by Selena Hill
June 26, 2019
The BE financial services companies include the largest black banks, investment banks, asset managers, and private equity firms. These companies manage trillions of assets as they diversify the capital markets and serve the needs of individual and institutional clients from Wall Street to Silicon Valley.
|2||Liberty Bank and Trust Co.||591.541|
|3||Carver Bancorp Inc. (Carver Federal Savings Bank) *||590.000|
|5||Citizens Bancshares Corp. (Citizens Trust Bank) *||411.073|
|6||Broadway Financial Corp. (Broadway Federal Bank) *||407.170|
|7||Harbor Bankshares Corp. (The Harbor Bank of Maryland)||282.599|
|8||First Independence Bank||257.244|
|9||M&F Bancorp Inc. (Mechanics & Farmers Bank)||257.200|
|10||City National Bank of New Jersey||167.570|
|12||Citizens Savings Bank & Trust Co.||103.080|
|13||Unity National Bank||93.832|
|14||Tri-State Bank of Memphis||82.336|
|15||Commonwealth National Bank||47.261|
READ MORE AT: https://www.blackenterprise.com/be100s/financialservices/
You Might also like
By Elliot Booker — 7 months ago
Blacks give 25% more of their income annually than white households, according to a report by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation.
Though research is limited in this area, it also states “nearly two-thirds of African-American households donated to organizations and causes, totaling $11 billion each year”. In other words, blacks are one the largest group of givers in the country. Financial contributions from the black community have been well-noted and consistent for generations, with “tithing” being an intricate part of black giving and the values of community and mutuality embedded in African traditional values carried over by slaves.
After losing her job, Tracey Webb, founder of Black Benefactors, based in Washington D.C., started the giving circle organization in 2007 to create a collective “black giving” experience. Webb shares how black philanthropists can have influence on the causes they care about and how to do it.
Maryann Reid: What is a giving circle and is it different from being a philanthropist?
Tracey Webb: A giving circle is a group of individuals that pool their monies for charitable causes and decide together where to give it away. Studies have shown that giving circle members are more likely to volunteer, give more, and give more strategically. The root meaning of the word philanthropy literally means, love of mankind. It doesn’t mean wealth or a large donation. Giving circle members are philanthropists
Reid: What from your personal experience made you start Black Benefactors?
Webb: My journey began when I lost my job as a nonprofit director. I couldn’t raise the funding needed to keep the organization open. I made a vow to myself that I would help other black nonprofit founders and leaders, but at the time, I didn’t know how. The concept of giving circles was introduced to me a few years earlier, so I began to research them in my spare time. Upon learning, more about how they worked, I realized it would be the perfect way to accomplish my goal of funding black led nonprofits. I came up with the name Black Benefactors to clearly show who the funding is for, and who makes the funding possible. Our giving circle members are the benefactors, which is a person who gives money to a cause. I’ve had members tell me that they didn’t see themselves as benefactors or philanthropists before, but now they do.
Reid: What’s the first step someone should take if they want to become a philanthropist?
Webb: Since 2014, BB has hosted dinner series events featuring black philanthropists who share their giving story. A common theme among all speakers on their approach to philanthropy can be used as a first step–they identified a focus area for their giving. Usually it was influenced by their interests, or a cause they were personally affected by. One of our past speakers, Reggie Van Lee, is an art collector who established a scholarship for performing arts students at Howard University. He combined his love for the arts and philanthropy.
Reid: What is a project that your giving circle participated in and that you’re excited about?
Webb: We launched a capacity building project this year to help strengthen black led nonprofits in the D.C. area. Through partnerships with local funders and a consulting firm, our grantee partners and grant applicants can receive in-kind support to strengthen their infrastructure. Our first workshop was held in partnership with the D.C. office of “Blacks at Bain” of Bain & Company, a global consultancy firm, on board development, and a second workshop was held with the Beckner Advancement Fund, a social justice funder based in D.C.
Reid: Tell me about the very first grant you awarded. What was that like?
Webb: Our first grants totaling $9,000 were awarded in 2009. It was very moving for me because behind that first grant was years of planning, research, recruiting, meetings and fundraising. To be able to award a grant that was from us, for us was the best feeling in the world. I continue to experience that feeling with each grant cycle. Our grantees have shared with us that receiving a grant from black donors is impactful and for some, the first time. I’m proud to say that with each grant cycle, we’ve increased our total grant awards.
Reid: Why is now an important time for blacks to give?
Webb: Now is an important time to support a giving circle like ours because there are initiatives to increase funding and resources to black led businesses, but what about black-led nonprofits? Only 3% of national foundation funding is allocated to these organizations, which are often underfunded, if funded at all, and under-resourced. Because of this reason, we aim to fill this critical gap in resources by funding black-led nonprofits at the highest level possible each grant cycle instead of awarding several small grants.
Reid: How can someone start giving if they only have $500? Is that enough?
Webb: Absolutely. In fact, two of our past grants were in the amount of $500 for the purchase of wish list items. To get started, if there’s a giving circle in your community, consider donating to one or more of their grantees. Giving circles are more likely to support small organizations and $500 can go a long way. Or, leverage your $500 with others by joining or donating to a giving circle for a larger gift. I’d also like to add that you can start giving at any amount.
Reid: What is in the future for Black Benefactors?
Webb: We are undergoing a restructuring process to better serve our members, grantee partners and the community. During this time, we’re accepting donations to support our grant making. Looking into my Black Benefactors crystal ball, I see new members, larger grant awards and a youth component in our future.
Reid: How can someone support black philanthropy now?
Webb: Learn more about the history and impact of black giving circles by reading “The Sweetness of Circles” here, an op-ed that I co-authored with Akira Barclay and Valaida Fullwood, and start planning now to celebrate Black Philanthropy Month in August 2020 by visiting www.blackphilanthropymonth.com. Most importantly, share how you give black year-round with #BPM365Post Views: 1,165
By Elliot Booker — 4 years ago
Just as Black Men were targeted and injected with drugs for the Tuskegee Experiment, and Black Women in the U.S. and other countries injected, some forcibly with contraceptive drug Depo-Provera. We must start understanding what and whom we are dealing with. Please read the article and leave comments.
Minority Report: A Covert CDC Program Inoculated Black Babies with Deadly, Experimental Measles Vaccines
By Neil Z. MillerA Senior Scientist with the CDC, Dr. William Thompson, recently admitted that he and his co-authors intentionally omitted statistically significant information from their 2004 study that was published in the journal Pediatrics. The excluded data showed that “African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism.”(1,2) Dr. Brian Hooker, an independent scientist, re-analyzed the original CDC data and published his results confirming that “African American boys receiving their first MMR vaccine before 36 months of age are 3.4 times more likely to develop autism” when compared to African-American boys who receive MMR after 36 months of age.(3)
For more than 10 years, the CDC buried scientific evidence that young Black boys who receive the MMR vaccine have a significantly increased risk of developing autism. The CDC kept this crucial information confidential. The CDC refused to warn the public. The parents of Black babies were not provided with informed consent and their human rights were violated.
Concerned parents are now wondering whether this callous and potentially criminal behavior by the CDC is a one-time fluke or part of a larger pattern. Actually, the CDC and World Health Organization (WHO) have a history of violating the human rights of Black families by unethically experimenting on their babies with dangerous measles vaccines.
A CDC and WHO Catastrophe
In developing countries where children are malnourished and health care is inadequate, measles fatality rates between 5 and 10 percent are possible.(4-6) However, infants up to five months old are usually protected by maternal antibodies that they received during birth.(7-9) Standard measles vaccines do not work in babies under nine months of age.(10) Thus, authorities reasoned that if an effective vaccine could be developed for this vulnerable period — from 5 to 9 months of age — the measles death rate could be lowered.
Scientists pinned their hopes for a new measles vaccine on “high-titer” shots that are up to 500 times more potent than standard measles vaccines.(11) In the early 1980s, they tested one of these — the Edmonston-Zagreb (EZ-HT) strain — on Mexican and Gambian babies 4 to 6 months old.(12-15) During the next few years this high-titer measles vaccine was also tested on babies in Guinea-Bissau, Togo, Senegal, Haiti, and impoverished minority communities in Los Angeles, California.(16-22) The general public was informed that EZ-HT “produces a better immunological response than standard vaccines,” but a large, randomized controlled study published in The Lancet confirms that it was experimental and deadly.(17)
The Senegal study
From 1987 to 1989, scientists set up a research center near 30 remote villages in central Senegal. Their stated primary objective was to study the clinical efficacy of two high-titer measles vaccines: Edmonston-Zagreb (EZ-HT) and Schwartz (SW-HT).(17) However, researchers had already done several studies demonstrating that high-titer measles vaccines produce a better immunological response than standard vaccines when given to children younger than nine months and as early as four months.(13-16; 18-21) Therefore, scientists conducting the Senegal study might have had another agenda. In fact, an elaborate “mortality surveillance” was established to check safety, evaluate the vaccination strategy, and perform “independent checks on child deaths.”(17)
Researchers might have suspected the vaccine was dangerous when the results of earlier studies began to filter in. But they were probably reluctant to abandon their high-titer shot without testing it at least one more time to be sure. Senegal must have seemed ideal; the region was extremely remote, and less than 4% of the mothers who “consented” to the study were literate.(17)
To begin the study, researchers randomly assigned comparable children to three vaccine groups: a) EZ-HT administered at five months; b) SW-HT given at five months; and c) placebo at five months, followed by a standard low-titer measles vaccine at 10 months. All of the children were followed for up to three years. When the results were tabulated (using eight statistical procedures) it became clear that children who received the high-titer measles vaccines had significantly higher mortality at 41 months than children in the standard low-titer measles vaccine group. But they were not dying from measles. Most of the deaths were from other common childhood diseases. Apparently, the high-titer measles vaccines lowered overall immunity making the children fatally susceptible to diarrhea, dysentery, malaria, malnutrition, acute respiratory ailments, and other infectious diseases.(17)
Children who received the Schwartz strain (SW-HT) died of other diseases at a rate 51% higher than children who received a standard vaccine. There were 48 excess deaths for every 1000 babies vaccinated. Children who received the Edmonston-Zagreb strain (EZ-HT) died of other diseases at a rate 80% higher than children who received a standard vaccine. There were 75 excess deaths for every 1000 babies vaccinated.(17) Mortality remained consistently high in the second and third year after the EZ-HT vaccine was administered, whereas it declined substantially in the control group. One of every six babies vaccinated with EZ-HT died within three years.(17)
When it started to become clear that mortality in the high-titer vaccine groups was excessive, researchers refused to end the study. Instead, they sought out new babies to take part in more tests of their deadly shots.(17) They said, “these findings suggest a need to reconsider the use of high-titer measles vaccines early in life in less developed countries.”(17) [Author’s emphasis added.] The implication is that EZ-HT and EZ-SW may be okay for use in more developed countries. In fact, the Senegal researchers were willing to develop “other strategies to reduce mortality from early measles,” but apparently only “if these findings are confirmed in other settings.”(17)
The Los Angeles study
Vaccine researchers were unwilling to abandon their deadly Edmonston-Zagreb high-titer measles vaccine. Instead, they set up a study base in Los Angeles, California. In 1990, three years after the Senegal study was initiated, the first American Black and Hispanic babies were inoculated with EZ-HT.(22)
The World Health Organization (WHO) and the CDC knew about the high mortality associated with EZ-HT but considered the data “preliminary.”(23) Thus, the Los Angeles trials were permitted to occur. However, Dr. Joanne Hatim, an active proponent of vaccine safety, questioned the experimental study and was able to muster public outrage.(22) In 1991, the Los Angeles trials were halted, but not before nearly 1500 minority babies were experimented on.(24)
The CDC was dishonest about the Los Angeles study on several points, both before and after it was conducted:
1) The “informed consent” form provided to parents violated U.S. and internationally accepted ethical codes of conduct regulating human experimentation. The mothers and fathers of the babies who were used as research subjects were not informed that EZ-HT was unlicensed in the U.S. It was registered as an investigational new drug to be used for experimental and research purposes only.(22) Nor were they informed of earlier studies in Guinea-Bissau, Senegal and Haiti where the EZ-HT measles vaccine had shown a significant increase in mortality.(22) The Los Angeles babies were used as sacrificial guinea pigs because it was well established before they were injected that this experimental vaccine was a killer.(22)
2) Parents were told that millions of doses of the Edmonston-Zagreb vaccine had already been used in Europe. But the Los Angeles, California babies were not receiving that vaccine; they were being injected with the significantly more potent, high-titer shot.(22)
3) The CDC claimed that the communities targeted for the experimental vaccine were hardest hit by a recent outbreak of measles. Babies in Inglewood, East Los Angeles, and West Los Angeles received the shots.(24) However, according to data obtained from the Los Angeles County Department of Health, 14 of 24 regions within Los Angeles County had a greater number of confirmed measles cases than East Los Angeles, and 16 of 24 regions had more measles than West Los Angeles. Inglewood was ranked fourth. In other words, communities targeted for the experimental shots were not hardest hit by the recent outbreak of measles.(22)
The three regions chosen to receive the experimental shots were predominantly Black and Hispanic. In fact, 88% of the babies were minorities. Several mixed-race and White communities harder hit by the recent outbreak of measles were not chosen to participate in the study.(22
4) The CDC claimed that no children were adversely affected by the experimental vaccines. However, one baby died from a rare bacterial disease.(24) Furthermore, according to investigative journalist Keidi Obi Awadu, several children “experienced what parents are describing as long-term immune system impairment, seizures and other acute conditions consistent with vaccine-induced injury.”(22)
5) Dr. Stephen Hadler, director of the epidemiology and surveillance division of the CDC’s national immunization program, claimed that babies died in the earlier studies because they were malnourished and did not have access to adequate health care.(24) However, the Senegal study emphasized that “the three vaccine groups were comparable as regards various social, family, and health characteristics.”(17) If the babies vaccinated with high-titer shots were malnourished, so were the babies in the control group, yet mortality was 80% higher in the group receiving EZ-HT.(17) Regarding the claim that babies did not have adequate health care, the Senegal study also noted that “intensive medical care [was] provided during the project.”(17) For example, “Free drugs and medical services were provided to all children. As a consequence, overall mortality was substantially lower than during the three preceding years.”(17)
6) The Los Angeles study might have had a hidden agenda. In Senegal, researchers established that “there was no significant difference within the study group in mortality by sex,”(17) yet scientists claimed the vaccine had a “mysterious gender bias,” with girls more likely to suffer from the vaccine-induced delayed mortality.(23) E. Richard Stiehm, an immunologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, speculated that girls mount a superior immune response to the measles vaccine, then suffer from a hypersensitivity that leaves them immunologically disadvantaged later on. Kenneth Bart, director of the National Vaccine Program Office in Rockville, Maryland, provided a sociological explanation: boys and girls probably get sick equally in the years after vaccination, but girls receive less adequate health care causing them to die at greater rates. However, Lauri Markowitz, an epidemiologist with the CDC, thought there might be a biological explanation, and claimed there is no evidence that boys in the earlier studies were treated better than girls. To shed light on this gender enigma, Markowitz planned to measure antibody levels and immune cell counts in Los Angeles children who received the high-titer vaccine.(23) Is it possible that these babies’ lives were placed in jeopardy to satisfy scientific curiosity and settle an academic debate?
In 1990, WHO requested 250 million doses of the deadly EZ-HT measles vaccine to be dispensed throughout the world.(22) However, data from Guinea-Bissau, Senegal, and Haiti continued to confirm that EZ-HT doesn’t save lives — it increases mortality.(23) By June of 1992, the link was irrefutable; WHO called for a moratorium on use of the disputed vaccine.(23) By some estimates, this might have prevented 18 million baby deaths.(22) Four years later, the CDC issued a tepid letter of regret by declaring, “a mistake was made.”(24) Yet, the entire debacle was unnecessary. In the Senegal study conclusion, the authors refer to a Togo study that used a low-titer measles vaccine and produced a good immunogenic response at six months.(20)
Researchers also discussed another Senegal study where standard measles vaccines “were safe, even when given at 4-6 months.”(17) Furthermore, “since most complications of measles occur during the 2nd and 3rd weeks after onset, early treatment is possible.”(17) In fact, “a systematic treatment of complications in [the other Senegal study] reduced the case-fatality rate among children below three years of age by 78%.”(17) Thus, non-fatal options were available.
A top scientist at the CDC recently admitted that he and his co-authors omitted crucial information from a study that was published 10 years ago. The excluded information showed that “African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism.”(1,2) Less than 20 years before their study was published, the CDC tested deadly, experimental measles vaccines on African infants and then again on inner-city American babies. These examples provide strong evidence that the CDC is engaged in a pattern of cavalier, unethical and potentially criminal behavior whereby the human rights of Black families and minority children are being violated. You should trust the CDC and their measles vaccines, including MMR, at your own peril.
1. DeStefano F, Bhasin TK, Thompson WW, et al. “Age at first measles-mumps-rubella vaccination in children with autism and school-matched control subjects: a population-based study in metropolitan Atlanta.” Pediatrics 2004 Feb; 113(2): 259-66.
2. Press Release. “Statement of William W. Thompson, Ph.D., regarding the 2004 article examining the possibility of a relationship between MMR vaccine and autism.” August 27, 2014. www.morganverkamp.com
3. Hooker BS. “Measles-mumps-rubella vaccination timing and autism among young African American boys: a reanalysis of CDC data.” Translational Neurodegeneration 2014 Aug 8; 3: 16.
4. Henderson RH, et al. “Immunizing the children of the world: progress and prospects.” Bull WHO 1988; 66: 535-43.
5. Hayden GF, et al. “Progress in worldwide control and elimination of disease through immunization.” J of Pediatrics 1989; 114: 520-27.
6. Gold E. “Current progress in measles eradication in the U.S.” Infect Med 1997; 14(4): 297-300; 310.
7. Van Ginneken JK, et al. Maternal and Child Health in Rural Kenya. (London: Croom Helm, 1984).
8. Black FL, et al. “Geographic variation in infant loss of maternal measles antibody and in prevalence of rubella antibody.” American J. of Epidemiology 1986; 124: 442-52.
9. Garenne M, et al. “Pattern of exposure and measles mortality in Senegal.” J of Infectious Diseases 1990; 161: 1088-94.
10. WHO-EPI. “The optimal age for measles immunization.” Weekly Epidemiology Records 1982; 57: 89-91.
11. Job JS, et al. “Successful immunization of infants at 6 months of age with high dose Edmonston-Zagreb measles vaccine.” Pediatric Infect Dis J 1991 April; 10(4): 303-311.
12. Sabin AB, et al. “Successful immunization of children with and without maternal antibody by aerosolized measles vaccine. I. Different results with undiluted human diploid cell and chick embryo fibroblast vaccines.” JAMA 1983; 249: 2651-62.
13. Sabin AB, et al. “Successful immunization of children with and without maternal antibody by aerosolized measles vaccine. II. Vaccine comparisons and evidence for multiple antibody response.” JAMA 1984; 251: 2363-71.
14. Whittle HC, et al. “Immunisation of 4-6 month old Gambian infants with Edmonston-Zagreb measles vaccine.” Lancet 1984; ii: 834-37.
15. Whittle HC, et al. “Trial of high-dose Edmonston-Zagreb measles vaccine in The Gambia: antibody response and side-effects.” Lancet 1988; ii: 811-814.
16. Aaby P, et al. “Trial of high-dose Edmonston-Zagreb measles vaccine in Guinea-Bissau: protective efficacy.” Lancet 1988; i: 809-811.
17. Garenne M, et al. “Child mortality after high-titre measles vaccines: prospective study in Senegal.” Lancet 1991; 338: 903-7.
18. Whittle HC. “Effect of dose and strain of vaccine on success of measles vaccination of infants aged 4-5 months.” Lancet 1988; i: 963-66.
19. Khanum S, et al. “Comparison of Edmonston-Zagreb and Schwartz strains of measles vaccine given by aerosol or subcutaneous injection.” Lancet 1987; i: 150-53.
20. Tidjani O, et al. “Serological effects of Edmonston-Zagreb, Schwartz, and AIK-C measles vaccine strains given at ages 4-5 or 8-10 months.” Lancet 1989; ii: 1357-60.
21. Markowitz LE, et al. “Immunization of six-month-old infants with different doses of Edmonston-Zagreb and Schwartz measles vaccines.” NEJM 1990; 332: 580-87.
22. Awadu KO. Outrage! How Babies Were Used as Guinea Pigs in an L.A. County Vaccine Experiment. (Long Beach, CA: Conscious Rastra Press, 1996).
23. Weiss R. “Measles battle loses potent weapon.” Sci 1992 Oct. 23: 546-47.
24. Cimons M. “CDC says it erred in measles study.” L.A. Times (June 17, 1996).
Neil Z. Miller is a medical research journalist and the author of several articles and books on vaccines, including Vaccine Safety Manual for Concerned Parents and Health Practitioners.
By Elliot Booker — 1 year ago
Sebastiane Ebatamehi Mon, Apr 1, 2019
The Pan-African struggle is not an individual one, it is collective, and Africa needs you.
The concept of Pan-Africanism is perhaps more popular now than it ever was. There are great Pan-African activists scattered on the continent of Africa but only a few like Professor Patrick Loch Otieno Lumumba and Kemi Seba can match the determination of the early pan-African heroes.
One thing that has contributed to this, however, is the fact that modern education and innovation has taken the minds of African youths off Pan-Africanism. So, even though it is something they have heard of, they do not believe it is a worthy cause. To them, slavery and colonialism were in the past and Africans should embrace the future.
It is even surprising that many Africans see Pan-Africanism as a cult or fraternity of some sort, how sad?
Africa is battling with unthinkable poverty and underdevelopment despite its wealth and natural resources. Our people are dying and terror is upon the land. We have a duty to fight for Africa because we do not have any other continent that we can call our own.
To achieve this, we must all put aside our individual agendas as countries in the African continent, and uphold the general agenda of African unity, development, and progress. It is only by this that we can truly succeed as individual nations and collectively as a continent.
All it takes to be pan-African is to decolonize one’s mind from western interference that tends to put us at war with ourselves and people. It is in a simple acceptance that Africa’s redemption lies in her unity and to preach this ideology to others.
The definition of Pan-Africanism is not a bogus one. Schools of thoughts are divided as to whether it is a movement or barely an idea. In all fairness, it is safe to say it is both.
Pan-Africanism is generally accepted to umbrella the ideas and policies that preach Africa as a single entity which must unite in order to experience any tangible progress. There is a fundamental similarity among people of African descent and we share the same history.
Africans everywhere all live with the horrid history of slavery, colonialism, and neo-colonialism. We have a common enemy as we have always had. In the past, it was slavery and colonialism, now it is neo-colonialism (or imperialism).
Also, the cultural and traditional similarities between African nations are proof that we share the same roots and belong together. This is perhaps the greatest credit of pan-Africanism in its proof that African peoples share a common destiny.
The struggle for Pan-Africanism is not one that involves arms or war. In fact, the intellectuals are needed more than the laborers if we are to succeed.
To be a Pan-African, you do not need to register anywhere or belong to a particular group. Although there are various political and civil Pan-African groups and movements structured for different purposes around Africa, membership in a group or movement is not needed to be a Pan –African.
What we all need to do individually is to decolonize our minds and eliminate the beliefs imprinted in us that we are different and lesser than the white man.
Africa is one and colonialism is in its worst stage than it ever was during the slave era. What we are experiencing today is neo-colonialism and as Kwame Nkrumah said in his book, this is the last stage of imperialism. Africans cannot remain slaves forever.
Where does Africa stand today? Where we created by a lesser God? Are we as they say that Africans were created to serve the white man as hewers of wood and drawers of water? Do we not have a right to own and control our resources? Are we created to be exploited? Is our continent a lab for European superpowers to test their assault and chemical weapons? Why is the West so interested in Africa’s disunity? Why can’t we be truly independent? Why must Europe and America control our economies and leaders?
In your sincere answers to the aforementioned questions, lie the true reasons why we must all be pan-Africans. Africa needs you!
What are your thoughts?Post Views: 821