Friday, November 28, 2014

The Hypocrisy Files

WHITE FOLKS RIOT: Why? Because a sports team won or lost (it doesn't matter which). Result? Millions of dollars in property damage. Cop response? "Ah, those silly kids are just blowing off a little stea--! GO, BRONCOS!!! YEAH!!!!!"



BLACK FOLKS RIOT: Why? From released pressure built up from a fundamentally racist society. Result? Millions of dollars in property damage. Cop response? "Look at those stupid fucking animals run as I shoot into the crowd with military grade assault weapons. FUCK they're too stupid to live."

An Equal Belief in Religion, Science, & Personal Myth

Michael Balance Williams[shared photo] My cousin on point like a decimal this AM! Thanks Del Bosby.
Michele Smith - Hmmm good one!

Miles Farris - Cause I just got up to go pee and my bed was dry when I returned.

Michael Balance Williams - Fluids are wet. That being said....all of the 22 fluids in your body make up what I call...a wet dream. When are you not having one lol

Miles Farris - Everyone knows you're never supposed to pee in a dream...it's a setup!

Laron Tanner - I'm feeling this Mike... Just like our conversation before... I believe we don't understand or know the concept of TIME... You have to go see Interstellar

Sharon Mcglothin Darkchocolate Thatz - toooooo deep for me! ;-)

Muhammad Rasheed - "It is believed" by who?

Michael Balance Williams - Whom ever lol

Muhammad Rasheed - That's not an answer!

Muhammad Rasheed - "It is believed" is a set up for a supposed 'truth.'

In order to proceed with the premise, I need to know whether the 'truth' is actually real, so I first need to know who actually believes this so I can determine why they believe it. If they believe because 'they on some bullshit,' then that is significant. lol It will instantly negate the point of the meme.

Iam Bennu - I read slow and would be dead before I could answer this.

Michael Balance Williams - To whom it may concern?

Michael Balance Williams - At least they gave a disclaimer...unlike religion. You don't have to believe in science for it to be true.

Michael Balance Williams - What's real is created by... you!

Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Balance Williams wrote: "At least they gave a disclaimer...unlike religion. You don't have to believe in science for it to be true."

You think so? Religion said that the universe had a beginning, and originally atheist scientist assumed that was false for no other reason (blind faith) than because religion said it. Today all the facts support what religion said first.

Currently atheist scientists believe [blind faith] in string theory and landscape theory and there isn't a single fact that supports it.

So you wanna try again?

Michael Balance Williams - Facts and truth will continue to change.

Science also says that our universe came from another one. Facts without works is dead.

It's ok to question the validity in everything. Do you believe any and every thing you hear and read? Religion will use science to back up their claims. Science doesn't need religion. If you want to get super deep with it....religion is a sub category of science...but that's another lesson for.

Michael Balance Williams - When u separate things...they no longer look related...Just like church and state. When people.get sworn into office, isn't the bible used?

Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Balance Williams wrote: "Science also says that our universe came from another one."

There are zero facts to support this.

Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Balance Williams wrote: "Do you believe any and every thing you hear and read?"

That's a suddenly odd position to take from someone who just declared that science is true whether you believe in it or not. Do you even know what your point is supposed to be?

Michael Balance Williams wrote: "Religion will use science to back up their claims."

That doesn't even make sense. The facts support the scientific theory, and they confirm what religion always said.

Michael Balance Williams wrote: "Science doesn't need religion."

It doesn't need religion to do what?

Michael Balance Williams wrote: "If you want to get super deep with it....religion is a sub category of science...but that's another lesson for."

lol Religion deals with those aspects of our existence that science is not equipped to deal with.

Michael Balance Williams - There are zero facts that God exist. We only believe what we hear.

In my experience, gravity exists whether or not I believe in it. I will drown in a pool of water whether or not I believe it to be true. These are facts.

Without your knowledge of something, it doesn't exist. Your subjective universe only exists because you create it.

They confirm what religion always said? Prove it?!?!

Michael Balance Williams - You need to check your equipment, it is not up to date Muhammad Rasheed
It is not up to date on science and religion.
Science doesn't need religion to back up scientific methods. Religion on the other hand, can't go a moment without using the methodologies of science to back up its claims.

Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Balance Williams wrote: “There are zero facts that God exist. We only believe what we hear.”

God told you He exists in His Book. That would be a fact.

Michael Balance Williams wrote: “In my experience, gravity exists whether or not I believe in it. I will drown in a pool of water whether or not I believe it to be true. These are facts.”

Yes, they are facts. These are facts that support certain theories. In the case of the universe having a beginning, facts supported that statement from God’s Book, but it didn’t support the atheist scientists’ position, forcing them to form a new theory.

Michael Balance Williams wrote: “Without your knowledge of something, it doesn't exist. Your subjective universe only exists because you create it.”

You are talking about modern physicists and their theories of ‘strings’ and the ‘landscape.’ These are 100% subjective concepts composed of nothing except their wishing.

Michael Balance Williams wrote: “They confirm what religion always said? Prove it?!?!”

The facts of the expanding universe feature “the metric expansion of space – which is the increase of the distance between two distant parts of the universe with time. It is an intrinsic expansion whereby the scale of space itself changes. This is different from other examples of expansions and explosions in that, as far as observations can ascertain, it is a property of the entirety of the universe rather than a phenomenon that can be contained and observed from the outside. Metric expansion is a key feature of Big Bang cosmology, is modeled mathematically with the FLRW metric, and is a generic property of the universe we inhabit. Technically, the metric expansion of space is a feature of many solutions to the Einstein field equations of general relativity, and distance is measured using the Lorentz interval. This explains observations which indicate that galaxies that are more distant from us are receding faster than galaxies that are closer to us (Hubble's law).”

These facts support the theory that the universe had a beginning, sprang into existence at a point in the distant past. The world religions have always said that the universe was created at a point in the distant past. In fact, Nobel Prize winning physicist (and co-discoverer of the cosmic microwave background radiation) Arno Penzias once said that “The best data we have concerning the Big Bang, are exactly what I would have predicted if I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, and the bible as a whole.”

Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Balance Williams wrote: “You need to check your equipment, it is not up to date Muhammad Rasheed”

You think so?

Michael Balance Williams wrote: “It is not up to date on science and religion.”

Really? lol

Michael Balance Williams wrote: “Science doesn't need religion to back up scientific methods.”

If the physicists had listened to religion in the beginning, and assumed it did know what it was talking about (faith) just in a non-scientific language, they would’ve spared themselves much wasted time chasing after their nonsense “didn’t have a beginning universe” that was composed only of more wishing.

Michael Balance Williams wrote: “Religion on the other hand, can't go a moment without using the methodologies of science to back up its claims.”

Religion doesn’t need science to back its claims because it functions on faith. The science can’t help but discover religion’s claims are true because God’s Word is true.

Michael Balance Williams - I can t believe that a god exists just because its in a book.

When I say Religion, I'm mainly referring to the Catholic religions.. FYI.

There is no outside of the universe, Mr Separatist! Everything is within YOU! You are the universe experiencing itself. In essence, you can never really think outside...

Michael Balance Williams - The perception of an expanding universe could be observed in several different ways. It could be a cycle that we are observing from one angle. We change the universe when we change our thinking of it. Religion is the same way. All is mind and mind is mental.

Michael Balance Williams - Lol

Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Balance Williams wrote: “I can t believe that a god exists just because its in a book.”

This will be your undoing. By the time you change your mind, you will be dangling over the Pit.

Michael Balance Williams wrote: “When I say Religion, I'm mainly referring to the Catholic religions.. FYI.”

lol This is a personal beef, eh?

Michael Balance Williams wrote: “Here is no outside of the universe, Mr Separatist! Everything is within YOU! You are the universe experiencing itself. In essence, you can never really think outside...”

Hmmmm… So, on the one hand my omniscient Lord has told me something in His Book, and on the other hand Michael Balance Williams has told me something (who’s wrong pretty much every time he touches a keyboard).

Whooo am I goingggg to belieeeeeve? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…

hahahahahaha

Muhammad Rasheed - Speak of more profound matters.

Throw down your rod. I can roll with the Catholics just this once. They believe in the beginning of the universe, too, you know?

Michael Balance Williams - Certain men, with certain thinking wants there to be a beginning to the universe because of their limited thinking.

Michael Balance Williams - How can gods word be true without the believer first knowing all there is about the history behind the blind faith. 50 million Native Americans and at least 100 million Africans in the Transatlantic Slave Trade died because of it this blind faith you speak of. Why would a god have Europeans kill millions of people during the dark ages that didnt want blind faith? Doesn't make sense. My knowledge of history says that the majority of indigenous people that already had a connection with god didn't accept blind faith in front of the barrel of a gun or weapon because they knew better.

Michael Balance Williams - Yeah...over the pit of bbq eating and not thinking about this convo lol

Michael Balance Williams - Never knew God touched a keyboard before. Got a pic of that Muhammad Rasheed?

Michael Balance Williams - I'd rather know than believe. Don't be lazy with your faith, I wasn't.

Michael Balance Williams - Yeah...I read that Catholics just accepted homosexual and evolution. They are scrambling for members because no one is going to mass or to church anymore. And because there are more Muslims now than Christians.

Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Balance Williams wrote: "Certain men, with certain thinking wants there to be a beginning to the universe because of their limited thinking."

It seems like you have no idea what big bang theory actually is, what it means, what its relationship is to science, or even what I'm talking about.

What are you trying to say here, Michael? You don't recognize Big Bang Theory as a legitimate working model theory in modern science?

Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Balance Williams wrote: “How can gods word be true without the believer first knowing all there is about the history behind the blind faith.”

Because, by definition, that’s not how “faith” functions. Faith is believing in a concept without physical proof of the concept. I believe in the inevitability of the Day of Judgment, without any scientific/mathematical proof that it will happen. But it WILL happen. That is my faith in operation.
Michael Balance Williams wrote: “50 million Native Americans and at least 100 million Africans in the Transatlantic Slave Trade died because of it this blind faith you speak of.”

This doesn’t compute. Blind faith in what caused these events?

Michael Balance Williams wrote: “Why would a god have Europeans kill millions of people during the dark ages that didnt want blind faith?”

Who told you that God told the Europeans to do it? Where did you get that info?

Michael Balance Williams wrote: “Doesn't make sense.”

Certainly not based on what you are saying. What do those events have to do with God’s instructions to the believers? Are you arguing against concepts that you believe in blind faith about the Abrahamic Religions that doesn’t exist? Tell me why you believe these things, please.

Michael Balance Williams wrote: “My knowledge of history says that the majority of indigenous people that already had a connection with god didn't accept blind faith in front of the barrel of a gun or weapon because they knew better.”

Again your understanding of religion how and it fits into these events doesn’t compute. I’m not tracking your thoughts; you’re going to need to explain what this means so I can understand how to address this.

Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Balance Williams wrote: “Yeah...over the pit of bbq eating and not thinking about this convo lol”

*shrug*

You’ll remember.

Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Balance Williams wrote: "I'd rather know than believe."

You are not equipped to know the unseen.

Michael Balance Williams wrote: "Don't be lazy with your faith, I wasn't."

I need you to explain those items above further so I can have better insight into how you see religion and how it functions. Right now it seems like you just made up your own religion and wrote "Christianity" on it on a piece of duct tape. I've experienced that before when talking to folk like Tony Steed.

Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Balance Williams wrote: “Yeah...I read that Catholics just accepted homosexual and evolution.”

I’m more interested in arguing the bible for them on certain matters, rather than certain church politics from theologian-priest decisions. God abolished the priesthood concept sometime around when the Book of Malachi was revealed, so I neither have interest in their grand pronouncements, nor do I respect the concept of “priest.” God abolished that foolishness for a reason after-all.

But as of this time, with all the relevant data known, they don’t have to “accept evolution.” The scientists themselves are actually only accepting it on blind faith; they lack everything they need to actually make it as real as they need it to be for they way they’ve been treating it. The church’s decision is little more than politics, and fearful that they will be embarrassed by finding themselves on the wrong side of history (like that sun around the earth thing), simply because the intellectual class has accepted evolution as ‘fact’ despite weak evidence.

Michael Balance Williams - I overstand your understanding of the big bang theory and what it is. I'm not limited by it. Its just a theory dude. I have my own about my god and the universe.

Your faith functions the way you set your box up. Don't limit yourself. Continue to push the envelope, I might get your message. I can't take you and your god seriously if you continue to antagonize and belittle my character.

I'm super cool about people and their system of faith. But when you have not took the time to research what's in the book you believe in...the way i have...there is a problem and the convo will not go any where if you're not willing to teach your self or take on new info. There are 100,000's and thousands of religions but the majority is set on the first one they get manipulated into without hearing about or searching other religions. SMH

Sorry it doesn't compute for you. Research it. You seem very educated.

Michael Balance Williams - I have to get ready for work. I'll respond shortly.

Michael Balance Williams - Oan: I clump american Muslims under the Catholic church. There were scrolls and knowledge about god before the old testament came out. Thousands of years before the old testament.

Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Balance Williams wrote: “I overstand your understanding of the big bang theory and what it is. I'm not limited by it. Its just a theory dude. I have my own about my god and the universe.”

The factual data discovered by scientists support Big Bang theory. Big Bang also happens to correlate to what God said about His creation of the universe… that at one time it did not exist, and then later on, it DID. The theory, the facts, the mathematics support this.

Alternate theories that desperate atheist scientists are scrambling around trying to topple Big Bang are coming up short. That means Big Bang isn’t “just a theory.” It means it’s true. The believer already knew it was true because the universe’s Creator already told us that.

Tell me what factual data supports your own theory, and/or why you believe it.

Michael Balance Williams wrote: “Your faith functions the way you set your box up. Don't limit yourself. Continue to push the envelope,”

The Supreme Creator is omnipotent… and He is the opposite of limited. There isn’t anything a human can invent that can even touch Him, because they are limited to what humans can and can’t do and use that as their “Oooo! Ahhh!” standard.

Michael Balance Williams wrote: “I might get your message. I can't take you and your god…”
There is only One God.

Michael Balance Williams wrote: “…seriously if you continue to antagonize and belittle my character.”

I took a couple of comments you said earlier as an attempt to belittle me, and it set the snippy tone I’ve taken since. If you didn’t mean it that way, then I apologize for reading into your posts what you didn’t intend, and will dial it back.

Michael Balance Williams wrote: “I'm super cool about people and their system of faith. But when you have not took the time to research what's in the book you believe in...the way i have...there is a problem and the convo will not go any where if you're not willing to teach your self or take on new info.”

Since this is our first conversation about this, we don’t yet know what the other has researched or not; we’re still in the Opening stage. The early Middlegame will reveal what is what. In the meantime I need you to explain the comments you made before so I’ll know how to respond.

Michael Balance Williams wrote: “There are 100,000's and thousands of religions but the majority is set on the first one they get manipulated into without hearing about or searching other religions. SMH”

You are off topic, and that comment is irrelevant here. I am a student of comparative religion.
Michael Balance Williams wrote: “Sorry it doesn't compute for you. Research it. You seem very educated.”

I’m asking you to explain your own understanding of the correlation between religion and the above mentioned historical events. I already know the religion, and the events. I can’t research what’s only in your head without asking you yourself to rephrase it for better clarity. The burden of presenting your point so that you are clear to your opponent is on you, not me.

Michael Balance Williams wrote: "Oan: I clump american Muslims under the Catholic church. There were scrolls and knowledge about god before the old testament came out. Thousands of years before the old testament."

So? God said the scripture revealed to the Hebrews and to the Arab prophet were only the latest of many going all the way back to the first men. I thought you said you were a student of comparative religion?

Michael Balance Williams - You started the onslaught of belittling and I called you out on it.
I am a student of comparative religions as well. God is what you make it.
You are not my opponent. This is not a battle. These are our ideas about what we think. If you want to have a private detailed dialogue about science and religion, inbox me. We have both strayed from the original topic.

Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Balance Williams wrote: "You started the onslaught of belittling and I called you out on it."

I will interpret that as confirmation that what I initially thought was belittling from you actually wasn't, and I apologize for the offense.

Michael Balance Williams wrote: "I am a student of comparative religions as well. God is what you make it."

God is what He said He is.

Michael Balance Williams wrote: "You are not my opponent. This is not battle."

It's a philosophical battle and debate.

Michael Balance Williams wrote: "These are our ideas about what we think."

Sure. Whose are the stronger? What differentiates a strong idea from a real one? Are all ideas equally strong or weak no matter whether they are supported or not, or are held together by poor logic structure? Why or why not?

Michael Balance Williams wrote: "We have both strayed from the original topic."

You set the topic with this line: "At least they gave a disclaimer... unlike religion. You don't have to believe in science for it to be true." This was the gauntlet thrown down that I'm challenging you on.

Tell me what is the correlation between religion and the two historical events you named based on how Michael Balance Williams sees it, please. I need to see how you are interpreting religion from your own insight so I can better understand your comments.

Michael Balance Williams - If I told you to believe that my god is stronger than your God, just because he said he is, would you? I'm gonna inbox you since you can't seem to respect my wishes.

Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Balance Williams wrote: "If I told you to believe that my god is stronger than your God, just because he said he is, would you?"

I would ask you to show me the revealed text that countered the revealed text that the One God gave to mankind.

Michael Balance Williams wrote: "I'm gonna inbox you since you can't seem to respect my wishes."

Okay, fine.

Michael Balance Williams - So you write your last comment after you responded to what inboxed you? I see that you like to get the last word. Disrespectful I tell you. I can care less about getting the last word. I'll still respect you until I'm disrespected.

Muhammad Rasheed - Since you actually asked the question here first, it didn't seem inappropriate to answer it here. Plus it gave me the chance to fix the typos in the PM, which doesn't allow for that.

Relax. I said, "Okay, fine."


Slavery... For ALLL the Marbles



Andre Owens - You ever notice that white Southerners like to yap on about their proud heritage when confronted with atrocities of the Confederacy, yet are quick to tell Black folks to "get over" slavery. The cognitive dissonance is deafening.


Lara Shepherd - I like to point out that the South lost & who wants to be a loser ?


John Orlando - It's easy to contradict oneself when you don't have to worry about being fair or making sense.


Bruce Gettel - I like to tell them to get over the fact that the North won the war . . . . .


Muhammad Rasheed - Lara Shepherd wrote: "I like to point out that the South lost & who wants to be a loser ?"


How did they lose? They formed a hooded resurgence of guerilla warfare troops, forced the Union soldiers to withdraw, recaptured ALL of their plantation lands, repealed all the Reconstruction laws, and formed a cartel of the multi-state sharecropping institution that was ALMOST like slavery.

It's hard to consider that a loss.

Ernst Alexander - Andre, where is all of this anger coming from against white people? As far as the war, there are a lot of black folk who had blood on their hands, Like the southern whites are you still fighting the civil war. I can somewhat understand them, as one of the commenters stated "the South lost and who wants to be a loser" Why is so much given and wasting of energy to their delusions. Also, there were and are a lot of Northern whites who feel the same way as you think the Southern white feel. The Southern states loosing the war is a fact as is slavery, so we all need to get over it and move in ways to make the country better. I think, as long as the whites and blacks are not talking and learning with each other, the haters, black and white win. There is that Divid and Concur attitude a foot.


Muhammad Rasheed - Ernst Alexander wrote: "As far as the war, there are a lot of black folk who had blood on their hands..."

That's because they were fighting for their basic human rights and dignity. They were living in a society that kidnapped them, and delegated them to an inhumane, permanent chattel slavery class. The blood was justly spilled.

Ernst Alexander wrote: "The Southern states loosing the war is a fact..."

A 'fact' is supported by evidence. In this case, since the South reversed everything that the Union soldiers had done, and even forced them back up North, it proves they didn't lose anything. Proclaiming something is a "fact" without anything to back it up at all, is ineffective magic when it so clearly conflicts with the facts of history.

Ernst Alexander - If the south did not loose anything. Tell that to the relatives of both the southern and northern families who lost love ones in that war. Both blacks and whites. In the end the south lost its quest to leave the union and the rich slave owner were force to free the slaves. the problem came about when the government decided to rube salt in the wounds and take lands from the slave owner to give to the slaves. It was a good cession, but illy done. It backed fired and cause even more resentment. The poor white southerner who could not afford to buy land was looked over in favor of the newly freed slaves.

Ernst Alexander - Yes, the slaves were kidnapped and delegated to inhumane conditions, and it was horrible and nut justify on any level; but not let us forget that there were not just the whites slave traders who did this but it was done with the help of other Africans. Looking at the slave trade from only one side does no one any good. What do you propose? To continue to hate and not fight to live and to use slavery as an excuse to not bring about a better life and future. Yes, it is hard to over come the prejudices and injustice that we suffer everyday, but to start out everyday with hate, diminish your own self worth.


Muhammad Rasheed - Ernst Alexander wrote: "If the south did not loose anything. Tell that to the relatives of both the southern and northern families who lost love ones in that war. Both blacks and whites."

All wars look like that, Ernst. War is ugly by it's nature; people are massacred as an acceptable objective towards the greater goal. That's in a sane world it is the choice of last resort.

Ernst Alexander wrote: "In the end the south lost its quest to leave the union and the rich slave owner were force to free the slaves."

Since they drove the Union soldiers back and repealed all of the laws that they disagreed with, they no longer needed to leave the union themselves; they literally reestablished the status quo that they were fighting for anyway. And they replaced the legal chattel slavery with the debt bondage of the sharecropping system, which functioned exactly the same, so they lost nothing but body counts. They 100% retained their preferred way of life.

Ernst Alexander wrote: "the problem came about when the government decided to rube salt in the wounds and take lands from the slave owner to give to the slaves. It was a good cession, but illy done."

No, the South merely did the exact same thing the Iraqis did during Bush's war -- they regroup, hooded themselves, and fought a hit & run, highly-effective guerilla war, that reversed the tide and set ultimate victory firmly within their grasp. Any talk of a Northern victory is only the indoctrination of an historical whitewashing talking devoid of the facts of what was actually going on. The legends & myths were more enduring than the reality, which is often the case during historical whitewashings.

Ernst Alexander wrote: "It backed fired and cause even more resentment."

Yeah, it did...

Ernst Alexander wrote: "The poor white southerner who could not afford to buy land was looked over in favor of the newly freed slaves."

As usual, it was the poor whites who were the paid soldiers and enforcers for the moneyed class, and did all the dirty work. Their biggest reward? To be members in good standing of a race-based class system in which they were considered superior over any other. The poor white decided it was a goal worth dying for.

Muhammad Rasheed - Ernst Alexander wrote: "Yes, the slaves were kidnapped and delegated to inhumane conditions, and it was horrible and nut justify on any level; but not let us forget that there were not just the whites slave traders who did this but it was done with the help of other Africans. Looking at the slave trade from only one side does no one any good."

Looking back on history through the dual lenses of half-truths and mythology does no one any good either, Ernst, especially those in the privileged class who spend a great deal of time justifying their privileged state when they know it comes from America's peculiar and embarrassing legacies. In the beginning, the Africans sold slaves to the Europeans, and why not? It wasn't a big deal at the time since the entire world bought and sold slaves as was the ancient tradition. But for the first time -- under European rule -- the slave trade became BIG business, on the same level of mega-corporate business that we know today. Under that system, familiar again to the obscene amounts of wealth that pass hands today, European slave traders became desperate to ship massive numbers of black skins across the ocean on the dreaded Middle Passage, and they were far too greedy to continue to partner with African slave traders. Consequently they grabbed EVERY African they could catch and threw them in the holds of those foul ships. Word quickly got out that the predatory white men scouring the coasts for black bodies could not be trusted, and ALL should stay away! Naturally this forced the Europeans to change their tactics, which began the system of giving barrels of rum as free gifts to confused, grateful, and ultimately doomed villages and far into the African interior as they would dare to go (this was before the vaccination technology was perfected, and white men feared to tread into the Dark Continent with good reason). Once the villagers were drunk off rum by night fall, the Europeans would attack the now relatively easy targets, and bag, brand and ship 'em for easy profits. This was the number one method of slave taking for centuries; the partnership with the African slave traders barely lasted a decade, yet white guilt continues to blow it out of proportion in a lame and dishonest attempt to sooth their soul's generational burden.

Ernst Alexander wrote: "What do you propose?"

Appeals to law and reason. The white cops freely killing unarmed black youth are but one symptom of many within the fundamentally lopsided classism of our society with it's strong racism brand. The way the system is built, where the whites are naturally favored and advantaged, while token band-aid efforts to alleviate the resentments built up from daily indignities to the blacks remain ineffective, which only breed MORE resentments whenever members of the privileged class continue to pretend there are no inequalities, and everyone is fundamentally equal in society based on their horse-blinders made out of myth and falsehood. When appeals to law and reason fail to work, what will be left accept more resentments and compounded hatreds? How would you feel in that position? Is the continuous advice from those in privilege to simply "get over it" and take the high road sound, or even, wise advice when it comes from them? To me it sounds like a provocation.

Ernst Alexander - I am going to bow out of this exchange because the writer refuse to acknowledge truth and factual account of history. I know what he will write that history is written by the white man so as a black man the historical facts are not to believe. I suppose he al discount the Holocaust were 6000 Jews were murdered. I am so sorry that so much hate can control ones ability to think and see facts and not twist the truth to manipulate unthinking people.

Muhammad Rasheed - What you are doing now is surrendering because your argument lacked anything to back it up, and you have nothing to challenge my argument with. So I win.

You are also attempting an odd misdirection by bringing up the holocaust, which literally has nothing to do with this topic.

You are a sore loser, Ernst. Get your debate game up.

Ernst Alexander - Even Malcolm X realized that hate was not the the way to a peaceful existence. He was murdered for speaking the truth to his Muslin brothers. A large part of the reason that things are not getting done in our government is because the Republicans can not stand to have a black man in the White House. They would have this nation go under do to hate.

Muhammad Rasheed - Ernst Alexander wrote: " He was murdered for speaking the truth to his Muslin brothers."

Are you threatening to murder me? Stand down, it's not that serious. I'm sure you'll manage to win an argument if you start using facts occasionally and practicing more.

Ernst Alexander - It seems that you have no factual evidence to support any of the statements that you have made. So I wish you all the best. Don't follow blindly open your eyes and see how you are being used.

Muhammad Rasheed - FACT #1: The South donned hoods, regrouped, and began a guerilla warfare campaign that forced the Union soldiers to retreat.

Source - 1.) Fleming, Walter J., Ku Klux Klan: Its Origins, Growth and Disbandment, p. 27, 1905, Neale Publishing.
2.) W. E. B. Du Bois, Black Reconstruction in America: 1860–1880, New York: Oxford University Press, 1935; reprint, The Free Press, 1998
3.) "Ku Klux Klan, Organization and Principles, 1868". State University of New York at Albany.
Muhammad Rasheed - FACT #2: reconstruction laws were repealed.
Source - C. Vann Woodward, Reunion and reaction: the compromise of 1877 and the end of reconstruction (1956)

Muhammad Rasheed - FACT #3: The sharecropping institution replaced chattel slavery and that form of bondage functioned the same in continuing white on black oppression.

Source - 1.) Sharon Monteith, ed. (2013). The Cambridge Companion to the Literature of the American South.
2.) Sharecroppers All. Arthur F Raper and Ira De A. Reid. Chapell Hill 1941. The University of North Carolina Press.
3.) Robert Tracy McKenzie, "Sharecropping," Tennessee Encyclopedia of History and Culture.
Ernst Alexander - All these references tell you that the Klan did organized until after the civil war and had nothing to do with forcing the Union solders to leave. You win, please. When you can become an expert in American history and can deal with facts and not made up information to justify your way of thinking.

Muhammad Rasheed - FACT #4: The relationship between African slave sellers and European slave buyers didn't last long. The greed of Big Business quickly caused the Europeans to betray their African allies and capture them as well, leading to the getting the villages drunk with rum and then attacking them method, that was the primary technique used by European slave takers for centuries.

Source - Edward Wilmot Blyden, Christianity, Islam and the Negro Race, London, W. B. Whittingham & Co., 1887; 2nd Edition 1888

Ernst Alexander - As I remember this started with my question to Andre, not you. So please allow him to give me his answer. thank you.

Muhammad Rasheed - I must be standing in the way with my arms outstretched preventing him from typing, is that it? lol

Muhammad Rasheed - You hear that, Andre? The reason you haven't responded to Ernst's question is because I have been bullying you.


I wouldn't take that from me if I were you. It's rude.

Andre Owens - You guys seem to be doing a good job without my input. To answer Ernst' question:

No, I'm not mad at white people, I'm mad at confederate apologists.

Muhammad Rasheed - Fuck. He got passed me.

You're slippery.


The Secret Pact



Chris Rock's Top Five - potential black community issue

I was thrilled to see a new Chris Rock film coming, but after reading the synopsis... uh oh.

I predict some issues.

They cast Gabrielle Union (dark skinned) as his wild, acting-a-fool, reality tv star finance, and cast Rosario Dawson (light skinned) as "a no-frills young woman with a sharp intelligence that matches his own" as The New Yorker journalist that interviews him. oy vey...

I wish they would vet this shit through me first. Really.

It's highly possible that Union just wanted to play that role so she could cut loose and really flex her comedy muscles, and I support that concept on the high level, but on THIS particular item, it's just going to unnecessarily feed old drama and inner-racial resentments. Union will probably be very funny in that role, and I don't want to take that away from her. The misstep is in the casting of Rosario Dawson.
 
I love Rosario, sure, but I think the socially-conscious Chris Rock would've been better served here by casting another dark skinned actress as the journalist, to play off of and contrast Union's performance.

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Too Old for School...?


Alessandro Fiorenza - Nice pic

Luke King - You're supposed to roll the damn right hand Hopkins ! You of all people should know this.  Where were you that night?

RubentheHammer Taylor Groenewald - no Luke Hopkins was his usual self. (am intelligent warrior) but Kovalev was just too good

Alessandro Fiorenza - Hopkins had his game plan but he underestimate the stamina,the defense  and the mental preparation of Kovalev,in my opinion

RubentheHammer Taylor Groenewald - No I don't think Hopkins will underestimate any opponent. Hopkins is a master boxer but he just got schooled that's all. I believe Bernard can still beat a lot of other light heavies though

Joel John Seno Sandrino - Hopkinsneed to retire

Alessandro Fiorenza - Ruben,I didn't mean that Hopkins thought Kovalev was shit but usually a big puncher,who never fought more than 8 round in an official fight has in his stamina a question mark. I honestly think that Hopkins tried to survive most of the fight to bring Kovalev where he was never been and see if he could have any advantage of it (sorry for my bad English)

RubentheHammer Taylor Groenewald - Allessandro I'm not Hopkins but I did my homework on Kovalev and I noticed that he is not just a big puncher bbut a very intelligent boxer who picks his punches and who moves in and out of range and also makes use of lateral movement. I noted it so do you really think Hopkins did not realise this befire the fight? Don't you think Hopkins and his team did their homework?

Alessandro Fiorenza - They didn't know how Kovalev would have worked in a much longer fight,they probably hoped he would have get tired or stuff

RubentheHammer Taylor Groenewald - No Alessandro. At Hopkins ' age and level, he can not afford to hope his opponent aint fit.

Donovan Medina – Bhop can take a punch

Ed Vel - This punch is as solid as it gets. You have to admire B-hop for lasting 12 rounds!

Joseph Lopez - Great technical fight, Kovalev is a smart fighter. Hopkins is a genius in the ring, but didn't have the physical tools to deal with a beast like Kovalev.

George Arvanitis - Bottom line hopkins wanted kovalev on his resume and kovalev wanted hopkinsin his

.
George Arvanitis - Hopkins was ready no doubt, but kovalev wasnt hurt 
.
Jesse Kaellis - Eat my leather, old man!
.
Herman Champ Henry - Let's not forget Bernard is 49 years old...This was no surprise!
.
Muhammad Rasheed - Hopkins certainly didn't get "schooled," he was just unable to compensate for the opponent's age/youth advantage this time. We may be close to "hang 'em up" time.
.
RubentheHammer Taylor Groenewald - I don't think Hopkins ' age showed. But I think he did get schooled in that Kovalev won almost every round. If a boxer loses almost every round then you can say he got schooled. If the scores were close then he didn't get schooled
.
Muhammad Rasheed - Getting beat to the punch because the other guy was faster with sharper reflexes means that youth triumphed over maturity. Getting "schooled" means that the more experienced fighter out-skilled the other based on superior knowledge.
.
RubentheHammer Taylor Groenewald - no not true. You can get 2 fighters who are the same age but one has more speed than the other. A more experienced fighter will not always school the less experienced fighter. Kovalev is already in his early 30's. Not a spring chicken. whittaker was much more experienced than de la hoya, so was Chavez. they did not school Oscar. Hopkins is a tremendous athlete but he lost to the better man. Even if Hopkinswas 10 years younger I believe we would see the same result. Credit to Sergei 
.
Muhammad Rasheed - Sure, there are people who technically "experience" a position, or profession, but actually learn very little. It happens all the time, a result of complacency. But others learn exactly what they need to learn to excel past average, and despite their age, outperform a physically older opponent because they took the time to master the many different facets of the science and the other didn't. The resulting domination would be "a schooling" based on applied knowledge. 
.
Being outperformed solely based on physical gifts alone because of the age difference, isn't a schooling. Hopkins was just showing his age, and the younger fighter was able to beat him to the punch. 
.
RubentheHammer Taylor Groenewald - in all Hopkins' previous fights he never showed his age. Even when Joe Calzaghe beat him nobody said anything about Bernard's age so why now all of a sudden? 
.
RubentheHammer Taylor Groenewald - so I suppose with your reasoning Hopkins showed his age against Calzaghe too? 
.
Muhammad Rasheed - RubentheHammer Taylor Groenewald wrote: "in all Hopkins ' previous fights he never showed his age. Even when Joe Calzaghe beat him nobody said anything about Bernard's age so why now all of a sudden?"
.
What do you mean? He's OLDER now. Did you think he would be able to perform at that level forever? Now he finally fought someone who he wasn't able to outperform. That's how it goes in athletic competitions. The younger man has the natural advantage, and the longer you stay in the game... 

...it's just a matter of time.

Muhammad Rasheeed - Now it SEEMS to be Hopkins' time. If he stays in there, this will happen more and more often. He's not Superman you know. lol




.
RubentheHammer Taylor Groenewald - ok so are you saying Calzage beat a young hopkins fair and square? Hopkins was already in his 40's. What about George Forman. Why didn't his age show against Moorer? The fact is Kovalev would beat most light heavy weights in the history of boxing. He is the real deal

Muhammad Rasheed - RubentheHammer Taylor Groenewald wrote: "ok so are you saying Calzage beat a young hopkinsfair and square? Hopkinswas already in his 40's."

Ruben I'm only saying exactly what I said. Obviously other matches are different, with lots of  other minute variables. The unpredictability component is one of the items that makes this sport exciting, yes?

RubentheHammer Taylor Groenewald wrote: "What about George Forman. Why didn't his age show against Moorer?"

Of course his age showed against Moorer. Did you even watch that fight? Moorer was embarrassing Big George in there until he got clocked with a single one of those legendary heavy hands (see above: unpredictability component).

RubentheHammer Taylor Groenewald wrote: "the fact is Kovalev would beat most light heavy weights in the history of boxing. He is the real deal"

lol Well, forgive me, but I am certainly capable of recognizing the difference between "fact" and the over-enthusiastic praise of a worshipful fan.  History will reveal the nature of the facts soon enough. I'm uninterested in the cheerleading rah rah.
.
RubentheHammer Taylor Groenewald - it does not matter if moorer outboxed foreman. Fact is he lost to a 45 year old. Do you aggree that on hopkins ' performance against kovalev he would have beaten a lot of light heavie?

Muhammad Rasheed - RubentheHammer Taylor Groenewald wrote: "it does not matter if moorer outboxed foreman. Fact is he lost to a 45 year old."

It IS a fact that Moorer lost the fight, but the fact that it was a technical shut out (the "schooling" we were discussing earlier) before he caught George's Big Right Hand absolutely mattered. lol It certainly factored into whether the new champ was willing to give the stunned and humiliated Moorer a rubber match or not. hahahaha

RubentheHammer Taylor Groenewald wrote: "Do you aggree that on hopkins ' performance against kovalev he would have beaten a lot of light heavie?"

How could I agree to that? I'm as in awe at this old ass man still being in there (winning titles!) as everyone else. I can only agree to what I see happen before my eyes when it comes to the future Hall of Famer BHOP… one fight at a time.  ;)  

The Babbling of the 'Divinely Conscious'

Blackjesus Is'divine - Kneegroes keep talking about the ‘pyramids.’ That's cool but this is 2014. When are you going to learn architecture and build your own?

Muhammad Rasheed - Yes, that’s something that really bothers me.  The so-called “enlightened” or “conscious” black folk in these organizations and cults, who go on and on and on about the fact that it was ancient black Africans who first discovered the sciences that the Greeks/Romans/Europe built upon, but they aren’t pushing their members to master that same math, science, technology to elevate themselves and compete with the other ethnicities.  In fact, when they do see a black person who put in the work to master the sciences and elevate themselves out of poverty, they call him/her a sellout, or “acting white.”   I don’t understand why they… of us all… aren’t actively working to become the greatest masters of mathematics and the technological scientists in the world.  If you REALLY believe Africa is the birthplace of that stuff, then why aren’t you taking ownership of it for yourselves (like the Japanese did) to become part of the world’s Technological Elite, and take the others ‘to court’ and show them how it’s REEEALLY done.

I grew up in Detroit, Michigan and have been hearing that afrocentric rap my whole life, and that is exactly what I’ve been waiting to see happen, to no avail.  If they would've been doing it instead of just talking about it, while waving their hands mystically in your face, I would've loved to have joined one of them when I was younger and more impressionable.  Sure, our distant black African ancestors discovered the Precession of the Equinoxes, and mapped out the stars, and invented calculus, and megalithic stone building… but what does that have to do with YOU?   I’m uninterested in seeing you get another degree in African-American Studies, or education, or any other easy, baby-level degree you've been flocking to.  When are you going to make a tradition of mastering the hard stuff that you initiated in this world, and take your place in helping usher in the human civilization progress to the next level?  Instead you seem to be overly fixated on afrocentric-themed sex rituals/orgies, recreational drugs, polygamy and other worthless mess that won’t elevate anything but your need to distract yourself from what you really need to do in order to be the kings you are always proclaiming you are.  Act like it.



















Focused on ALL the wrong parts of the past. When are you going to focus on the aspects of the ancients that actually made them great? Paganism didn't make them great, their mastery of the sciences is what made them great and had the entire world in awe of them. You all have been fascinated by the pagan/orgy stuff for almost a century now and you're STILL broke. Do you think the world is impressed by your weed-sex rituals in your basement? When are you going to build a Great Pyramid made out of 100 ton blocks of granite and limestone, or create a whole new mathematics to solve a problem that stumps the modern day scientists of other ethnicities? While the currently ineffective physicists are too busy chasing strings and interdimensional landscapes in a pathetic attempt to prove God doesn't exist, why aren't you developing the missing mathematic component of the Standard Model? 

When are you going to regain the glory of the past that you worship FOR REAL, and not just play at it?

Beloved by His True Fans, Sure... But was He Effective?

A Customer[a review of Great Black Leaders: Ancient & Modern by Ivan Van Sertima] I found this book to have a wealth of valuable information about the lives of many black leaders. I for one have come to associate scholarly integrity with Ivan Van Sertima's name, which contributed heavily to buying this book. However I found that impression tarnished by the obvious omission of Elijah Muhammad from this book. I am continually seeing authors make a concerted attempt at writing him out of history, when the Nation of Islam under his charge, is on the history books having impacted Black people around the world very significantly. I could see if Malcolm X, who was included, was responsible for a significant portion of the Nation of Islam's affect on Blacks in America as has been incorrectly perpetuated for the last 15 years or so, but that is not accurate. If Van Sertima is going to group "Black Leaders" together who have impacted blacks, I am baffled as to why he would put leaders such as Hannibal, Shaka Zulu and Kwame Nkrumah and then put a student of a true leader, who, according to the same criteria the above men were chosen, is actually greater in stature. It is equal to omitting Martin Luther King in an effort to over-exaggerate the accomplishments of Jesse Jackson (MLK's student). Many other "so-called scholars" have made their efforts suspect with the same overt attempts. Perhaps if they would leave their emotions and political correctness out of their scholarship, the rest of us would take them seriously.

Steve Messi - Although I agree with you on your point with Helijah Mohamed and I think he should be counted as a leader of the black community, I think the that the impact of Malcom X was way more significant the the limited scope of influence that Elijah had. Wasn't it for Malcom X, the Nation of Islam would have never gained the fame and popularity that it has enjoyed ever since. Elijah was merely a spiritual leader and he should have understood that himself. But deeply, he coveted Malcom X's world popularity and appeal and organized his elimination. That is a chapter of his story that no one can forget and we all regret; and that is why he should be kept outside of the list.

Big Sista Patty - I agree with Stevie. I don't think Elijah Muhammad should have been included. I don't think the average Black American would consider him a great leader. He may be to the people who follow his teachings, but to the masses I don't he's that important. I would have been very upset if I read a book of Mr. Sertima's and he would have been included. Lets be real Elijah isn't on the same level with King & Malcolm. The reviewer obviously is a follower and he is letting his emotions get the best of him.

Craig - Malcolm wouldn't have reached his potential if he never met Bro. Elijah. His teachings are a coat for many colours. And obviously your arrogance has gotten the best of you.

Stop hating Sista.

Muhammad Rasheed - Craig, with that logic every great leader's kindergarten teacher should be included on the list as well, hm?

Johnniepaul - Well said.

Yusuf - Paul was more responsible for the rise and spread of Christianity then Jesus - but who would dare say that Paul was greater than Jesus. Elijah Muhammad was indeed, probably, the most significant leader of the 20th century. If the adage is true, "you judge a tree by the fruit it bares," then the fruit of the likes of Malcolm X, Muhammad Ali, Louis Farrakhan, Dr. Na'im Akbar and Imam Wallace D. Muhammad, is a great testimony to the place that Elijah Muhammad occupies in world history. He should have been at the top of the list.

Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) Paul spread his own pagan-tainted message, and was the bitter rival of Jesus' hand-picked heir. I certainly wouldn't dare say that the usurper was greater than the Christ.

2.) Your loyalty to him is commendable, but using the criterion of success from your own `fruit bearing tree' quote, what long-term permanent gains have the African-American community achieved based on what Elijah's message and goals were? Are the people he preached to - and their descendants - enjoying the fruits of his vision? Because from here it sounded like a whole bunch of empty talk that profited the community for a only a very short time... just long enough to snap a disappointed follower forcefully awake and become embittered from all the scandals, assassinations, schism drama, mismanagement of funds, etc. The truth of the matter is that his organization peaked under the charisma of another man, who he tore down out of envy... an excellent leadership trait! Elijah sabotaged his own organization during his reign with his own irresponsible foolishness. Where is the independent, economically powerful, thriving African-American community, that is able to sustain itself after Elijah, that upholds his teachings as the foundation of their success? No such a thing exists, which means Elijah was a failed leader.

Yusuf - Elijah Muhammad's legacy will live on by its own merits and the merits of his, aforementioned, pupils - and those of us who are still actively engaged in the work. It seems that you and your ilk are the only ones dead to that fact. Peace!

Muhammad Rasheed - I wouldn't consider it "dead," but instead awake to the fact that there is a greater gap between the economic classes -- the poor African-Americans that the NOI preached to specifically are even more isolated, disenfranchised, and preyed upon by predator socio-political forces than ever before. Therefore, the legacy of both Elijah and his "aforementioned, pupils" has absolutely proved to be great abysmal failures quite at odds with the fruitless claims of your ilk's pompous hype machine.

Yusuf - I gave you names of my "ilk" - give me names of yours and let's compare. Less your're just some lone wolf out there crying in the night - helpless, hopeless - "isolated, disenfranchised, preyed upon" - shattered dreams - "dead". What you got to offer as an alternative? And with a name like Rasheed, you probably owe that to my "ilk's pompous hype machine". Negros just didn't have those kind of names prior to.

Muhammad Rasheed - It's funny that you put the word 'ilk' in quotes when you are the one that used it first.

Give you the names of people that did what? The Lost/Found Nation of Islam in the Wilderness of North America... as well as its numerous offshoot groups including Farrakhan's version of it... made the claim of being the answer to what the poor blacks needed to rise up and claim their true birthright. Every single one of those group's leaders have failed them, including their prototype predecessor Marcus Garvey... whose organization also collapsed over the same type of clumsy mismanagement and ego-fed schisms. Asking me to compile some random names of individually successful blacks is supposed to do what exactly? Distract me with a strawman? A far more relevant challenge is to find the socio-economically successful black community -- that the world courts for their skills and mastery of the Sciences -- who were birthed specifically from the teachings of the proud and over-hyped afrocentric/black nationalist organizations of the last several decades. Because the absence of such means that not a one of those groups' leaders should be on any kind of 'Best of" list. EVER.

Yusuf - "A far more relevant challenge is to find the socio-economically successful black community -- that the world courts for their skills and mastery of the Sciences"
 OK, you're on - tell me, show me - who, where?

 Muhammad Rasheed - Yusuf it doesn't exist. That's the point.

Every single one of those "leaders" has failed. Every single one.

Yusuf - No brother, I think you have failed those leaders. Except you be dead or have given up all hope - the struggle continues. I have children and grand-children and am honored to point to a generation of exceptional men and women who got us this far "up from slavery." And from where I sit, having aligned myself with our "Great Black Leaders: Ancient and Modern" - the future looks bright. Whether the vision is realized with my grand or great grand children - when they look back and pour libations to the ancestors and give thanks - my only point is that The Honorable Elijah Muhammad receives his due. Nuff said. You are a very intelligent, articulate, and insightful brother - use it to construct, instruct, and inspire - and we'll have that socio-economic reality that seems to be a recurring theme in your posts. Selah!

Muhammad Rasheed - Here's the thing: In order for our people to achieve what we need to achieve, we'll need to see what went wrong in the past from the previous efforts. That step will require an objective, candid, and courageous study into the groups, organizations, and events that make up our rich and often disappointingly painful history. Setting folks up on pedestals who fell FAR short of the glory they were absolutely capable of will not help us. Only the truth will help us. "This person failed because of XYZ. Let us not do XYZ, and in fact, have a zero tolerance for it." That's the approach we need to start taking, so that the next pro-black organizations that form will have a better chance of success. The past is full of broken promises, embarrassments, and the ruins of what could-have-beens, but it is also full of material to learn and grow from. You can only be great by building up from the mistakes from yesterday; you're not going to become great by worshiping the past and ignoring the mistakes as if they weren't real.

Yusuf - Here's one more thing, "so that the next pro-black organizations that form will have a better chance of success," that is, knowing your competitor's play book. For that I would refer you to Wikipedia - search - "Cointelpro". And while you're here on Amazon, you may want to pick up, "Confession of a Economic Hit Man". Overcome these obstacles and you'll have a great chance of success - fail, and you too will join the ranks of your other failed leaders and organizations who tried. "Judge not, less ye be judged." Good luck to you!

Muhammad Rasheed - I'm already familiar with COINTELPRO and other attacks of the enemy, like the kidnapping of our leaders on false charges and shuffling them through the prison system, usually after filling them full of drugs. Naturally that, and basic levels of racism, are important obstacles to overcome, but if we don't solve the traditional problems that kept our previous organizations from rising to their potential and sustaining it, like basic business organization, and ego-fed despotism, we only make the destructive efforts of our enemies easy for them. Let's at least give them a FIGHT before we slit our own throats.

The Golden Age of Ancient Egypt was Black African; The Ethnically Mixed Egypt Came Much Later

This book is the product of a deep and strong desire to use the best of our intellect, knowledge, and abilities to put right an issue that has long beleaguered historians and prehistorians alike; the vexed question of the Black African origins of the ancient Egyptian civilization.  In spite of many clues that have been in place in the past few decades, which strongly favor a Black African origin for the pharaohs, many scholars and especially Egyptologists have either ignored them, confused them, or, worst of all, derided or scorned those who entertained them.  It is not our business to know whether such an attitude is a form of academic racism or simply the blindered way of looking at evidence to which some modern Egyptology has been accustomed, but whatever the cause, this issue has remained largely unresolved.

We first came across this inherent bias and prejudice against African origins of the Egyptian civilization in the debate – more of an auto-dafé really – against the Black African professor Cheikh Anta Diop, who, in 1954, published his  Nations Négres et Culture, which argued a Black African origin for the Egyptian civilization.  Anta Diop was both an eminent anthropologist and a highly respected physicist, and as such, he was armed with an arsenal of cutting-edge science as well as the use of the latest technology in radiocarbon dating and biochemistry to determine the skin color of ancient mummies and corpses by analyzing their content of melanin, a natural polymer that regulates pigmentation in humans.  Yet in spite of his careful scientific approach, the Egyptian authorities refused to provide Anta Diop with skin samples of royal mummies, even though only minute quantities were required, and they pilloried and shunned him at a landmark symposium in Cairo in 1974 on the origins of ancient Egyptians.  Diop died in 1986, his mission not fully accomplished.  Fortunately, however, the debate on African origins was quickly taken up by Professor Martin Bernal, who, in 1987, published a three-volume opus, Black Athena, that flared even further the already-heated debate.  Bernal, a professor emeritus of Near Eastern studies at Cornell University, was the grandson of the eminent Egyptologist Sir Alan Gardiner, yet this did not prevent Egyptologists from attacking him with even more vehemence than they had his Black African predecessor Anta Diop.
 
A great advocate of the African origins model as well as a believer in the Black African origins of the ancient Egyptians was the Senegalese anthropologist and radiocarbon physicist Cheikh Anta Diop.  Hailed by many as one of the greatest African historians, Diop was studying for a physics doctorate in Paris in 1951 when he caused a huge stir at the university because his PhD thesis on the Black African origins of ancient Egypt was rejected as unsuitable by his assessors.  Not being easily discouraged, Diop boldly labored for nine more years to make the evidence in his thesis so airtight that, when he resubmitted the thesis again, this time it was grudgingly accepted.  Hardened by those struggles and the bias he encountered against the African origins idea, Diop went further and published his thesis under the title Nations Négres et Culture, and very soon he became a national hero and the major defender of the African origins theory.  In his native country of Senegal, Diop founded the Radiocarbon Laboratory at the University of Dakar, became its first director, and used this cutting-edge technology to continue his research on the ethnic origins of the Egyptian civilization.  Diop’s argument was simple and straightforward: it was possible to know the skin color of an ancient corpse by microscopic analysis of the melanin content in the body.  His critics countered by saying that this method was not foolproof and that possible contamination of the embalming unguents and the deterioration of the corpse over the centuries made the result dubious, but these objections were in turn addressed by Diop.  In 1974 Diop presented his findings to a large number of professional Egyptologists and anthropologists at the People of Ancient Egypt symposium in Cairo organized by UNESCO World Heritage.  He was largely ignored.  Diop died in 1986, leaving behind numerous publications as well as recorded interviews on radio and television.  Following is a concise overview of Diop’s thesis.

Diop starts by recounting that in 1971 the Kenyan anthropologist Louis S. B. Leakey, in his final report at the Seventh Pan-African Congress of Prehistory at Addis Ababa, proved that more than one hundred fifty thousand years ago humans were more morphologically similar to us were living in Central Africa around the great lakes that feed the Nile.  Diop explains how this startling discovery opened a reappraisal of the ethnology of the ancient Egyptians and humankind as a whole.  Leakey even thought he had found the very spot where the adventure of modern man had begun: the beautiful, snow-capped Rwenzori Mountains between Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, traditionally known as the Mountains of the Moon and discovered by Henry Morton Stanley in 1885.  These mountains stand between Lake Albert and Lake Edward and are the highest source of the Nile River.  Rwenzori means “rainmakers,” a name inspired by the almost permanent rain clouds that cover the peaks of those mysterious mountains.  According to Leakey, humans dispersed from here to inhabit the rest of Africa and, eventually, the whole planet.  The implication was that modern humans, being from a warm and humid climate that caused the natural melanin in their pigmentation to darken, were originally black-skinned Africans.  It was, therefore, from this Black stock that the other races of humans were formed.  Other than migrating southward, eastward, and westward, these original humans could also go northward to two main regions: the Nile Valley and the vast, then green Sahara.

Starting from the late Paleolithic age the entire Nile Valley, from southern Sudan to northern Egypt, was populated by a Negroid people.  Similarly, the northwest region of Africa that is today the Sahara was also populated by these same Negroid people.  Diop rejected the claim by some anthropologists that ancient human skulls from Nagada in Lower Egypt and Abydos and El Amra in Upper Egypt exhibit not only Negroid by Germanic features.  He pointed out that similar skulls from well-known Black people such as the Ethiopians and Dravidians also exhibit the same characteristics but are clearly not Germanic.  Diop also pointed out that finding non-Negroid features in skulls does not necessarily mean that living individuals were white.   In Egypt some 1,787 skulls, dating from the predynastic period to the present day, were examined and found to be 36 percent Negroid, 33 percent Mediterranean, 11 percent Cro-Magnon, and the rest uncertain but most probably also Negroid.  This shows, says Diop, that the original and pure Black Negroid race that first inhabited Egypt eventually merged with a Mediterranean race to create the Egyptians that we know today.

Diop also rejected Flinders Petrie’s method of using symbolic images of ancient palettes to classify predynastic and protodynastic Egyptians into six racial types: an aquiline type, which he equated to white-skinned Libyans; a plaited-beard type, which he equated to originating on the Red Sea; a sharp-nosed type, which he equated to coming from Central Arabia; a tilted-nose type, which he equated to coming from Middle Egypt; and a jutting-beard type, which he equated to coming from Lower Egypt.  Diop points out that even if we accept such simplistic classifications, current Egyptology textbooks at best ignore the issue of racial origins or, at worst, flatly assert that the ancient Egyptians were white, leaving the lay reader with the false impression that such assertions are based on solid research – which, of course, they are not.  Thus generations of readers have been misled to the false belief that the ancient Egyptian civilization owes little or nothing to Africa.  Diop accuses Egyptologists of going “around the difficulty today by speaking of red-skinned and black-skinned whites without their sense of common logic being in the least bit upset.”  He argues that in ancient times, the Greeks referred to all of Africa as Libya, which was a misnomer ab initio, because Africa contains many other peoples besides the so-called Libyans, who belong among the whites of the northern or Mediterranean periphery.  Diop was justifiably repulsed by a textbook intended for middle and secondary school that explained that “a Black is distinguished less by the color of his skin than by his features: thick lips, flattened nose…”  Diops points out that many of the reliefs and murals from predynastic and early dynastic times in Egypt show

“…the native-born blacks subjugating the foreign invaders into the valley … wherever the autochthonous racial type is represented with any degree of clearness, it is evidently Negroid.  Nowhere are the Indo-European and Semitic elements shown as ordinary freemen serving a local chief, but invariably as conquered foreigners.  The rare portrayals found are always shown with the distinctive marks of captivity, hands tied behind the back or strained over the shoulders.  A protodynastic figurine represents an Indo-European prisoner with a long plait on his knees, with his hands bound tight to his body.  The characteristics of the object itself show that it was intended as the foot of a piece of furniture and represented a conquered race.”

Diop argues that the two variants of the Black race – the straight-haired Dravidians in Asia and the Nubians and Tebu, and the kinky-haired humans from the Equatorial regions – are found in the modern Egyptian population.  Diop’s silver bullet, however, was the proven scientific method that can determine skin-color by the analysis of the melanin content in mummies from ancient Egyptians – and he insists that, contrary to the words of Egyptologists, it was entirely possible to determine the melanin content of ancient mummies by microscopic analysis in the laboratory.  Melanin, or more precisely, eumelanin, is a naturally produced polymer responsible for skin pigmentation.  It is insoluble and can be preserved for millions of years, such as in the skins of fossilized creatures.  Diop claimed that it can be measured in the skin of Egyptian mummies.  Even though Egyptologists lament that the skin of mummies is tainted by embalming material and thus no longer susceptible to such analysis, Diop rejected this by showing that although the outer epidermis is where the melanin is usually found, melanocytes are particles deeper in the skin where they are not destroyed by the mummification process.  From samples of common Egyptian mummies from the Musée de l’Homme in Paris, Diop was able to show high melanin levels that are not found in white-skinned people.  Diop wanted to apply the same analysis to royal mummies kept in Egypt, but the Egyptian authorities refused to give him any samples – not even the few millimeters of skin tissue that are required for such analysis.

Another criterion, which had proved successful in the past in determining racial origins, is the so-called Lepsius Canon.  This entails examining the bones of mummies’ bodies rather than their skulls.  According to Diop, this method shows that the “bodily proportions of the ideal Egyptian was short-armed and of Negroid or Negrito physical type.”  In addition, Diop suggests that blood groups could be used, for even today’s modern Egyptians, especially those in Upper Egypt “…belong to the same Group B as the populations of western Africa on the Atlantic seaboard and not the A2 group characteristic of the white race prior to any crossbreeding.  It would be interesting to study the extent of Group A2 distribution in Egyptian mummies, which present-day techniques make possible.”

Diop also reviewed the various statements made by ancient Greeks and Romans who visited Egypt, as did Martin Bernal later in Black Athena.  Diop asserts that if we accept what the ancient Greek and Roman writers say – and frankly there are no good reasons why we shouldn’t – then we must conclude that the ancient Egyptians were black-skinned, for these writers leave us with no doubt that they saw the Egyptians as “dark” or “black” men.  Egyptologists, on the other hand, insist that we should not take seriously these ancient writers.  A few Greek and Roman writers make clear Diop’s point.

Herodotus (ca. 450 BCE), the father of history, states that “…it is in fact manifest that the Colchidians are Egyptian by race… several Egyptians told me that in their opinion the Colchidians were descended from soldiers of Sesostris.  I had conjectured as much myself from two pointers, firstly because they have black skins and kinky hair…”  Herodotus also used the fact that the Egyptians were Black in order to prove that the oracle of Dodoni in Epirus, which according to legend was founded by a Black woman, was Egyptian in origin: “…and when they add that the dove was black they give us to understand that the woman was Egyptian.”

In on of the works of Aristotle (ca. 320 BCE) the great philosopher and father of scientific thinking speaks rather derogatorily about the Egyptians but nonetheless shows that he too regarded them as black-skinned: “Those who are too black are cowards like, for instance, the Egyptians and Ethiopians.  But those who are excessively white are also cowards as we can see from the example of women… the complexion of courage is between the two (brown or tanned).

Aeschylus (ca. 480 BCE), in his play The Suppliants, has one of the protagonists, a certain Danaos, comment on an Egyptian ship: “I can see the [Egyptian] crew with their black limbs and white tunics.

Apollodorus (ca. 70 BCE) affirms that “Aegyptos conquered the country of the black-footed ones and called it Egypt after himself.”

Another Greek writer, Lucian (180 BCE), presents a dialog between two Greeks, Lycinus and Timolaus, discussing a young Egyptian boy.  “Lycinus: This boy is not merely black; he has thick lips and his legs are too thin… his hair worn in a plait behind shows that he is not a freeman.”

Statements by many other Greek and Roman writers provide similar confirmation, either directly or indirectly, that the ancient Egyptians were black-skinned.  Interestingly, before racial and cultural bias affected European scholars, many European travelers such as Constantin-Francois Volney, who journeyed in Egypt in 1783-1785, wrote honest statements: “…on visiting the Sphinx, the look of it gave me the clue… beholding that head characteristically Negro in all its features, I recalled the well-known passage of Herodotus which reads: ‘For my part I consider the Colchoi are a colony of the Egyptians because, like them, they are black-skinned and kinky-haired…’”

Champollian-Figeac, the brother of the famous Champollion the Younger, who deciphered the hieroglyphics, wrote this bizarre response to Volney’s observations: “…Volney’s conclusion as to the Negro origin of the ancient population of Egypt is glaringly forced and inadmissible.”

Diop approaches the argument from a different and in some ways better perspective by asking how the ancient Egyptians viewed themselves.  He notes that they referred to themselves as the Rmt-en-Km-t, which Egyptologists usually translate as people of the Black Land, because, they say, the ancient Egyptians were not referring to themselves but rather to the color of that alluvial soil of the Nile Valley, which has a dark, almost black tint.  Diop argues, however, that it makes far more sense to translate this term as Land of the Black People.  Indeed, Km-t is perhaps the origin of the Biblical name Ham (hence Hamite), which also means “black.”  The H and K in the Semitic dialects are often mingled to create the guttural Kh.  Thus the Hebrew Kh-am may be a derivative of the earlier Egyptian Kh-em.  This would certainly explain why in the Bible, Egypt is often called the land of Ham or Khem.  Diop also presents an array of epithets of divinities of ancient Egypt that associate them with the color black implicitly, if it’s not explicitly stated that they were black-skinned, and he also presents a variety of other arguments involving complex linguistic comparisons and word syntax of the ancient Egyptian language and other African languages, but such arguments are well outside the scope of our investigation.  At any rate, suffice it to say that the evidence presented by Diop overwhelmingly supported a Black African origin for the ancient Egyptians.  As we have said earlier, Diop’s crowning moment was at the UNESCO Symposium in January 1974 in Cairo, where he and a colleague, Professor Obenga, carefully presented their scientific findings to a large audience of Egyptologists and anthropologists from all parts of the world.  It was nevertheless stated in the conclusion of the report of the symposium: “Although the preparatory working paper sent out by UNESCO gave particulars of what was desired, not all participants had prepared communications comparable with the painstakingly researched contributions of Cheikh Anta Diop and Obenga.  There was consequently a real lack of balance in the discussions.”

The attending Egyptologists had not even bothered to prepare for a proper and balanced debate.  Their biased conviction was so entrenched that they merely listened politely and then ignored the issue at hand.  The UNESCO organizers, however, were clearly impressed by Diop and commissioned him to write the entry on the origins of the pharaohs in their General History of Africa published a few years later, in 1981.  Yet the archaeologist Ahmed Mokhtar, who, ironically, was the editor of this UNESCO publication, could not prevent himself from adding a note in the introduction of the report: “The opinions expressed by Cheikh Anta Diop in this chapter are those which he developed and presented at the UNESCO symposium of ‘The People of Ancient Egypt,’ which was held in Cairo in 1974.  The arguments put forward in this chapter have not been accepted by all the experts interested in this problem.”

Notwithstanding Ahmed Mokhtar’s odd remark about a colleague and contributor to the UNESCO publication, what he said did not take into account the fact that some very senior French Egyptologists – notably Professors Jean Vercouter and Professor Jean Leclant – had been very impressed with Diop’s professional presentation.  In reality the resistance to accept or even consider Diop’s thesis came not from Egyptologists in general but specifically from high Egyptian officials, as is well demonstrated by Dr. Zahi Hawass, the present chairman of Egypt’s Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA) and undersecretary of state to the Ministry of Culture.  Hawass is well-known for his aggressive attitude toward those who oppose him so that even the normally discreet Sunday Times of London felt compelled to write: “He rules Egyptology with an iron fist and a censorious tongue.  Nobody crosses Zahi Hawass and gets away with it… Nobody with any standing in Egyptology will come out to help you… because they’d lose their jobs.  Sadly, people are cowering round his ankles… The hugged ankles belong to the most powerful man in archaeology, Dr Zahi Hawass, aka Big Zee, secretarygeneral of Egypt’s Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA).  It is Hawass who holds the keys to the pyramids, the Valley of the Kings, the Sphinx, Abu Simbel, everything.  No Egyptologist gets in without his permission, and few will chance his anger…”

According to Hawass, a member of a group allegedly waging a “big attack backed by Israel against the Egyptians” is Robert Bauval.  Bauval is a Christian, not a Jew, and, ironically, he was born and raised in Egypt.

In a more recent television interview in February 2009, Hawass unabashedly claimed that the Jews “control the entire world” and that “…for eighteen centuries they [the Jews] were dispersed throughout the world… they went to America and took control of its economy… they have a plan: Although they are few in number, they control the entire world… look at the control they have over America and the media!”

Needless to say, with this type of display by the chief of the SCA, any claim, however scientific and scholarly, of a Black African origin for Egypt’s ancient civilization will inevitably be met with indifference and, more likely, with opposition.  Indeed, Hawass has already made this quite clear with his latest commentaries on this issue to the official Egyptian MENA News Agency: “…the portrayal of ancient Egypt civilization as black has no element of truth to it!  Egyptians are Arabs and are not Africans despite the fact that Egypt is in Africa…!”

According to this kind of logic, though Egypt is in Africa, Egyptians are not Africans.  Such blatant contradiction most likely stems from the fact that Hawass probably equates Africans and Blacks.  Therefore, any connection between the ancient Egyptians and Blacks or Africans must be rejected at all cost, even if it contradicts geographical realities.  Perhaps this extreme view clarifies other, less blatant but still puzzling attacks that scholars have made in their academic publishing.  Facts, however, are facts: Egypt is in Africa, Egyptians are Africans, and there is now overwhelming evidence that ancient Egyptians have a Black African origin.

At this point, we must acknowledge that Dr. Hawass, as a deputy minister of the Egyptian government, could well be under pressure from various contemporary sociopolitical sources.  It is reasonable then, to suppose that not all of his commentaries are motivated purely by dispassionate analysis of events from four or five thousand years ago but may be colored in small part by contemporary sociopolitical concerns.  Yet the modern Egyptian government has been a leader in the terribly difficult, indeed Herculean, contemporary efforts to transcend the ages-old rivalry between Egypt and Israel.  If in some sense, therefore, there is a subliminal struggle going on among the various currently powerful ethnonationalist and subnationalist groups in Egypt today regarding claims of the origin of the civilization that built the pyramids, then it seems that the emerging answer should serve not to inflame but to defuse the situation – because the answer is that the origins stem not from any of these groups but from Black Africans.  Certainly it was the Black Africans of Egypt who, over the subsequent ages, melded with a number of other colors and ethnicities and thus essentially are today the same people of Egypt who should be extremely proud of the ancient accomplishments of there heritage.

Black Genesis: The Prehistoric Origins of Ancient Egypt [excerpt] by Robert Bauval & Thomas Brophy, Ph.D.