chronic anxiety, the “off switch” malfunctions. The brain stays stuck in survival mode. Over time, your serotonin and GABA levels drop, making it even harder to relax or focus.

🧬 Chemically, anxiety looks like:
- Overactive stress hormones (adrenaline, cortisol)
- Low serotonin and GABA (the brain’s calming chemicals)
- Disrupted sleep and digestion
- Constant muscle tension and exhaustion

It’s not “weakness.” It’s chemistry.

“You can’t pray insulin resistance away. You can’t think cortisol levels down. But you can treat them.”

Science Has Solutions — For Both

Treatment

Chemical Impact

Therapy (CBT, mindfulness)

Reduces overactivity in the amygdala and lowers cortisol

SSRIs/SNRIs

Increase serotonin and norepinephrine levels, restoring calm

Lifestyle changes

Exercise, rest, and nutrition help stabilize hormone levels

Both conditions require medical attention — and both can be improved dramatically when treated early.

Why This Matters in the Black Community

Black Americans are more likely to experience:
- Type 2 Diabetes
- Chronic stress
- Underdiagnosed anxiety and depression

Yet we’re less likely to seek help — often because of cultural stigma, mistrust, or misinformation.

We’ve learned to push through pain, but pain doesn’t disappear when it’s ignored. Ignoring anxiety can lead to hypertension, heart disease, and substance use — all of which already hit our community harder.

The truth is simple: Anxiety and diabetes are not proof of weakness — they’re signs your body’s chemistry needs balance.

“Healing our community starts when we see mental and physical health as connected — not competing.”

The Takeaway

Whether it’s high blood sugar or high stress, both start in chemistry — and both can be managed through science, therapy, and compassion. Checking your blood sugar and checking in on your mental health are both acts of self-care and self-preservation.

Our ancestors survived impossible odds. Now it’s time for us to thrive — with science, understanding, and support.

If You’re Struggling

• Talk to your doctor about anxiety symptoms — heart palpitations, panic, sleeplessness, constant worry.
• Visit a community health center or behavioral health provider.
• Ask about affordable or sliding-scale mental health services.
• You deserve peace and health — both can be achieved through real treatment.

Brought to You By:
The SOLUTION, G-PAC, and Jordan Community Resource Center — united to elevate mental health awareness, education, and healing in our communities. Together, we’re building a movement where caring for your mind is just as normal as caring for your body.

There are moments in life when celebrations overflow, and moments when the weight of grief nearly crushes us. In both seasons, you don’t need to walk alone — and that is one of the quiet, powerful gifts of being a member of a church.

Many people don’t realize it, but being active in a church isn’t just about Sunday service. It’s about community, covering, and care. It’s about having a family that shows up when you need them the most. And if you’ve never experienced that, let me tell you: it is priceless.

The Gift of Not Having to Go Through Loss Alone

One of the biggest perks of being a church member is what happens when a loved one passes.

Most families only walk through this kind of loss a handful of times in their lives — but most churches deal with it regularly. That means they have systems, support, etiquette, and experience that can guide you through something you shouldn’t have to navigate alone.

Let’s be honest:

When someone you love dies, it’s unrealistic — even unfair — to expect the closest relatives to handle everything effectively and efficiently. You’re grieving. You’re hurting. You’re overwhelmed.

A church family lifts that burden.

They know which funeral home practices respect your family’s wishes.

They know the program flow.

They know the order of service, the traditions, the etiquette, the ushers, the seating, the music, and the “little things” that feel enormous when you’re grieving.

And because they do this often, they can help you breathe again.

A Real Experience That Showed Me the Power of Church Family

Recently, I attended my cousin’s homegoing service, and something stood out to me in a way I couldn’t ignore:

Her pastor knew her.

The Nurses Guild knew her.

The ushers knew her.

The choir knew her.

Her church family showed up — in numbers.

She had been active in her church for years, and you could feel the love she poured into that congregation being poured right back into our family.

There were so many members there helping, directing, praying, hugging, singing, supporting… that it allowed us to actually grieve instead of being overwhelmed by logistics.

We were able to recover from the weight of the moment because we weren’t carrying it alone.

And it didn’t hurt that her daughter, son-in-law, and grandchildren were also active members. That connection matters. That membership mattered. It made everything easier, gentler, and more beautiful.

Scripture Makes the Case Clearly

The Bible reminds us plainly in Hebrews 10:25 (NIV):

“Do not give up meeting together… but encourage one another.”

This isn’t just about Sunday worship.

It’s about community care.

It’s about belonging to a body that helps keep you strong when your own strength is fading.

It’s about encouragement that heals you — and support that holds you up.

Membership Has Practical Perks Too

Let’s talk facts:

1. Most churches allow active members to use the building for free.

That can be a huge blessing when planning a funeral or family event.

2. For non-members, there are fees — and for good reason.

People sometimes wonder why a church charges fees, but it’s simple:

- The building must be cleaned.

- Maintenance workers must be paid.

- Security must be present.

- Lights, gas, and utilities cost money.

This isn’t the church “trying to make money.”

This is the church making sure it can keep serving the community.

Being an active member often removes those costs entirely — because you’ve already been part of the ministry, the mission, and the family.

Church Membership Is About More Than Funerals — But This Part Matters

There are countless other benefits of being part of a church family — spiritual growth, friendships, mentorship, service opportunities, youth development, leadership building — and we’ll talk about those in future articles.

But there’s one truth we can’t escape:

All of us will leave here someday.

And when that day comes, all of us will need help.

It is a blessing — a real, tangible blessing — to have a church family walk that journey with you.

I’ve personally helped plan funerals for relatives who were not members of a church, and it was extremely challenging. The difference is night and day.

If You’re Not a Member of a Church, This Is Your Sign

Join one.

Get connected.

Be known.

Be loved.

Be covered.

Be supported.

Don’t wait until you’re in crisis to wish you had community.

Don’t wait until grief hits to realize you needed a village.

Church is more than a building.

It’s a family — and everyone deserves one.

And when your time of need comes — because it will come for us all — you will be grateful you chose to belong.

Your future self and your family will thank you.

When headlines scream “government shutdown,” the easy explanation is that Congress failed to pass a spending bill. That’s true — but it doesn’t tell the whole story. The deeper causes are rooted in how our politics and institutions work, not just in the policy disagreements of the moment.

The Mechanics: How a Shutdown Happens

Every year, Congress must pass funding bills or short-term extensions to keep the federal government running. If lawmakers miss the deadline, many federal agencies are legally required to stop non-essential operations. Services like air traffic control and Social Security continue, but hundreds of thousands of federal workers may be furloughed or asked to work without pay until the standoff ends.

The Deeper Causes: Why Congress Misses the Deadline

This year’s shutdown is not just about numbers in a budget. It’s about how political incentives clash with institutional rules. Several forces are at play:

Polarization: Lawmakers are more divided than ever. Compromise can be seen as weakness, so both sides hold firm.

Brinkmanship: Shutdown threats are used as leverage. The idea is to force the other side to concede — or take the blame.

Policy Riders: Funding bills are often tied to controversial provisions, such as healthcare subsidies or immigration rules, that turn a budget vote into a broader ideological fight.

Senate Rules: Because most bills require 60 votes in the Senate, even a slim majority party can’t move legislation alone. That gives the minority power to block or demand changes.

Public Messaging: Leaders worry more about being blamed for “caving” than for prolonging a shutdown, which makes agreement even harder.

The Flashpoints This Year

In 2025, the standoff centers on health insurance subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, overall spending levels, and attempts to rescind previously approved funds. Republicans have pressed for spending cuts and rescissions, while Democrats have pushed to preserve subsidies and protect domestic programs. Both sides are digging in, betting that the public will fault the other.

The Bigger Picture

Shutdowns are less about single policy fights and more about systemic dysfunction. Our political system rewards confrontation more than cooperation, and deadlines become pressure points. The result is that federal workers, contractors, and communities that depend on government services bear the costs of Washington’s stalemate.

For Black communities, the impact is often sharper. Delays in small business loans, housing programs, and nutrition assistance can hit hardest in places where resources are already limited. That’s why understanding the real cause of shutdowns — not just the headlines — matters.

Bottom Line

The shutdown isn’t just about health subsidies or spending cuts. It’s the product of deep partisan divides, institutional gridlock, and political gamesmanship. Until those incentives change, shutdowns will remain a recurring symptom of a larger problem.

Subscribe now

When people debate affirmative action, the script is predictable: “It’s unfair. It gives some folks an advantage they didn’t earn. It punishes others for things outside their control.”

But here’s the truth you rarely hear: America’s biggest and most effective affirmative action programs weren’t for Black people at all. They were for white people.

That’s the central argument of Ira Katznelson’s powerful book When Affirmative Action Was White—and once you see the history, today’s arguments about “fairness” will never sound the same.

History’s Receipts

✅ The New Deal left out domestic and agricultural workers—jobs mostly held by Black people—locking them out of Social Security and labor protections.

✅ The GI Bill opened doors to millions of white veterans through home loans, free college, and job training. Black veterans? They were blocked by segregated banks, colleges, and local administrators.

✅ The Result: White families built wealth and stability. Black families were denied the same chance.

This wasn’t an accident. It was policy. It was compromise with segregationists. It was America making sure the ladder of opportunity wasn’t built for everyone.

Why It Still Matters

The racial wealth gap didn’t just appear. It was engineered. And when critics complain that affirmative action today is “special treatment,” the facts are clear:

👉 America already had affirmative action.
👉 It just wasn’t for us.

Read This, Share This, Arm Yourself

If you’ve ever been stuck in a debate, not knowing how to push back against myths about affirmative action, this book gives you the receipts. It shows you exactly how policy created an advantage for one group while systematically denying it to another.

This isn’t about guilt. It’s about honesty. If fairness matters, history has to matter too.

Bottom line: Don’t argue unarmed.
Read When Affirmative Action Was White. Share it. And use it to shift the conversation.

Subscribe now

Throughout history, oppressed people have turned to music as a weapon of survival. For African Americans, Negro spirituals created in the crucible of slavery were more than melodies — they were codes of escape, testimonies of faith, and lifelines of hope. Later, in the days of Jim Crow, those spirituals evolved into Gospel songs that fortified the community through segregation, racial terror, and the long struggle for civil rights.

These were not just songs. They were oxygen in suffocating times.

The Role of Spirituals in Survival

During slavery, spirituals like “Swing Low, Sweet Chariot” and “Wade in the Water” carried secret messages about the Underground Railroad and survival strategies. At the same time, they testified to an unshakable belief in deliverance. To the outside world they looked like church songs — but to enslaved people, they were maps, messages, and medicine.

When the chains of slavery gave way to the shackles of Jim Crow, Black people leaned on the Gospel sound. Songs like Thomas Dorsey’s “Precious Lord, Take My Hand” and Mahalia Jackson’s “Trouble of the World” were not just sung in pews — they rang out on picket lines and marches, carrying a generation through fire hoses, police dogs, and the threat of death. These songs created a culture of resilience and became the heartbeat of the Civil Rights Movement.

A Shared History with Jewish People

Remarkably, our history of song as survival is not unique. During the Holocaust, European Jews — facing one of the most systematic genocides in human history — also leaned on music to endure.

They sang “Ani Ma’amin” (“I Believe”) on the way to death camps, holding onto faith when the world collapsed around them. Resistance fighters in the ghettos declared their existence with “Zog Nit Keynmol” (“Never Say”), an anthem of defiance. Others sang laments like “Dona Dona”, turning grief into melody.

Just as Black spirituals became a shield against despair, Jewish Holocaust songs were weapons of the spirit, proving that even in the worst conditions known to man, music could keep hope alive.

Why We Must Revisit the Songs

Our survival — from the slave ships, the cotton fields, the segregated buses, to the marches across Edmund Pettus Bridge — is inextricably tied to the songs we sang. These songs were our therapy, our protest, our theology, and our strategy.

Today, the songs of the Black Church and the Gospel music we hear on Sunday mornings carry that same legacy. Every time we hear “We Shall Overcome” or “This Little Light of Mine,” we are tapping into centuries of resilience. Gospel artists of today stand on the shoulders of those who sang through slavery and Jim Crow.

This is why we cannot afford to let these songs be forgotten. They are more than tradition — they are the story of our survival written in sound.

A Call to Reflection

If you have never read the lyrics of “Go Down, Moses” or “We Shall Overcome,” now is the time. If you’ve never listened closely to the haunting beauty of “Ani Ma’amin” or “Zog Nit Keynmol,” take a moment to do so. These songs are more than history — they are mirrors, reflecting what it takes for people to endure the unendurable.

They remind us that faith and resistance are often carried on a tune. And they challenge us, today, to honor the legacy by singing our way forward.

✨ The songs of our past were not just background noise — they were lifelines. To understand them is to understand ourselves.

When people talk about “change,” most imagine speeches, rallies, or social media campaigns. Those have their place—but they’re not where the real money and decisions are made.

The truth is, the blueprint for our community’s future is drawn up in quiet rooms:

• City council chambers when budgets are approved.
  
  

• Planning commission meetings when land is zoned.
  
  

• School board votes when programs are funded (or cut).
  
  

By the time most people hear about these decisions, they’re already law. The contracts are already signed. The opportunity is already gone.

Today, we’re changing that.

Step 1: Get Into the Room

Every city, county, and school board posts its meeting schedule online. These meetings are public, but the public rarely shows up—especially in large numbers from our community.

Action This Week:

• Look up your city council and school board meeting schedules.
  
  

• Pick one meeting in the next 30 days and commit to attending in person. Bring two friends.
  
  

• Don’t just sit in the back—sign up to speak for 2–3 minutes during the public comment period.
  
  

Step 2: Learn the Agenda Before You Walk In

Most people walk into these meetings blind, unsure of what’s being discussed. But agendas are posted in advance—usually 48 to 72 hours before the meeting.

Action This Week:

• Review the agenda for your selected meeting.
  
  

• Highlight anything involving land use, budget allocations, business contracts, or funding.
  
  

• Research what that vote means and who benefits.
  
  

Step 3: Speak in the Language of Power

Elected officials and decision-makers respond to two things: numbers and stories.
Numbers prove it’s worth funding. Stories make it human and urgent.

Example:
Instead of saying, “We need more resources for small businesses,” say:
“In the last 18 months, our community lost 12 Black-owned businesses, representing over 40 jobs. This proposal can reverse that trend and create $2.3 million in economic activity locally.”

Step 4: Follow Up Like It’s Business

After the meeting, email the officials you spoke to. Thank them for listening. Share a brief one-page summary of your point. Ask to meet and discuss it further.

This is how you move from “random speaker” to “recognized voice.” And when they know your name, you start getting invited to the private conversations before the public votes happen.

Why This Works

Policies are like rivers—if you can get upstream, you can shape the flow before it reaches everyone else. Once you’re in the habit of showing up, speaking up, and following up, you’ll start spotting opportunities for contracts, grants, development projects, and investments before they’re public news.

That’s the point of Power in Our Hands: turning your presence into influence, and your influence into resources that build lasting wealth for our people.

Your Assignment This Month:

1. Attend one decision-making meeting.
   
   

2. Speak once.
   
   

3. Follow up within 48 hours.
   

Do that 3–4 times a year and watch how doors open—for you, your business, and your community.

We have Power in Our Hands. Let’s use it before someone else uses it for us.

Subscribe now