Posted: Mon 10 Nov 2008 11:50 Post subject: Backintyme Publishing Cuts Ties with Amazon.com
Backintyme Publishing no longer participates in the Amazon.com "Search Inside the Book" program, in the Amazon.com "Associates" Program, nor in the Amazon.com "Advantage" Program. There are no longer any links to Amazon.com from any Backintyme web page.
Each book's Backintyme web page now has "buy" buttons linking directly to: AllBookStores.com, BooksAMillion.com, Borders.com, BarnesAndNoble.com, and Powells.com. These retailers offer more reliable service than Amazon.com, and the first of them (AllBookStores.com) usually offers lower prices, faster delivery, and lower shipping costs than Amazon.com.
Backintyme's web pages now offer direct search for each book via Google Book Search, which is easier to use and more comprehensive than Amazon's "Search Inside the Book." Backintyme encourages our readers and authors to post reviews of our titles (and of other publishers' titles) into the Google Book Search program.
Backintyme Publishing now discourages customers from buying our titles from Amazon.com for two reasons: First, Amazon.com has adopted a policy of falsifying and vandalizing information about Backintyme titles on their web pages. Second, Amazon.com has threatened to stop selling certain Backintyme titles but refuses to say which titles are targeted for elimination, nor to give a reason for their threats.
Specifically:
Around October 20, 2008, we were notified that "Peter" of Amazon.com had deliberately erased dozens of book reviews from the Amazon.com web pages of Backintyme (and other publishers') titles. The reason Peter gave was that a Backintyme author had posted a review of their own book. This was untrue. No Backintyme author has ever posted a review of their own book on Amazon. Peter also wrote, "Any further violations of our Participation Guidelines may result in the removal of both of these titles from our web site." Peter did not name which two titles.
On October 26, 2008, we asked Amazon,com, "Peter does not say which two of our twenty-two titles he threatens to pull from the Amazon.com catalog. Please let us know immediately which two titles Amazon will no longer offer to customers, so that we can update our appropriate web pages." We received no reply and repeated the request.
After repeated requests, on November 3, 2008, we received an email from "Sara L." of Amazon.com refusing to divulge which two titles were being threatened with removal, but suggesting that they might, "not be removed unless there are further violations of our Participation Guidelines." Given that the original claim of "violation of participation guidelines" was untrue, we replied that their answer was unacceptable and we demanded to know which two (of our 22 titles) were being threatened with removal.
On November 4, 2008 we received an email from "Stacey" of Amazon.com refusing to divulge which two of our titles were being threatened with removal, "due to [Amazon's] strict customer confidentiality and account security policy." We replied, "Okay. Let me make sure that I understand. 1. You (Amazon.com) are threatening to remove some of Backintyme Publishing's titles from your website. 2. You (Amazon.com) are refusing to tell us which titles you are threatening to remove. 3. You (Amazon.com) are now refusing to tell us why you are threatening to remove some of Backintyme Publishing's titles from your website. Did I get that right?
On November 5, we received an email reply from "Sara L.," again refusing to discuss the matter further, "due to [Amazon's] strict customer confidentiality and account security policy." Again, we repeated our request for the names of the titles being threatened with removal. We have received no more replies from Amazon.com despite repeated requests.
Amazon's original vandalism of the book reviews, coupled with Amazon's repeated threats to remove some of Backintyme's titles, coupled with Amazon's repeated refusal to name the threatened titles seems inexplicable at first glance. It resembles pointless harassment with no obvious benefit to Amazon. One is tempted to suggest that it may be the work of a vandal within Amazon, but the harassment has come from at least three individuals within Amazon, and our requests have been ignored by at least three other Amazon departments. Clearly, the Amazon employees are following directives from management.
Given the pointlessness of the harassment by Amazon's management, we cannot speculate as to their motives. Nevertheless, it is impossible not to notice that all but one of our authors are either African Americans or multiracial individuals, and that all of our titles present either African-American history or anecdotes from the African-American community, and that all of our titles take a strong stand against racism and racialism.
In any event, whatever their deepest motives, Backintyme Publishing (History of the U.S. Color Line) chooses to conduct no further business with Amazon.com. Correspondence
Thank you Frank. I appreciate the lengths you and others at this site go through to maintain historical accuracy and impartiality. Some people just can't handle the truth.
I am not suprised by this at all. All it takes is a few e-mails/calls to Mangement by the public citing 'racism' or 'hate speech' to get something pulled. This happens frequently with anti-Islam cites. Google has even removed search engine links for such. And wasn't there a lawsuit with Verizon about a Pro-Life groups sending text messages? Verizon tried to censure this 'paying customer' group too.
I wonder about the people you spoke to? I would put money on the fact that whomever it was, felt threatened by the content here. Sadly, I feel that this is not an isolated case. Our nation is in for some BIG change, whether we like it or not. It never ceases to amaze me at the 'intolerance' of the 'tolerance' groups.
Posted: Sat 15 Nov 2008 03:47 Post subject: Amazon.com's Star Chamber Justice
Apparently, censorship is not new on Amazon.com. You'll also find that, for some perverted reason, they have removed ALL the reviews (mine and others) attached to Lawrence Tenzer's THE FORGOTTEN CAUSE OF THE CIVIL WAR.
Since most of the reviews they have removed are positive and encourage people to purchase the book, I can only conclude that this is a personal vendetta by someone in management.
Amazon.com is like a star chamber or Kafka's The Trial. You are accused but can't face your accuser. There is no appeal because everyone is anonymous and responsibility can't be penned down.
I take this as proof that it is not just angry/ jealous Blacks and liberals who believe in the current US race notions. Which is what I have been saying for a long time. Our beliefs come mostly from middle class White morals and not left wing or right wing Whites or Blacks (who are still more of a US subculture than mainstream).
You will find that many White Americans will be tolerant enough and smile in your face when it comes to learning African American history, a biracial identity on the census , or even Hispanics being of "any race" (including having 'Black blood') [i]but aren't nearly as friendly when suggestions are made about their racial and culture identity.[/i] Neither do they want their precious Irish, Cajun or English culture hijacked as "multiracial".
Posted: Sun 16 Nov 2008 18:57 Post subject: Amazon.com censorship
girlfromthenc wrote:
I take this as proof that it is not just angry/ jealous Blacks and liberals who believe in the current US race notions. Which is what I have been saying for a long time. Our beliefs come mostly from middle class White morals and not left wing or right wing Whites or Blacks (who are still more of a US subculture than mainstream).
You will find that many White Americans will be tolerant enough and smile in your face when it comes to learning African American history, a biracial identity on the census , or even Hispanics being of "any race" (including having 'Black blood') [i]but aren't nearly as friendly when suggestions are made about their racial and culture identity.[/i] Neither do they want their precious Irish, Cajun or English culture hijacked as "multiracial".
It doesn't prove that at all. The instigator of this censorship is most likely a black-identified person who has obtained a middle management position at Amazon.com and is abusing it to censor me for criticizing the "one drop rule" and hypodescent in general (and recommending books that back my case). The problem is also that such blacks are given an undeserved moral authority that makes whites and others unwilling to challenge them unless they believe that their personal interests are at stake.
Well we will agree to disagree A.D. It was interesting though how in most post, they are normally angry, jealous ghetto Blacks, but in this case that wouldn't fit the bill so they had to be turned into Black management at Amazon.
I know White Americans have complete indifference when it comes to other races or ethnicities being mixed . They could really care less when some Black American claims their ancestor was raped by a white man (the only real objection the average one would have would be it implying that White people were rapist). White Americans do not identify with Latinos either (and most do not have a single hispanic person in their family) , so they could care less how much black blood is in White Hispanics or latinos in general.That indifference does not mean tolerance when it comes to people making suggestions about their heritage. Note the difference in attitudes between Blacks having White Blood, Latinos having Black blood and the thought that they have Black blood!
Sorry, A.D. but I do not believe for one second the average White American would sit around scratching his head and agreeing with your suggesion that the Civil War was started because of enslaved mixed Whites!. I went to public schools and have heard fellow classmates and their beliefs that Whites (their ancestors) had plantations that held Blacks as their slaves.How well do you think the suggestion that some White people were slaves would go over with the average one? That would be to them like implying they descended from Africans from the slave ships and not the Mayflower. So not so well I would assume.
Neither would the average one take to kindly to books or reviewers claiming that Creoles where either White or people of color. Despite all the essays by people on Interracial voice about the life of Louisiana Creoles, these claims vary quite differently from the average White American who holds Cajun culture close to their heart. I have seen too many go out of their way to separate Cajuns and Creoles.
Of course I know what you're trying to do, get mixed raced people to stop thinking Whites will automatically be racist to them and that it is okay to say that they are White. Scapegoating invisible non-existent Black enemies seem to the way to go. But to anybody who lives or has lived in the US long enough to observe US culture would know completely differently. Most whites are pretty easy going until they feel they or their way of life is threatened, which they should do. I totally respect them for that.
I agree that the most plausible explanation is someone in Amazon who feels threatened by "racial" ambiguity or opposition to the U.S. "racial" dichotomy.
I suspect, however, that the problem is not a maverick in middle management. I suspect that the directives come from the highest level of Amazon, perhaps from Jeff Bezos himself. I suspect this because Backintyme's certified letters of legal demand that Amazon stop violating our copyright via their Search Inside the Book access to our titles are being resisted by Amazon's legal department.
I cannot speculate on the ethno-political self-identity of the Amazon executive responsible for the copyright violations as well as for the falsification and vandalization of information about our titles in their catalog. The person may see themselves as White, Black, or something else entirely. The only suggestion I make is that the person is someone who: (1) feels threatened by "racial" ambiguity or opposition to the U.S. "racial" dichotomy and (2) has the power to direct Amazon.com corporate policies and commit legal funds at the highest level.
Posted: Thu 20 Nov 2008 05:13 Post subject: Amazon
fwsweet wrote:
I agree that the most plausible explanation is someone in Amazon who feels threatened by "racial" ambiguity or opposition to the U.S. "racial" dichotomy.
I suspect, however, that the problem is not a maverick in middle management. I suspect that the directives come from the highest level of Amazon, perhaps from Jeff Bezos himself. I suspect this because Backintyme's certified letters of legal demand that Amazon stop violating our copyright via their Search Inside the Book access to our titles are being resisted by Amazon's legal department.
I cannot speculate on the ethno-political self-identity of the Amazon executive responsible for the copyright violations as well as for the falsification and vandalization of information about our titles in their catalog. The person may see themselves as White, Black, or something else entirely. The only suggestion I make is that the person is someone who: (1) feels threatened by "racial" ambiguity or opposition to the U.S. "racial" dichotomy and (2) has the power to direct Amazon.com corporate policies and commit legal funds at the highest level.
I thought the "search inside the book" feature was something that had to be requested by authors or publishers in order to encourage people to purchase the book. How does Amazon decide this since not all books have the search inside feature?
Posted: Thu 20 Nov 2008 05:37 Post subject: Whites and ODR
girlfromthenc wrote:
Well we will agree to disagree A.D. It was interesting though how in most post, they are normally angry, jealous ghetto Blacks, but in this case that wouldn't fit the bill so they had to be turned into Black management at Amazon. :lol:
I know White Americans have complete indifference when it comes to other races or ethnicities being mixed . They could really care less when some Black American claims their ancestor was raped by a white man (the only real objection the average one would have would be it implying that White people were rapist). White Americans do not identify with Latinos either (and most do not have a single hispanic person in their family) , so they could care less how much black blood is in White Hispanics or latinos in general.That indifference does not mean tolerance when it comes to people making suggestions about their heritage. Note the difference in attitudes between Blacks having White Blood, Latinos having Black blood and the thought that they have Black blood!
Throughout the election season, newspapers have had plenty of quotes from white voters who viewed Obama positively because he is half white and was reared by whites.
Hispanics have a very high intermarriage rate with Anglo whites and, before affirmative action and the rise of Chicano "brown" militancy, were always listed as white on the census and other government documents.
Sorry, A.D. but I do not believe for one second the average White American would sit around scratching his head and agreeing with your suggesion that the Civil War was started because of enslaved mixed Whites!. I went to public schools and have heard fellow classmates and their beliefs that Whites (their ancestors) had plantations that held Blacks as their slaves.How well do you think the suggestion that some White people were slaves would go over with the average one? That would be to them like implying they descended from Africans from the slave ships and not the Mayflower. So not so well I would assume.
Lawrence Tenzer's book on The Forgotten Cause of the Civil War: A New Look at the Slavery Issue, does NOT say that white slavery was THE cause of the Civil War. It says that the tensions created by white slavery greatly contributed to the political climate that ultimately led to war.
Neither would the average one take to kindly to books or reviewers claiming that Creoles where either White or people of color. Despite all the essays by people on Interracial voice about the life of Louisiana Creoles, these claims vary quite differently from the average White American who holds Cajun culture close to their heart. I have seen too many go out of their way to separate Cajuns and Creoles.
Of course I know what you're trying to do, get mixed raced people to stop thinking Whites will automatically be racist to them and that it is okay to say that they are White. Scapegoating invisible non-existent Black enemies seem to the way to go.
Black enemies are very, very real and quickly make their presence known. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. is one of them. If Obama has been reared in by American blacks, I'm sure he would not be president-elect. Why? He would have internalized black pessimism.
But to anybody who lives or has lived in the US long enough to observe US culture would know completely differently. Most whites are pretty easy going until they feel they or their way of life is threatened, which they should do. I totally respect them for that.
1. I have stated my views before just why many White Americans see Obama as half white. That view being because he is an educated, respected and now a world wide hero Whites want to see him as being "part of them". I have no doubt if Obama had have turn out to be some pothead on the 6 o'clock news (even with his White mother and White grandparents in front of the camera) very few if any Whites would have taken the view they do now that "being in a White environment is what made him what he is"!
2. A.D. you like to say "If Blacks were 1/10 as mixed as they claim they'd look like Latinos". And I'd like say if Latinos were 1/10 as mixed as you say and marry Whites 1/10 as much and as long as Frank says, the average White American would show higher admixture levels than they do!
When people talk about non-Afro-American marriages with Whites they normally leave out the fact that even this is relatively recently. There was a time not long ago when most Mississippi Chinese men where married to Black women not White women. In the 1940's Japanese families were put into concentration camps because they were suspected of being spies (would that had happened if they had have had White spouses and in-laws? Probably not). Remember Asians have always been the model minority in the country. Hispanics use to be classified as Spanish by government officials but treated quite differently in most cases by everyday Whites. All these high marriage rates are coming after the Civil Rights movement and strangely enough when Black marriages rates are dropping and out of wedlock children are increasing.
3. And whether your book reviews stated White slavery was a cause or the cause, it does not change the fact that popular beliefs of today are that only Blacks were slaves and only "Whites" were slave owners. I do not believe traveling to different message boards and book sites stating either one would not go over so well, especially among older White Americans who are Civil War buffs.
In the 1940's Japanese families were put into concentration camps because they were suspected of being spies (would that had happened if they had have had White spouses and in-laws? Probably not).
Technically they were internment camps. There were, though it is rarely mentioned, Europeans who were also in internment camps.
3. And whether your book reviews stated White slavery was a cause or the cause, it does not change the fact that popular beliefs of today are that only Blacks were slaves and only "Whites" were slave owners. I do not believe traveling to different message boards and book sites stating either one would not go over so well, especially among older White Americans who are Civil War buffs.
Not only white American Civil War buffs, many of whom recognize the existence of black slave owners at least, but many others would have difficulty accepting these facts or assertions put forth by Tenzer.
Tenzer in the opening of the book relates that many public school educators, who are by and large liberals of some sort, have expressed hostility to the claims expressed in his book. It is safe to assume that these people have far more power and influence in public institutions than some white American Civil War buff.
seems that guy has no reading comprehension if he truly doesn't get it
the review was full of statements that criticize the author. maybe a difficult task when the book is about the author's supposed exploits (i think he's mostly full of guano), but those are the rules they claim to follow.
Quote:
No problem. I submitted my review about seven times. When I inquired why Amazon would not post my review, anonymous Amazon editors gave me very vague criticism. This is a quote from the last message I received:
"Our guidelines do not allow discussions that criticize authors or their intentions. We encourage all voices to respond openly in our store, both positive and negative. However, we do exert some editorial control over our customer reviews."
This is the last version of my review. It was also rejected without explanation.
Joined: 10 Jun 2009 {Posts: 21 } Location: OH, USA
Posted: Wed 10 Jun 2009 23:38 Post subject:
Has this issue with Amazon been resolved? I see that many of the types of books sited are still for sale on Amazon and still have reviews. Also my reviews are still there. I hope I didn't go to all that work to have someone come along and delete them.
Has this issue with Amazon been resolved? I see that many of the types of books sited are still for sale on Amazon and still have reviews. Also my reviews are still there. I hope I didn't go to all that work to have someone come along and delete them.
As far as I am concerned, it has not been resolved. Backintyme Publishing no longer recommends Amazon, nor do we participate in the Amazon "Advantage" program, nor in the Amazon "Associates" program, nor do we provide links to Amazon from our titles' web pages.
Nevertheless, we cannot stop Amazon from carrying our titles in their online catalog, nor can we stop them from selling our titles. Like any other bookseller, they have the right to buy our books from Ingram at the wholesale rate and re-sell them at the retail rate. On the other hand, they also have the right to stop carrying them in their online catalog and to stop selling them if they wish. Either way, I am not going to lose any sleep over it.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
Some people just can't handle the truth. 
And wasn't there a lawsuit with Verizon about a Pro-Life groups sending text messages? Verizon tried to censure this 'paying customer' group too. 
Our nation is in for some BIG change, whether we like it or not. It never ceases to amaze me at the 'intolerance' of the 'tolerance' groups.
