The Business of Black Power: Community Development, Capitalism, and Corporate Responsibility in Postwar America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This valuable and interesting collection of essays deals with what have been relatively neglected aspects of the black power movement of the 1960s and 1970s. The essays endeavor to answer a key question: “Why wouldn't economic development emerge as a crucial component of [black] activists' resistance” [in the 1970s]? (p. 1). To answer that question the eleven essays in the book attempt to demonstrate that “regardless of disparate outcomes and venues,” these activists instituted a number of programs designed to achieve “self-determination, community control, and economic independence” (p. 2). They are successful, although with only one exception: the studies are solely focused on the North, with little consideration of the South or the West. The book's title might be somewhat misleading for readers, since most of the essays do not deal with “business” in the traditional, capitalist sense. There was, of course, a rich if contested tradition of black business enterprise in the United States. The introduction to the volume does little to clarify the relationship between that older tradition and the new developments. In their attempt to develop a “history of the business of black power” (in chapter 1), Laura Warren Hill and Julia Rabig provide valuable context for understanding the significance of the emergence of new directions in the 1960s and 1970s. The distinction between that tradition and the new black power initiatives is made most cogently in the essay by Michael O. West, which clearly distinguishes older black capitalism and the newer movements for black economic empowerment in the black power era.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".