Peace....



Elijah Muhammad taught that a group of Black skinned, straight haired people living in the Arabian Peninsula migrated to the Greek Isles and through a process of birth control and sexual selection produced a race of Albinos. He began teaching this idea in the 1930's.

According to Mr. Muhammad, the Genetic and phenotypical transition took 600 years to complete. According to Mr. Muhammad's writings, the Original stock was inherently genetically polymophic, thus by the process of sexual selection white people were not physically "created" they were instead extracted.


Mr. Muhammad taught that Black North Africans, and Asians, were physically distinct from the Sub-Saharan African due to climatic conditions and other environmental factors. He was specific in assigning the selective process which led to the appearance of the caucasian to Northern Blacks..Not to the Sub-Saharan African.

Mr. Muhammad describes someone similiar (but darker) to the man in the middle of this photo:





The term "Caucasian" seems to have originated with Freidrich Blumenbach, a 19th century Anthropologist who determined race based on certain physiological traits. Blumenbach gathered and compiled various anthropometric measurements of different groups, and then made racial classifications based on simularities in size of things such as the cranium of a specific group.

Caucasians were linked to the ancient Dravidians, black people of the ancient Indus Valley which is also within the Aryan region.

If you watch the video below, you will notice how strikingly similiar white people are to East Indian Albinos..See for yourself..

Was Mr. Muhammad right?


Video for visula effect



Whirling Moat

"Your Comfort zone is your enemies hunting ground" -Unknown

 

Original Post
I think genetic self selection could occur. But wouldn't there be historical records to document it? Or how long are we talking about it took to get from dark straight haired to white?
Originally posted Whiriling Moat
quote:
Caucasians were linked to the ancient Dravidians, black people of the ancient Indus Valley which is also within the Aryan region.

If you watch the video below, you will notice how strikingly similiar white people are to East Indian Albinos..See for yourself..

Was Mr. Muhammad right?



fro I heard this theory before. The word causian.....caucus[mountain] asian[asia]. Also it has bee notated that those from India migrated from Africa after the division of the Panagea or a little before[I forget which]. This is why Indian people are so dark and practice the caste system. Their goal is to be as light as the gods they worship. Many will disagree however....but! If you look at the dynamics of the Indian people....if you look at the original budhha[sp]...his coiled hair: African. But those are FIGHTING words.....Indians just like Arabs [semites] do not want to under any circumstances be associated with any thing BLACK i.e. African/slave....even though their skin color indicate otherwise. Is Muhammad right? All one has to do is look at the dark Indian's skin color....and draw to your own conclusionfro
quote:
Originally posted by urbansun:
I think genetic self selection could occur. But wouldn't there be historical records to document it? Or how long are we talking about it took to get from dark straight haired to white?
A better question is where did dark strait haired people come from that they are farther away from Africa than light skinned curly haired people.

Or an even better question where did Chinese people come from?

Even better what different does it make?
quote:
Originally posted by Wiz:
...

Even better what different does it make?

daz
The difference it makes, my brotha, is that if you overstand the true origins of the devil, you overstand his true wicked nature. This, in turn, prepares you, the original supreme Asiatic black man, for 1) dealing with the wicked ways of this grafted menace to the black man and 2) for the part you would play in helping to eradicate the devil from our midst. Only true knowledge empowers the cypher -- Arm, Leg, Leg, Arm, Head -- the 360 degree circle of completion, which, as you know, consists of the original man you are -- with the power to reclaim your position over the grafted, forked-tongue devil. Peace my brother.
Peace...

quote:
I heard this theory before. The word causian.....caucus[mountain] asian[asia]. Also it has bee notated that those from India migrated from Africa after the division of the Panagea or a little before[I forget which]. This is why Indian people are so dark and practice the caste system. Their goal is to be as light as the gods they worship. Many will disagree however....but! If you look at the dynamics of the Indian people....if you look at the original budhha[sp]...his coiled hair: African. But those are FIGHTING words.....Indians just like Arabs [semites] do not want to under any circumstances be associated with any thing BLACK i.e. African/slave....even though their skin color indicate otherwise. Is Muhammad right? All one has to do is look at the dark Indian's skin color....and draw to your own conclusion


The invading Aryan hordes of 2,000 B.C.instilled this self hatred into the Dravidian people of the ancient indian world.
The invaders robbed the Dravidian of his heritage and claimed it as their own, and then injected the caset system into the land based on colorism. This history is very interesting in light of Mr. Muhammad's teaching as it relates to the origin of racism.

quote:
Even better what different does it make?




Awwww shucks..Maybe I should peppered my post with "Obama" and then he would have found it relevant to black people...


quote:
The difference it makes, my brotha, is that if you overstand the true origins of the devil, you overstand his true wicked nature. This, in turn, prepares you, the original supreme Asiatic black man, for 1) dealing with the wicked ways of this grafted menace to the black man and 2) for the part you would play in helping to eradicate the devil from our midst. Only true knowledge empowers the cypher -- Arm, Leg, Leg, Arm, Head -- the 360 degree circle of completion, which, as you know, consists of the original man you are -- with the power to reclaim your position over the grafted, forked-tongue devil. Peace my brother.



Pretty good, but you gave yourself away in a few areas..The Bryant Gumbleness crept through in a few spots..


maybe you try rolling your r's or something..I don't know...


Whirling Moat
Originally posted by Whirling Moat
quote:
The invading Aryan hordes of 2,000 B.C.binstilled this self hatred into the Dravidian people of the ancient indian world.
The invaders robbed the Dravidian of his heritage and claimed it as their own, and then injected the caset system into the land based on colorism. This history is very interesting in light of Mr. Muhammad's teaching as it relates to the origin of racism.



fro When it comes down to it...it's all matter of whom invaded whom. Which is typical behavior for those seeking to dominate. It had to be skin color....otherwise what would be the distinction? So. They thought about it for awhile....cuz those aryans....well they're NOT the smartest....as a matter of fact, historically it was not the matter of being SMART as much as it was to be most BARBARIC and violent. Usually folks who can grow their own food, have a roof over their heads and generally are intune to the universe and have a respect for process of life....they don't have a NEED to be vicious or brutal or ruthless. On the other hand, those who have to really LOOK for food and SHELTER cuz it ALWAYS cold do not have the natural cognitive ability to think and reason....these folks use the most conduct to overcome those who are reasonable....as is the history of European MAN.

In addition, I have found individuals from Europe especially are the ones to traditionally conduct this type of behavior....and is why I am not SURPRISED at the findings...but! This is old news. For the behavior of the European has yet to change in modern day..it still exist. It just has a dual name called racism/self hate. fro
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
Peace...

[ racism.

quote:
Even better what different does it make?




Awwww shucks..Maybe I should peppered my post with "Obama" and then he would have found it relevant to black people...


Whirling Moat

It would have made more sense if you peppered it with pepper.
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
Peace...


The Bryant Gumbleness crept through in a few spots..



i don't know why but that was funny as heck lol The bryant gumbleness...aha haha 20 20...I gotta use that lol
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
quote:
Originally posted by Wiz:
...

Even better what different does it make?

daz
The difference it makes, my brotha, is that if you overstand the true origins of the devil, you overstand his true wicked nature. This, in turn, prepares you, the original supreme Asiatic black man, for 1) dealing with the wicked ways of this grafted menace to the black man and 2) for the part you would play in helping to eradicate the devil from our midst. Only true knowledge empowers the cypher -- Arm, Leg, Leg, Arm, Head -- the 360 degree circle of completion, which, as you know, consists of the original man you are -- with the power to reclaim your position over the grafted, forked-tongue devil. Peace my brother.

laugh 20
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
Peace...


Pretty good, but you gave yourself away in a few areas..The Bryant Gumbleness crept through in a few spots..
I thought it was pretty funny, actually... But "Bryant Gumbelness" was funny too, I'll give u that...
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
Peace...

quote:
I heard this theory before. The word causian.....caucus[mountain] asian[asia]. Also it has bee notated that those from India migrated from Africa after the division of the Panagea or a little before[I forget which]. This is why Indian people are so dark and practice the caste system. Their goal is to be as light as the gods they worship. Many will disagree however....but! If you look at the dynamics of the Indian people....if you look at the original budhha[sp]...his coiled hair: African. But those are FIGHTING words.....Indians just like Arabs [semites] do not want to under any circumstances be associated with any thing BLACK i.e. African/slave....even though their skin color indicate otherwise. Is Muhammad right? All one has to do is look at the dark Indian's skin color....and draw to your own conclusion


The invading Aryan hordes of 2,000 B.C.instilled this self hatred into the Dravidian people of the ancient indian world.
The invaders robbed the Dravidian of his heritage and claimed it as their own, and then injected the caset system into the land based on colorism. This history is very interesting in light of Mr. Muhammad's teaching as it relates to the origin of racism.


Ok, I'm confused... Were the invading Aryan hordes(a history I am familiar with) supposed to be basically the 'returning' albinized Dravidians?

The Indians (used in the video are phenotypically a mixture of Dravidian and those exact invading Aryans... The Aryans, like many of their progeny, the Northern Indiam castes in the video (Brahmans, Kshatriyas, & Vaishyas), have a 'European' look, to varying degrees(hence their higher caste)...

Aren't you using the mixed offspring to prove the theory that their parents originated 'from them'? That doesn't make sense... The unmixed 'tribal' Dravidians of the South(Check Runoko Rashidi's sight for examples) do not have the European phenotype and look much like the Australian aboriginal... Sub-Saharan African with straighter hair... That look Albinized looks nothing like a European... Neither do the Dalits... not even the Shudras..

So how could the Aryans be the albinized offspring of the 'origial' folk of the Indus valley? Of course those people that are alread of mixed Aryan blood if Albinized are gona look like their fathers... Confused
Peace....



quote:
Ok, I'm confused... Were the invading Aryan hordes(a history I am familiar with) supposed to be basically the 'returning' albinized Dravidians?


Not necessarily. Elijah Muhammad claims that there was a mass exodus from Arabia, not Harrapa or Mohenjo Daro. I provided the photo of the Indian man simply to provide the reader with a visual aid which approximates what he meant when he spoke of a black person from the North of Africa, or Asia during that time period. Now, I will say that there was a cultural unity of sorts between the ancient kingdoms occupied by the Dravidian and the various kingdoms of North Africa, including KMT. I do believe that phenotypically, the people of this entire region would have appeared very similiar to one another..Of course their would be some variations, but nothing material.

quote:
The Indians (used in the video are phenotypically a mixture of Dravidian and those exact invading Aryans... The Aryans, like many of their progeny, the Northern Indiam castes in the video (Brahmans, Kshatriyas, & Vaishyas), have a 'European' look, to varying degrees(hence their higher caste)...


The Dalits, or "Untouchables" are not genectically distinct from those of higher caste..they are just darker..The groups within the caste system was called "varna" which translates to mean "color". The stratification was designed to separate the dark black from the lighter and so forth....

quote:
Aren't you using the mixed offspring to prove the theory that their parents originated 'from them'? That doesn't make sense... The unmixed 'tribal' Dravidians of the South(Check Runoko Rashidi's sight for examples) do not have the European phenotype and look much like the Australian aboriginal... Sub-Saharan African with straighter hair... That look Albinized looks nothing like a European... Neither do the Dalits... not even the Shudras..


Well, once again, several studies were conducted to provide scientific justification for the caste arrangement. What was determined was that was no significant variant besides color of the northern higher caste Brahmans, Kshatriyas, & Vaishyas from lower caste Dalit- Shudras. Now of course the introduction of the Aryan strain did provide some genetic diversity, however, according to what I have studied the Aryan injection provided for a significant change in color yet did not structurally change the other dominant features of the Dravidian in any significant way.

Runoko Rashidi and Professor Cheikh Anta Diop spoke to this:

The term "Dravidian," however, encompasses both an ethnic group and a linguistic group. The ethnic group is characterized by straight to wavy hair textures, combined with Africoid physical features. -Runoko Rashidi


"There are two well-defined Black races: one has a black skin and woolly hair; the other also has black skin, often exceptionally black, with straight hair, aquiline nose, thin lips, an acute cheekbone angle. We find a prototype of this race in India: the Dravidian. It is also known that certain Nubians likewise belong to the same Negro type...."-Professor Diop

I think it is well established by our own scholars that the straight hair, aqualine nose, and thin lip features of our people is just as ancient and "black", as broad noses, lips and woolly hair.

Those who argue against the afrocentric worldview have discovered this aspect of our past and have tried to hijack our history arguing that Northern Kingdoms and asiatic blacks were more caucasian than black due to structural similiarities with whites..In making this argument they simply confirm Mr. Muhammad's teaching..


Wiz wrote:
quote:
It would have made more sense if you peppered it with pepper.




You know what Bruh...don't even stress yourself about it..Maybe one of the other posters will tuck you in...shhh..I'll hit the lights..



Whirling Moat
These people have thin lips, aquiline noses and are just 'darker' than the other Indian castes?

I know about 'varna'... but I also think there are many other aspects... These people look like the Africanoid facial features present in many ancient Indian and other East Asian artifacts... They are not the North/African & Dalit Aquiline looking folk that also exist...





Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
quote:
Elijah Muhammad claims that there was a mass exodus from Arabia, not Harrapa or Mohenjo Daro.



fro Question! Do you have other references besides the Honorable Elijah Muhammad? Or...are your full acceptance on this analogy is based totally on his theory ONLY?fro
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
Elijah Muhammad taught that a group of Black skinned, straight haired people living in the Arabian Peninsula migrated to the Greek Isles and through a process of birth control and sexual selection produced a race of Albinos. He began teaching this idea in the 1930's.

...


Mr. Muhammad taught that Black North Africans, and Asians, were physically distinct from the Sub-Saharan African due to climatic conditions and other environmental factors. He was specific in assigning the selective process which led to the appearance of the caucasian to Northern Blacks..Not to the Sub-Saharan African.
I thought that this belief system has it that African-Americans are descended from the original man. But you're saying that Elijah Muhammad said the "Asiatic" North African black man was distinct from the Sub-Saharan. We are descended from Sub-Saharan Africans. What, then, is our relationship with this "Asiatic" black man?
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
Elijah Muhammad taught that a group of Black skinned, straight haired people living in the Arabian Peninsula migrated to the Greek Isles and through a process of birth control and sexual selection produced a race of Albinos. He began teaching this idea in the 1930's.

...


Mr. Muhammad taught that Black North Africans, and Asians, were physically distinct from the Sub-Saharan African due to climatic conditions and other environmental factors. He was specific in assigning the selective process which led to the appearance of the caucasian to Northern Blacks..Not to the Sub-Saharan African.
I thought that this belief system has it that African-Americans are descended from the original man. But you're saying that Elijah Muhammad said the "Asiatic" North African black man was distinct from the Sub-Saharan. We are descended from Sub-Saharan Africans. What, then, is our relationship with this "Asiatic" black man?


19 munch I smell a similar convo brewing that I had with a Moorish brother a while back, but I'm sure this one will have a different 'twist'...
All I know is that as far as I'm concerned, there's nothing on this earth that the Creator didn't create. Every soul came from its Creator. No one ever "bred" a child of God.
Peace...


quote:
These people have thin lips, aquiline noses and are just 'darker' than the other Indian castes?

I know about 'varna'... but I also think there are many other aspects... These people look like the Africanoid facial features present in many ancient Indian and other East Asian artifacts... They are not the North/African & Dalit Aquiline looking folk that also exist...


Sister, ethnoarcheological studies have confirmed that more than one ethnic group settled in the urban areas of the early Harrapan civilization. Several physical types were present.

The Proto-Austroloid, the Twa, and other varieties of “Negroid” people, which includes blacks with thinner lips, and straight hair. They were all part of one Kingdom and are collectively referred to as Dravidian. This same multi-ethnic composition can be found in all of the great cities of the ancient world.

The Ancient world was multi-cultural. History provides that our people had open borders. We found no greater pleasure than inviting foreigners in to enjoy the bounty of our world.

Of course we eventually let the wrong people in…

quote:
Question! Do you have other references besides the Honorable Elijah Muhammad? Or...are your full acceptance on this analogy is based totally on his theory ONLY


The basis of this topic comes from the assertions of The Honorable Elijah Muhammad, however, the evidence and information I have provided all comes from outside sources. Several scholars have undertaken the task of resolving the origin of the European. If you would like I could direct you to a few good books relating to this subject.



quote:
I thought that this belief system has it that African-Americans are descended from the original man. But you're saying that Elijah Muhammad said the "Asiatic" North African black man was distinct from the Sub-Saharan. We are descended from Sub-Saharan Africans. What, then, is our relationship with this "Asiatic" black man?


According to NOI doctrine, we are all descended from the original Asiatic man. “Asia” is the name of the planet. “Asiatic” refers to the human population.

The Honorable Elijah Muhammad taught that a group of Asiatics ventured away from the North, into the hostile environments of the South below the Sahara. The purpose of this departure was experimental. There were those who believed that by subjecting themselves to a harsher environment they would become more physically powerful, and also become spiritually more awakened and refined. According to Elijah Muhammad, the people were called “Shabazz”. He taught that the members of this tribe were successful in mastering what he called a “Jungle life”. They became stronger, faster, and more durable. In the process they experienced a morphology which resulted in the Nubian phenotype. In the process however, they lost some of their cultural refinement, moved away from their original sciences and language. This made them susceptible to what was to come later.



Wiz wrote:
quote:
it stems from an acquired inferiority conplex.






Shhhhh....









Awwww....



Whirling Moat
You do feel inferior to white people. Anytime you have to look for (make up) some historical shit to show how black people are better than white people, which is what all the jakub shit alludes to, it come from the fact that you initially feel inferior to them. If you did not, you would not give a fuck where they come from and you certainly would not feel the need to mythologize it or the pretense of black superiority. If black people are superior, there would be no need to mention it, you would simply be it. No need to substantiate it, just be it.

But you can't because begin feeling inferior. You need to deal with that first. I do not feel inferior to white people and could not give less of a shit where they come from.

So get your ass out on that corner selling Muhammad Pimps Newspapers.

...bean pie my brutha?
Originally posted by Whirling Moat
quote:
The basis of this topic comes from the assertions of The Honorable Elijah Muhammad, however, the evidence and information I have provided all comes from outside sources. Several scholars have undertaken the task of resolving the origin of the European. If you would like I could direct you to a few good books relating to this subject.



fro Yes, I would to know which books indicated this. As a former member of the Nation of Islam....I am very well aware of the teachings of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad. However, through my own tireless studies/research I have found several flaws and misinterpretations from anthropologists and scientists who have convey these findings. I have discovered "Asiatic" simply means African and Asian i.e. the invasion[as I say over and over] of the Hyksos from Asia Minor[aka Turkey]. The other connection to this term "Asiatic" is a result of migration from Africa to India to Asia thousands of years before. So. I confused...but! I look forward to reading those books to clear things up.thanks fro
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
...I do believe that phenotypically, the people of this entire region would have appeared very similiar to one another..Of course their would be some variations, but nothing material...

...Sister, ethnoarcheological studies have confirmed that more than one ethnic group settled in the urban areas of the early Harrapan civilization. Several physical types were present.

The Proto-Austroloid, the Twa, and other varieties of “Negroid” people, which includes blacks with thinner lips, and straight hair. They were all part of one Kingdom and are collectively referred to as Dravidian. This same multi-ethnic composition can be found in all of the great cities of the ancient world....


Which is it?

quote:
Asiatics ventured away from the North, into the hostile environments of the South below the Sahara. The purpose of this departure was experimental. There were those who believed that by subjecting themselves to a harsher environment they would become more physically powerful, and also become spiritually more awakened and refined. According to Elijah Muhammad, the people were called “Shabazz”. He taught that the members of this tribe were successful in mastering what he called a “Jungle life”. They became stronger, faster, and more durable. In the process they experienced a morphology which resulted in the Nubian phenotype. In the process however, they lost some of their cultural refinement, moved away from their original sciences and language.


I remember learning this when I dealt with the NOI for a very brief period of time... It made me squirm then, but causes violent disgust and a lingering sadness now... sck
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:

According to NOI doctrine, we are all descended from the original Asiatic man. “Asia” is the name of the planet. “Asiatic” refers to the human population.

The Honorable Elijah Muhammad taught that a group of Asiatics ventured away from the North, into the hostile environments of the South below the Sahara. The purpose of this departure was experimental. There were those who believed that by subjecting themselves to a harsher environment they would become more physically powerful, and also become spiritually more awakened and refined. According to Elijah Muhammad, the people were called “Shabazz”. He taught that the members of this tribe were successful in mastering what he called a “Jungle life”. They became stronger, faster, and more durable. In the process they experienced a morphology which resulted in the Nubian phenotype. In the process however, they lost some of their cultural refinement, moved away from their original sciences and language. This made them susceptible to what was to come later.
I see.
Peace.....



quote:
You do feel inferior to white people. Anytime you have to look for (make up) some historical shit to show how black people are better than white people, which is what all the jakub shit alludes to, it come from the fact that you initially feel inferior to them



This is very interesting....I provide science and history and you combat it with outrage...Wiz, whatever my motive, or Elijah Muhammad's motive may have been, is only relevant once you or anyone else can prove that what he has presented is fabricated or false.

You may not like what he taught, but the most important question is whether or not what he taught is true.

History stands with him, Archeology stands with him, Genetics stands with him, Anthropology stands with him, and reason stands with him...There is no sound reason to reject his explanation for the genesis of the caucasian because in truth there is absolutely no plausible scientific explanation for the appearance of an entire group of albinos except the one The Honorable Elijah Muhammad offers..none..What is the accepted theory?? What do those in the field say?

They argue that at some point a group of black people wandered away from the abundant and rich environments of the east into an area which was experiencing a dramatic climate change..An emerging Ice Age...This group of hunter gatherers settled in this hostile region, and were subsequently trapped by some unknown geographic barrier which prevented them from leaving and returning to the rich environment..During this period of time the environment grew harsher, and it became genetically more advantageous for lighter skinned people since light skin allows for greater vitamin d absorption...Since the environment lacked natural sources of vitamin D, greater absorption of sunlight became necessary..

This is the academic model in a nutshell...The above idea is severely flawed..Severely....

I won't go into yet...Because I have a feeling that even if everything I am saying is true it still wouldn't matter to you..

The origin of a group and the selective traits which they possess are immensely relevant. If caucasian developed traits which do not allow their group to live in peace with the rest of the world..Isn't that something you would want to know before struggling to join on to their society..The caucasian by his own theory is the offspring of poverty..He is genetically disposed to greed..When you come from an impoverished environment you learn to horde..It is part of surviving, sharing is not advantageous when the pickings are slim..For the record..I was taught this by a white professor in Anthropology 101..I kid you not..

In light of their history, and knowing that the caucasian has never sustained peace..ever...They have been fighting and killing on a massive level since their history was recorded..So much so that Great barriers were constructed to keep them out..What makes you think that you can live with them in peace?

Or does that not matter as well?



Whirling Moat
All of the above is only hard to swallow for:

1. People who hate NOI irrationally...
2. People who are so fervently enraptured by and immersed in the culture and knowledge of white people they can't conceive of anything else.. (so the "Sun" theory where white people are just a product of a lack of sunlight seem more plausible.. )
4.. People who believe in superiority of the Bantu phenotype.. and believe those blacks with aquiline noses etc.. are products of miscegenation and Not the original people...

I belong to none of these groups... however... I am waiting on your Shabazz explanation...and the justification for the extreme, hurtful, insensitive and sometimes outright irrational biases against Bantu phenotype.. (particularly wooly hair) I find it another level of caste and you know it... (I'm trying not to got there on this board.. but doggonit.. ugh)

*yes, I put that out there* since you're starting this thread.. I'm waiting..


*I can't BELIEVE you started this thread by the way* and yes.. I am still going to do that thing but no matter why you started this thread.. you KNOW this is bait.. damnit.. I tried to stay away from it.. but HAD to comment... grrrrr....
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
...I do believe that phenotypically, the people of this entire region would have appeared very similiar to one another..Of course their would be some variations, but nothing material...

...Sister, ethnoarcheological studies have confirmed that more than one ethnic group settled in the urban areas of the early Harrapan civilization. Several physical types were present.

The Proto-Austroloid, the Twa, and other varieties of “Negroid” people, which includes blacks with thinner lips, and straight hair. They were all part of one Kingdom and are collectively referred to as Dravidian. This same multi-ethnic composition can be found in all of the great cities of the ancient world....


Which is it?

quote:
Asiatics ventured away from the North, into the hostile environments of the South below the Sahara. The purpose of this departure was experimental. There were those who believed that by subjecting themselves to a harsher environment they would become more physically powerful, and also become spiritually more awakened and refined. According to Elijah Muhammad, the people were called “Shabazz”. He taught that the members of this tribe were successful in mastering what he called a “Jungle life”. They became stronger, faster, and more durable. In the process they experienced a morphology which resulted in the Nubian phenotype. In the process however, they lost some of their cultural refinement, moved away from their original sciences and language.


I remember learning this when I dealt with the NOI for a very brief period of time... It made me squirm then, but causes violent disgust and a lingering sadness now... sck




You asked: "Which is It?"

I am not suggesting that all of the asiatic people of North Africa and the Indus valley had the same physiological appearance. I am saying that the great majority of them possessed certain physical traits in common which would have made them appear very similiar. There were however, some living in these societies who were offspring of, or descendants of our people from the Subsaharan areas of Africa. Once again, there were no border restrictions as we see today imposed upon travellers in the ancient world. The arrival of foreign populations was common at our urban centers, and even along the coastal areas of the ancient world.

You pointed to those with Austroloid/Africoid features living in Dravidian territories, and I am agreeing that this physical type was present as the record provides, however, the greater percentage of those living in this region during the neolithic period to the arrival of the Aryan hordes had features which were relatively consistent with the Straight hair, dark skin, Aqualine nose section of the population.

quote:
I remember learning this when I dealt with the NOI for a very brief period of time... It made me squirm then, but causes violent disgust and a lingering sadness now...



I don't get it..Why?

Elijah Muhammad taught that we mastered the southern environment to become more powerful...mission accomplished..wherein lies the problem?

Sister Oshun, I dont think we disagree that the Sub-Saharan people were re-trained in the mysteries by their Northern brethren from Kush, Punt, and Kemet. We have talked about this before. You have even agreed that the Ifa spiritual system was transmitted to the Yoruba via KMT.

We are a diverse and beautiful people...



Whirling Moat
Peace....



quote:
I belong to none of these groups... however... I am waiting on your Shabazz explanation...and the justification for the extreme, hurtful, insensitive and sometimes outright irrational biases against Bantu phenotype.. (particularly wooly hair) I find it another level of caste and you know it... (I'm trying not to got there on this board.. but doggonit.. ugh)



Once again, according to the doctrine, our hair became stronger...We became more powerful...

According to Mr. Muhammad it was our conditioning in Sub Saharan Africa which prepared us for ascension. It was this preparation which allowed us to endure the Transatlantic slave trade, and it was the mastery over the South which allowed us to rise from the South in America..And still we rise...

Mr. Muhammad called us "The cream of the planet". Because while we start below we always rise to the top.

Our women of the south no longer possessed long flowing hair..however, our women created some of the most feminine and beautiful styles this world has known with their wooly hair. It was never an insecurity for them..They were loved, admired, and lusted after by their own men, and men around the world..Hell, and the sisters added a few things that the black man would never trade..(ahem)..

There is no woam more beautiful or even as beautiful as the black woman fashioned by this process.

As to a new caste...I don't see that..

If you are speaking specifically to those who are registered..I would say that this is not the venue..


What do you want to know about Shabazz?



Whirling Moat
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
Peace....



quote:
I belong to none of these groups... however... I am waiting on your Shabazz explanation...and the justification for the extreme, hurtful, insensitive and sometimes outright irrational biases against Bantu phenotype.. (particularly wooly hair) I find it another level of caste and you know it... (I'm trying not to got there on this board.. but doggonit.. ugh)



Once again, according to the doctrine, our hair became stronger...We became more powerful...

According to Mr. Muhammad it was our conditioning in Sub Saharan Africa which prepared us for ascension. It was this preparation which allowed us to endure the Transatlantic slave trade, and it was the mastery over the South which allowed us to rise from the South in America..And still we rise...

Mr. Muhammad called us "The cream of the planet". Because while we start below we always rise to the top.

Our women of the south no longer possessed long flowing hair..however, our women created some of the most feminine and beautiful styles this world has known with their wooly hair. It was never an insecurity for them..They were loved, admired, and lusted after by their own men, and men around the world..Hell, and the sisters added a few things that the black man would never trade..(ahem)..

There is no woam more beautiful or even as beautiful as the black woman fashioned by this process.

As to a new caste...I don't see that..

If you are speaking specifically to those who are registered..I would say that this is not the venue..


What do you want to know about Shabazz?



Whirling Moat


Why are you selling me spin..?? I know better Moat..

since this is not the proper venue...

we'll talk later...

take care...
The Yoruba are a combo of the pre-existing NOK and thoughs who travelled from the Nile Valley region...

I doubt the pre-existing NOK culture had to be 'schooled' per say, the combo and resulting Yoruba civilization was more than likey a complimentary situation where spiritual science was concernened... since both parts were already living with nature...

I remember this portion of Message to the Black Man... wasn't it referred to as 'wilderness'?(I could very well be wrong, it was so long ago)

I just cringe at anything that has the remote smell of the mental continuation of the current colour/phenotype/cultural caste system that so dominates our reality today. Even if that isn't the motivation. I cringe at even the appearance of it...
I don't understand why people cannot accept the fact that human beings are no different than any other species on this planet when it comes to adapting to and surviving in a particular environment. Everything about what the varying colors, sizes, features, of people on this planet can be attributed to surviving (and thriving) in a particular environment over a vast period of time.

Environment, climate, and nature has more to do with people being different colors, shapes and sizes than any grand design, which makes racism speak volumes about the level of ignorance of those who promote it, and, therefore, is proof that "racial supremacy" is a figment of the imagination of narcissism with a great following comprised of those incumbencing a level of ignorance equal to superstition.

White people look the way they do for the same reason that the polar bear is white, which is adaptation to a particualar environment; Black people look the way they do, likewise, due to adaptation to their environment; the same with Asians, Native Americans, South Americans, Greeks, Germans, etc., etc.,

Of course there has been an enourmous amount of mixing of the races to create groups that have similarities of different races on this planet, but in reality, I'm sure that Adam and Eve (so to speak) did not look very much like or at all like any human beings living today.
Peace...


quote:
I don't understand why people cannot accept the fact that human beings are no different than any other species on this planet when it comes to adapting to and surviving in a particular environment. Everything about what the varying colors, sizes, features, of people on this planet can be attributed to surviving (and thriving) in a particular environment over a vast period of time.


We are not in disagreement. The question becomes what were the natural forces and environmewnt which made light skin advantageous...Where did this happen, and when?


quote:
White people look the way they do for the same reason that the polar bear is white, which is adaptation to a particualar environment; Black people look the way they do, likewise, due to adaptation to their environment; the same with Asians, Native Americans, South Americans, Greeks, Germans, etc., etc.,



Once again, I do not think that we are too far away in position. I think you should do a little research on variables outside of environment which contribute to human appearance..such as sexual selection and social pressure. Some groups have a common appearance because a certain phenotype was considered superior than others..I can provide numerous examples..


But check it out beloved..

A polar bear is not designed to adapt as human beings are..We have the ability to suit ourselves to an environment or simply leave an environment. Polar Bears do not have such capabilites.


Jason believes the same thing..


Whirling Moat
quote:
...should do a little research on variables outside of environment which contribute to human appearance..such as sexual selection and social pressure.


J. A. Rogers, "Sex and Race" -all three vols. is a good start.
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
Peace....



quote:
I belong to none of these groups... however... I am waiting on your Shabazz explanation...and the justification for the extreme, hurtful, insensitive and sometimes outright irrational biases against Bantu phenotype.. (particularly wooly hair) I find it another level of caste and you know it... (I'm trying not to got there on this board.. but doggonit.. ugh)



Once again, according to the doctrine, our hair became stronger...We became more powerful...

According to Mr. Muhammad it was our conditioning in Sub Saharan Africa which prepared us for ascension. It was this preparation which allowed us to endure the Transatlantic slave trade, and it was the mastery over the South which allowed us to rise from the South in America..And still we rise...

Mr. Muhammad called us "The cream of the planet". Because while we start below we always rise to the top.

Our women of the south no longer possessed long flowing hair..however, our women created some of the most feminine and beautiful styles this world has known with their wooly hair. It was never an insecurity for them..They were loved, admired, and lusted after by their own men, and men around the world..Hell, and the sisters added a few things that the black man would never trade..(ahem)..

There is no woam more beautiful or even as beautiful as the black woman fashioned by this process.

As to a new caste...I don't see that..

If you are speaking specifically to those who are registered..I would say that this is not the venue..


What do you want to know about Shabazz?



Whirling Moat


Why are you selling me spin..?? I know better Moat...

appl tfro
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
A polar bear is not designed to adapt as human beings are..We have the ability to suit ourselves to an environment or simply leave an environment. Polar Bears do not have such capabilites.


It would seem to me that this claim needs to qualified.

It is more true now than it might have been 50,000 years ago because of technological advances (and perhaps even climactic changes)
that take the pressure off of biological adaptation.

But perhaps the polar bear is a much more specialized creature.
Peace....



quote:
appl fro



I think she was referring to something other than what you may be thinking...As a matter of fact i am sure she was referring to something else.. Smile



As it relates to this subject, I am not "spinning" the information. I am simply putting forward what the science dictates. The reality is that while many hold that "Whiteness" is the result of evolutionary pressure, the evidence says something different. If you include sexual selection as being an evolutionary force then you would come closer to what the evidence provides for.

The theory of simple evolution of white people is troublesome because there is no physical evidence to substantiate the claim. Where did this mutation occur? When did it occur? What areas were so affected by glaciation that the geographic impediment would have been so severe? How long does it take for a skin mutation to result in the appearance of an entirely new phenotype?

There is no solid theory that I know of which addresses these questions in a sound manner.

Does the above failure or lack of evidence mean that the Yakub Theory becomes stronger? No...

However, in light of the weak thesis offered by academia thus far, it is not justified to dismiss other plausible theories without review.

quote:
It would seem to me that this claim needs to qualified.

It is more true now than it might have been 50,000 years ago because of technological advances (and perhaps even climactic changes)
that take the pressure off of biological adaptation.

But perhaps the polar bear is a much more specialized creature.



The appearqance of white skin is recent according to what archeologist have (When I get a chance I will provide a citation). The earliest known "White" not "caucasian" but white ethnic group discovered is supposedly around 6,000 to 8,000 years old. "Caucasian" includes some black folk so we cannot go with the oldest caucasian remains.

African migrants were sophisticated enough by this time to know how to leave an environment which was suffering the onset of an Ice Age. Normally such hunter gatherer people will migrate with the natural resources. Glaciation, and climate change is not something which would have happened overnight..Not even over thousands of nigts..Maybe tens of thousands of nights..

Like other mammals, the african would have understood that it was dangerous remaining in an environment which was dying. And again, they would have easily found there way out..If they chose to leave..If they stayed due to other non-environmental factors, then that ties into another theory.



Whirling Moat
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
Peace....



quote:
appl fro



I think she was referring to something other than what you may be thinking...As a matter of fact i am sure she was referring to something else.. Smile
Whirling Moat

Okay Moat, what was I thinking?
Peace....



quote:
Okay Moat, what was I thinking?


Well brother, I cannot tell you exactly what you were thinking, but I do know what you weren't thinking i.e, you were not thinking of the time when you used to be a female race horse on Jupiter's largest Moon Ganymede...

This sister has very specific issues as it relates to being an MGT in the Nation Of Islam. I know what these issues are since she and I have gone over these things in the past...

From what I understand you have never been an MGT (A female muslim in the Nation) , or a registered Muslim in the NOI.



Whirling Moat
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
Peace....



quote:
Okay Moat, what was I thinking?


Well brother, I cannot tell you exactly what you were thinking, but I do know what you weren't thinking i.e, you were not thinking of the time when you used to be a female race horse on Jupiter's largest Moon Ganymede...

This sister has very specific issues as it relates to being an MGT in the Nation Of Islam. I know what these issues are since she and I have gone over these things in the past...

From what I understand you have never been an MGT (A female muslim in the Nation) , or a registered Muslim in the NOI.



Whirling Moat

This is correct.
My concern goes back to the issue of what seems to be a phenotype bias within the teachings of the NOI as well as with respect to the upper leadership.

Secondarily to this is the attempt to ascribe scientific validity/facticity with the Nation's teaching on human genesis and evolution. For example, does the NOI still teach that the origin of monkeys and gorillas is the effort of Caucasians to "graft" themselves back to black by reverse breeding. [Elijah Muhammad, Message to the Blackman in America,Chicago: The Final Call, Inc., 1965, pp. 117 and 119.] If so, this hardly coheres with science. The same holds for the notion of two-germs theory of "genetics."
quote:
Originally posted by kresge:
...For example, does the NOI still teach that the origin of monkeys and gorillas is the effort of Caucasians to "graft" themselves back to black by reverse breeding. [Elijah Muhammad, Message to the Blackman in America,Chicago: The Final Call, Inc., 1965, pp. 117 and 119.]


Eek
If they had lost their knowledge of civilization at that time, then how did they know how to do that? Meanwhile, I wish the NOI would make a movie based on the Yacub story. If nothing else, I'm sure it would be interesting.
Peace....



quote:
well as with respect to the upper leadership.


Really? I have never heard of such a bias...Please elaborate..and cite your sources for such a claim.

quote:
Secondarily to this is the attempt to ascribe scientific validity/facticity with the Nation's teaching on human genesis and evolution.


As it relates to the appearance of the white phenotype, yes..The academic view has evolved and today is consistent with NOI doctrine. Both agree that there was Geographic isolation and sexual selective forces at play. The Nation Of Islam provides a historical narrative, while the scientific community does not, however, the material aspects to both explanations are very similiar.

quote:
For example, does the NOI still teach that the origin of monkeys and gorillas is the effort of Caucasians to "graft" themselves back to black by reverse breeding. [Elijah Muhammad, Message to the Blackman in America,Chicago: The Final Call, Inc., 1965, pp. 117 and 119.] If so, this hardly coheres with science. The same holds for the notion of two-germs theory of "genetics."


I don't think that the NOI has claimed that all of our doctrine is consistent with every branch and disposition of the "scientific" community. The position of academia is ever changing..Sometimes the changes are slight, other times academic views change violently.

The NOI position is not in accordance to the view of physical anthropology when it comes to the genesis of "apes" and "monkeys"for good reason. The field of biological anthropology is extremely weak when it comes to the question of the emergence of primates or homo sapien sapiens . Paleoanthropology, and like fields of study are highly subjective, and extremely biased in the way they gather and classify findings. They assume that they have found what they are lookig for..This is not objective science since they are not considering any other possibility besides darwinism.

The Fossil record which undergirds the modern view of human evolution is extremely lacking at best.

In certain instances such as with the "closest ancestor" to human beings, the chimpanzee, there is almost no fossil record at all.. "There are thousands of fossils of hominins, but no fossil chimpanzee has yet been reported. The chimpanzee (Pan) is the closest living relative to humans"(Nature 437, 105-108 (1 September 2005) | doi:10.1038/nature04008; Received 31 January 2005; Accepted 4 July 2005).

The field of anthropology has many things to reconcile when it comes to Evolutionary theory and the emergence of human beings and primates. I think you will see a vast change in position as more research is completed.

Perhaps you should reconsider using this field of research as your soapbox.

As to the two gene question? The Honorable Elijah Muhammad taught that Yakub found the recessive gene which causes whiteness? Uh geneticists call it slc24a5 Gene

Looks like Yakub was right after all...

Are you referrring to something else??



Whirling Moat
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
Peace...



quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
munch


Sister Oshun, eating that stuff will kill you...Try this..





Smile



Whirling Moat


lol I'm no popcorn eater, just enjoying the read... but thanks for looking out for a sister's health!
Peace....



quote:

Eek
If they had lost their knowledge of civilization at that time, then how did they know how to do that? Meanwhile, I wish the NOI would make a movie based on the Yacub story. If nothing else, I'm sure it would be interesting.







According to the NOI the whiteman was exiled in Europe for 2,000 years. they went savage after making several attempts to escape their consdition including experimentation with beastiality. The Honorable Elijah Muhammad says that we walked them across the burning sands, in a straight line. We tied them together with rope, and when one stepped out of line we used a paddle to spank them back into their right position on line...We took everything from them but the science..They eventually lost that...



Whirling Moat
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
Peace...



quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
munch


Sister Oshun, eating that stuff will kill you...Try this..





Smile



Whirling Moat


lol I'm no popcorn eater, just enjoying the read... but thanks for looking out for a sister's health!



hat



Whirling Moat
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
Peace....



quote:
well as with respect to the upper leadership.


Really? I have never heard of such a bias...Please elaborate..and cite your sources for such a claim.

quote:
Secondarily to this is the attempt to ascribe scientific validity/facticity with the Nation's teaching on human genesis and evolution.


As it relates to the appearance of the white phenotype, yes..The academic view has evolved and today is consistent with NOI doctrine. Both agree that there was Geographic isolation and sexual selective forces at play. The Nation Of Islam provides a historical narrative, while the scientific community does not, however, the material aspects to both explanations are very similiar.

quote:
For example, does the NOI still teach that the origin of monkeys and gorillas is the effort of Caucasians to "graft" themselves back to black by reverse breeding. [Elijah Muhammad, Message to the Blackman in America,Chicago: The Final Call, Inc., 1965, pp. 117 and 119.] If so, this hardly coheres with science. The same holds for the notion of two-germs theory of "genetics."


I don't think that the NOI has claimed that all of our doctrine is consistent with every branch and disposition of the "scientific" community. The position of academia is ever changing..Sometimes the changes are slight, other times academic views change violently.

The NOI position is not in accordance to the view of physical anthropology when it comes to the genesis of "apes" and "monkeys"for good reason. The field of biological anthropology is extremely weak when it comes to the question of the emergence of primates or homo sapien sapiens . Paleoanthropology, and like fields of study are highly subjective, and extremely biased in the way they gather and classify findings. They assume that they have found what they are lookig for..This is not objective science since they are not considering any other possibility besides darwinism.

The Fossil record which undergirds the modern view of human evolution is extremely lacking at best.

In certain instances such as with the "closest ancestor" to human beings, the chimpanzee, there is almost no fossil record at all.. "There are thousands of fossils of hominins, but no fossil chimpanzee has yet been reported. The chimpanzee (Pan) is the closest living relative to humans"(Nature 437, 105-108 (1 September 2005) | doi:10.1038/nature04008; Received 31 January 2005; Accepted 4 July 2005).

The field of anthropology has many things to reconcile when it comes to Evolutionary theory and the emergence of human beings and primates. I think you will see a vast change in position as more research is completed.

Perhaps you should reconsider using this field of research as your soapbox.

As to the two gene question? The Honorable Elijah Muhammad taught that Yakub found the recessive gene which causes whiteness? Uh geneticists call it slc24a5 Gene

Looks like Yakub was right after all...

Are you referrring to something else??



Whirling Moat



WM... Is there a scientific basis for the "Monkeys originating from desperate and scientifically ignorant Caucasian's trying to graft themselves back into black men theory?"
Peace....


quote:
WM... Is there a scientific basis for the "Monkeys originating from desperate and scientifically ignorant Caucasian's trying to graft themselves back into black men theory?"

Peace,
Khalliqa


Gotcha...


Now to invite your muslim family from other boards over to watch as you fight me on this...

Muah..

L. K. Muhammad
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
Peace....


quote:
WM... Is there a scientific basis for the "Monkeys originating from desperate and scientifically ignorant Caucasian's trying to graft themselves back into black men theory?"

Peace,
Khalliqa


Gotcha...


Now to invite your muslim family from other boards over to watch as you fight me on this...

Muah..

L. K. Muhammad


Is that your way of saying you aint gone answer the question?

While you're at it.. please explain the Bantu phenotype bias present among the "family..."

Okay beloved??? (*rolls eyes*)
Khalliqa, here's what I don't get. If you're NOI, and Elijah Muhammad is a prophet according to NOI... then why does anyone in the NOI ever question any of these teachings? I'm not singling you out. Even the mainstream NOI seems to distance themselves from this stuff. Spiritual organizations often confuse me with this. If you belong to a spiritual system that holds a guy as a prophet, and the prophet definitely and actually said certain things, then wouldn't you just automatically believe it? Where is the wiggle room you're operating in, if u don't mind my asking?
So, the 'Yakub Theory', is to, explain why/how the European was able to successfully and completely, deliver the catastrophic annihilation of the African power, psyche and might?
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
Khalliqa, here's what I don't get. If you're NOI, and Elijah Muhammad is a prophet according to NOI... then why does anyone in the NOI ever question any of these teachings?


The teachings are questioned in the Mosque.. directed to those who can answer the question.. Questions regarding NOI doctrine would not be asked of those who do not know or understand the teachings..
quote:
Our women of the south no longer possessed long flowing hair..however, our women created some of the most feminine and beautiful styles this world has known with their wooly hair.

______________________________________________

This sounds like it was written by a man/person that believes that only "long flowing hair" can be feminin with a second hand compliment to Black women (or other races of women that do not possess "long flowing hair" naturally).

I might remind this writer that white men and Asian men and Native American and middle Eastern men have "long flowing hair" all day long.----Oh, and a lot of tranvesdites have "long flowing hair."

The western media has brainwashed everyone else on the planet to belief that the white man's version of beauty and femininity is the only beauty or femininity, and evidently, it does not even escape the writer of that passage, where, while trying to give a compliment to Black hair/Black women's hair, still has a Freudian slip in his writing.

Nature and environment is the ONLY reason for different hair textures; hair is not even alive once it grows out of the folicle, and humans possess hair only as remnents of an environmental history from when it was necessary---for body warmth in the cold, or as a shield from the burning sun, etc.
Originally Posted by Vox:
Khalliqa, here's what I don't get. If you're NOI, and Elijah Muhammad is a prophet according to NOI... then why does anyone in the NOI ever question any of these teachings? I'm not singling you out. Even the mainstream NOI seems to distance themselves from this stuff. Spiritual organizations often confuse me with this. If you belong to a spiritual system that holds a guy as a prophet, and the prophet definitely and actually said certain things, then wouldn't you just automatically believe it? Where is the wiggle room you're operating in, if u don't mind my asking?

Vox,

 

Are you still here?  It is quite interesting reading my past thoughts.  

 

There are varying degrees of belief and acceptance within any organization.  The irrational and insulting claims contained within NOI doctrine have always bothered me.  

 

 

Makes far more sense than the load of crap about Caucasians becoming white simply by migrating to northern latitudes. If that's the case then why don't blacks become white when they move to northern latitudes or towards the poles? Our ancestors were brought here over 400 years ago. There should be very few blacks in this country now, especially in Canada! Why didn't those whites who moved to warmer, hotter places centuries ago become black? There should be very few whites in places like Arizona and Saudi Arabia!

 

I learned in my Biology of Race class that only blacks contain the DNA code for all races. In other words, only blacks can produce all races. Whites cannot produce black people. It isn't in their genetic code. The history we know is the history that was taught to us by our oppressors. Our oppressors don't know everything! And you can't expect them to tell you the truth, especially concerning us. That has been proven many times over. It makes far more sense that whites were created thousands of years ago by genetic manipulation than by just simply walking from the jungles of Africa to the mountains of Europe.

 

We need to stop believing that the way things are now was the way things have always have been. Also, we need to stop taking everything our oppressors say about the history of this world as gospel when they were not even the first people on this planet. How in the world are they supposed to know the history of a people who predated them?

Last I checked, the white man was created from Elmer’s glue, magnets and chicken skin 5,000 years ago.  

Originally Posted by EarthAndSky:

Makes far more sense than the load of crap about Caucasians becoming white simply by migrating to northern latitudes. If that's the case then why don't blacks become white when they move to northern latitudes or towards the poles? Our ancestors were brought here over 400 years ago. There should be very few blacks in this country now, especially in Canada! Why didn't those whites who moved to warmer, hotter places centuries ago become black? There should be very few whites in places like Arizona and Saudi Arabia!

 

Hello Earth and Sky,

 

Evolutionary changes that are persistent and lasting have occurred over thousands/millions of years- not hundreds..  Climate influences skin color and there are gradients of skin color existing throughout Africa affected by the proximity to the equator.  Even on a personal note, my skin gets lighter during winter months.  

 

In addition, through miscegenation (more through this than anything though), genetic drift and climate, African Americans are developing lighter skin and narrower features more akin to East-Africans than West Africans.

 

While, I don't think the science regarding race variation is conclusive- I think it is better explanation than a myth.  Now, underlying the myth is the thought that someone purposefully breeded dark Africans in a way to produce white people, while possible, I do not find it plausible, because I do not know of any evidence that points to an author of genetic breeding over the course of thousands of years in Africa.  A possibility is not the same as truth. 

Last edited by Eudaimonia

 

 

Evolutionary changes that are persistent and lasting have occurred over thousands/millions of years- not hundreds..  Climate influences skin color and there are gradients of skin color existing throughout Africa affected by the proximity to the equator.  Even on a personal note, my skin gets lighter during winter months. 

 

The negation in your first sentence is unnecessary, NOI theology on the creation of the white man isn't offered as an alternative to any evolutionary process.  It speaks to a specific process that could be classified as a subset of a larger set. The theology itself speaks to genetic variations well before Yacub history begins.   Any discussion that sets up a Yacub vs. Natural evolutionary process is invalid IMHO for this reason. 

 

This subject is much more layered than many of us are prepared (or even interested in) acknowledging and as will most oversimplifications, important information is lost in the mix. 

 

 

 

While, I don't think the science regarding race variation is conclusive- I think it is better explanation than a myth.  Now, underlying the myth is the thought that someone purposefully breeded dark Africans in a way to produce white people, while possible, I do not find it plausible, because I do not know of any evidence that points to an author of genetic breeding over the course of thousands of years in Africa.  A possibility is not the same as truth.

Starting with the last sentence, I agree. However people in various disciplines approach scientific data intent on reading into the data things that are far beyond the scope of the particular model used to produce the data.  This creates its own set of issues in addition to "scientific literacy".

 

Possible and plausible.  A philosophical discussion for the ages    

The biographical history of modern scientific development is full of the implausible giving birth to new directions and insights.  To that end there are often bits a data (direct or inferred) that exist without any context for what it means, its potential impact or value...until later events take place.

 

 

least anyone think Im attempting to "protect" my religious indoctrination....that last paragraph is a description of the development of the computer and modern telecommunications.  

 

 

 

 

Last edited by Muhammad Cipher

There was a time, back a good half century +  ago, when the idea that the white man = the devil peaked with the force of revelation. Now we know that the yellow man may be the same or worse. Okay, lotta human devils out there.  My problem with the idea that the white man was made from magnets, peanut shells  or whatever is that it does not make us look intelligent. Some are under that belief but we need to sober up on that one. Sorry. It is a frankly  absurd and, most of all, implausible idea. Do not tell that one to a traditional Muslim in the ME. They will think you’re wacked. Trust that. Okay,  NOI has unified folks in an amazing way. Yes! But! 

I used to buy the Mohammed Speaks newspapers and read them.  Then I encountered that story.

 

I quit buying the paper and mostly ignored the Black Muslims after that.

 

Xum

Originally Posted by Muhammad Cipher:

 

 

 

The negation in your first sentence is unnecessary, NOI theology on the creation of the white man isn't offered as an alternative to any evolutionary process.  

 

 

 

 I agree. However people in various disciplines approach scientific data intent on reading into the data things that are far beyond the scope of the particular model used to produce the data.  This creates its own set of issues in addition to "scientific literacy".

 

 

 

 

 

 

The difference is that evolutionary investigation and experimentation regarding genetic variation does not require an intelligent designer named Yacub.

 

I think that there are people, including within this thread, who are attempting to utilize scientific data to buttress unfounded myths in order to legitimize said myths.

Originally Posted by Eudaimonia:
Originally Posted by Muhammad Cipher:

 

 

 

The negation in your first sentence is unnecessary, NOI theology on the creation of the white man isn't offered as an alternative to any evolutionary process.  

 

 

 

 I agree. However people in various disciplines approach scientific data intent on reading into the data things that are far beyond the scope of the particular model used to produce the data.  This creates its own set of issues in addition to "scientific literacy".

 

 

 

 

 

 

The difference is that evolutionary investigation and experimentation regarding genetic variation does not require an intelligent designer named Yacub.

 

I think that there are people, including within this thread, who are attempting to utilize scientific data to buttress unfounded myths in order to legitimize said myths.

The fact that an investigation itself doesn't require a "intelligent designer" (your phrase and characterization) doesn't preclude the existence of one.  On the question of founded vs. unfounded...you have to examine the types of evidence you can have on such a myth/narrative and not a model that can't tell you one way or another even under the best of conditions.

 

WM addressed this in earlier in this thread.  And this is point of contention across scientific fields.

 

 

Originally Posted by Muhammad Cipher:
 

The fact that an investigation itself doesn't require a "intelligent designer" (your phrase and characterization) doesn't preclude the existence of one.  On the question of founded vs. unfounded...you have to examine the types of evidence you can have on such a myth/narrative and not a model that can't tell you one way or another even under the best of conditions.

 

WM addressed this in earlier in this thread.  And this is point of contention across scientific fields.

 

 

We are not discussing whether or not an intelligent designer exists; but, the burden would be on the one making that claim if we were.

 

You are reading an explanation on the key difference between an unbiased and a biased approach to science and why the Yacub myth is not equal to scientific inquiry.  

 

Any myth taken as "true" simply because it was stated is unfounded.

 

Originally Posted by Eudaimonia:
Originally Posted by Muhammad Cipher:
 

The fact that an investigation itself doesn't require a "intelligent designer" (your phrase and characterization) doesn't preclude the existence of one.  On the question of founded vs. unfounded...you have to examine the types of evidence you can have on such a myth/narrative and not a model that can't tell you one way or another even under the best of conditions.

 

WM addressed this in earlier in this thread.  And this is point of contention across scientific fields.

 

 

We are not discussing whether or not an intelligent designer exists; but, the burden would be on the one making that claim if we were.

 

You are reading an explanation on the key difference between an unbiased and a biased approach to science and why the Yacub myth is not equal to scientific inquiry.  Also, try not to confuse inductive reasoning with belief.  One is open to change the other is resistant and seeks only to feed its bias.

 

Any myth taken as "true" simply because it was stated is unfounded.

 

 

We are not discussing whether or not an intelligent designer exists; but, the burden would be on the one making that claim if we were.

 

You are reading an explanation on the key difference between an unbiased and a biased approach to science and why the Yacub myth is not equal to scientific inquiry.  Also, try not to confuse inductive reasoning with belief.  One is open to change the other is resistant and seeks only to feed its bias.

 

Any myth taken as "true" simply because it was stated is unfounded.

 

Ah I was wondering when the "burden of proof" would show up. For the record..intelligent design was your language...not mine (as I noted) and I dont see it as appropriate in this particular discussion as there are already several issues being conflated.  Of course, there's also the issue on what constitutes proof with respect to a particular field.  They are not the same nor universal across disciplines...which again leads to the construction of models and what data they can yield (ie what they tell you explicitly dont)  

 

I don't plan on going back and forth on this...but the truth is that this has been addressed early in this thread.  I am very familiar with inductive reasoning and proof by induction techniques.  Of course even in areas that make heavy use of such does not make them immune bias or defensiveness on the basis of belief (conviction). 

 

 

Last edited by Muhammad Cipher

Not too long ago, no one would have believed that cloning an animal or a human being was possible. Yet, there are cloned animals roaming around. The only reason humans haven't been cloned as a practice is due to policy, not because it can't be done (it already has). The point is that what may seem far-fetched could very well have occurred.

 

Here is an article in the Washington Post about the discovery of a gene mutation responsible for white skin.

 

Scientists Find A DNA Change That Accounts For White Skin

 

However, this study doesn't explain the light hair and light eyes that are also common to whites. Again, if by simply moving to northern latitudes can make one Caucasian (pale skin, blonde hair, and blue eyes) then why haven't we seen any blacks in northern latitudes evolving in this direction without race mixing? Also, wouldn't the converse also be true (whites moving to hotter, sunnier climes should become black)?  

 

It is one thing to become slightly lighter due to lack of sun. It is another thing to become a different race due to lack of sun. This is the reason I have trouble believing this theory. It doesn't explain the other changes nor does it explain why blacks in northern latitudes are not on their way to or already becoming Caucasian (in the absence of miscegenation). The theory is flawed. From my perspective, a geneticist performing selective breeding on a group of people (to extract the recessive genes from their DNA code) to create an entirely new people is far more plausible. If it can be done with plants, why not human beings? 

 

Here is another interesting article I found while surfing the internet. 

 

The Lost Tribe of Sabas (Shabazz): Reconciling the History, Identity, and Origin of the Ancient Moorish Tribe

 

There are references at the end of the article. Enjoy! 

 

Note: I am vitamin D and calcium deficient. The last time I looked in the mirror, I was still black. 

MC- The NOI argument is similar to the creationist one.  NOI mythology has replaced the Christian god,  as the creator or intelligent designer of races, with "Yakub."  According to the NOI, evolution of race had to occur as the result of the plan of a mad scientist with the intent to design a new race of people. Intelligent design was not inserted as a way to advance an argument on whether a designer exists.  It was mentioned because of the similarity to the creationist argument and to question its relevancy.   Hopefully you are able to make the distinction.

 

Reproductive selection over time creates genetic variants. This stands alone and does not need require a myth surrounding it to be true. Conversely, scientific truths within myths does not make the myth true. The latter is what has been attempted in this thread.

 

Earth and Sky- If I'm correct, I think your question can be summed up as: Why don't you see massive racial mutations during our lifetime or several generations? - Changes in whole populations take longer than the time you're allotting for; also they are often a complex mixed soup of miscegenation, natural selection and genetic drift. Scientists are not unanimous in their agreement on the specific causes of what we now see as "race" and are unable to predict conclusively what may occur in the future.  It may be hard to accept that the theory is not a conclusive "answer".  My statement earlier is that the approach of science to find answers has proven to be better than depending on myths.

 

 Unfortunately, the examples I've used seem to have caused confusion.  The examples were given with the intent to support the idea that human characteristics are susceptible to environmental change - even one you can see within a short time span- though that does not mean one individual slight change will occur in a whole population and be sustained within the same time frame; also that even though miscegenation is the primary cause of change we see here in america, changes in population do occur without the help of a "mad scientist."  But those are side notes and not the direct answer to your question.  Please see above.

 

 

Last edited by Eudaimonia

MC- The NOI argument is similar to the creationist one.  NOI mythology has replaced the Christian god,  as the creator or intelligent designer of races, with "Yakub."  According to the NOI, evolution of race had to occur as the result of the plan of a mad scientist with the intent to design a new race of people. Intelligent design was not inserted as a way to advance an argument on whether a designer exists.  It was mentioned because of the similarity to the creationist argument and to question its relevancy.   Hopefully you are able to make the distinction.

 

Of course I able to make a distinction both in where similarities are present and where they are not.  But this conversation (restarted on an old thread) is taking place in a context where many have no idea what NOI theology is while trying to dismiss it on the basis of what it isnt. Surely the integrity of truthfully representing a person/institutions position is worth something in a discussion such this.... or is it?

 

Apparently you cannot or are not willing approach this issue without the dismissive framing...given you understand fully that Yacub was not and is not presented as "Mad scientist".  Perhaps I am mistaken and you're not as well versed in this particular area of NOI doctrine....In either either case your bias is blocking you from even acknowledging that the subject of genetic variation is not reducible to Yacub from within the context of NOI Theology/Doctrine. 

 

Better to say you don't accept the narrative and leave it at that.

 

It may be hard to accept that the theory is not a conclusive "answer".  My statement earlier is that the approach of science to find answers has proven to be better than depending on myths.

 

Theoretical frameworks.....

 

Any examination of "truth" requires an analytical apparatus and some from of model that extends from it.  Wanting to discuss or dismiss claims without considerations of what is in or out of bounds for your model is disingenuous at best.   Again....WM addressed that.  I know the value of presenting this issues in  a "fact vs. myth" frame and making associations with other creation myths (directly or indirectly) that are dismissed from numerous perspectives for various reasons (many which i agree with). 

 

However you're not going to escape the issue concerning the choice framework for your examination. 

 

This isn't an issue confined to cultural/theological matters....neo classical economist struggle with this same issue BIG TIME and the parallels in this thread are scary!

 

 

 

Last edited by Muhammad Cipher
Originally Posted by Muhammad Cipher:

Surely the integrity of truthfully representing a person/institutions position is worth something in a discussion such this.... or is it?

 

Apparently you cannot or are not willing approach this issue without the dismissive framing...given you understand fully that Yacub was not and is not presented as "Mad scientist".  

 

I know the value of presenting this issues in  a "fact vs. myth" frame and making associations with other creation myths (directly or indirectly) that are dismissed from numerous perspectives for various reasons (many which i agree with). 

 

This isn't an issue confined to cultural/theological matters....neo classical economist struggle with this same issue BIG TIME and the parallels in this thread are scary!

 

 

 

 "Mad scientist", "Big head scientist", "Devil-maker" etc..  are all colloquially used terms to describe Yakub among members in the NOI.  The term "mad scientist" is not new or unusual within the NOI.  

 

If you feel there is an error in my presentation, you are welcome to point to it specifically and offer what you feel is the correct version.

 

Fact v. Myth is truly how I see an issue where one is advancing a position based off mythology v. advancing a position which begins with non-biased scientific inquiry and discovery.  At best having scientific truths within a mythology does not justify the myth.  Also, if there is truth to the myth- then why does its "truth" not stand alone as compelling evidence, except among those who are psychologically inclined to believe one man's word as sufficient?

 

If you see an error you are welcome to present what you think corrects it.

 

I am not well versed in whatever economic model you are referring to as it relates to facts and myths, so any response in that direction will likely require extensive explanation.

 

 

Last edited by Eudaimonia

Who dares to awaken me....

 

 

Rashida19 wrote: Mad scientist", "Big head scientist", "Devil-maker" etc..  are all colloquially used terms to describe Yakub among members in the NOI.  The term "mad scientist" is not new or unusual within the NOI. 

 

There are many common phrases which are used incorrectly. How does this support your use of this when you should know after so many years that this is not what is part of the formal presentation of the doctrine? Are you making mistakes on purpose?

Ms.Djehuty wrote: If you feel there is an error in my presentation, you are welcome to point to it specifically and offer what you feel is the correct version.

 

Lets sober up for a second and admit that there are many versions of history even from an academic position the same is true.  Why?  Well because history can be weaponized specifically as a propaganda tool. The proper telling of history is what justifies claims of right and so forth and such claims are often the underpinnings of war (see the establishment of the State of Israel as a prime example).  Whether Yakub is a fictional character created or an actual historical figure is something that those who are interested would review as a historical claim and proving that such history is accurate would fall on those who make the claim.  Now of course if the claim is rejected prior to the appropriate study then what can you do besides point out how unreasonable such a response is in the face of objectively seeking answers. 

 

Has the historical claim made by Elijah Muhammad ever been falsified, of course it has however one would have to be willing to do the reading in order to know whether the claim is strong or weak,and it seems that you are kinda lacking in this department...Aint that right???  Aint it??

 

Khalliqa wrote: Fact v. Myth is truly how I see an issue where one is advancing a position based off mythology v. advancing a position which begins with non-biased scientific inquiry and discovery.

Nonsense.  if you were to understand what our brother is saying we are both suggesting that there is no variance to the claims both suggest the emergence of white folks due to intentional sexual practices.  Where the two separate is along the lines of historical matters.  So there is no Mythology versus history.  You are just saying that because you are grieving the loss of the chain smoker Christopher Hitchens and you are trying to see if you can be just as angry.  

 

Now stop playing and put your head piece back on. 

 

 

Originally Posted by Whirling Moat:

 you should know after so many years that this is not what is part of the formal presentation of the doctrine? Are you making mistakes on purpose?

 

Lee...

 

Within the context of my earlier post, the term "Mad Scientist" was used to explain that defenders of both the intelligent design/creationist argument and the Yacub myth seek to utilize scientific means with an agenda to legitimize their beliefs regarding natural occurrences having an author.  In this case "race" is the topic.  In addition, my earlier posts were in response to questions and points brought up by Vox and Earth and Sky.

 

Instead, you and MC seem to want to focus on whether or not I am towing the NOI line and presenting the Yakub myth in a manner befitting your sensibilities.  The terms "Mad scientist", "big head scientist" and the like are used by average members and ministers alike and as far as I know there is no official edict that precludes use of these terms as if they are in contradiction with the official myths of the organization.

 

 Has the historical claim made by Elijah Muhammad ever been falsified, of course it has 

Okay....

Where the two separate is along the lines of historical matters. 

I disagree, please see above.  NOI mythology is not an accepted scientific fact for which I would need to precede with every subject as if it were.  This is not a historical matter.  It is myth v. science- until proven otherwise and the burden of proof would be upon those seeking legitimacy.

 

You are just saying that because you are grieving the loss of the chain smoker Christopher Hitchens and you are trying to see if you can be just as angry.

 

 Now stop playing and put your head piece back on. 

I'm sorry to disappoint you but I've never been a fan of Hitchens and a head piece does not a quality woman make; it has no part to play in my future..

 

 

 

Last edited by Eudaimonia

I don't know where the hell white people came from, but with Russia, the Ukraine and living in a country besieged by racism and hatred, I have a feeling we're going to be damn sorry we ever laid eyes upon "white" people.  By the time these "people" get through fighting with everyone, we're going to wish we were in mud huts, eating grub worms, drinking cows' blood, being left the hell alone in Africa.  By the looks of things, nobody's going to be in existence when these suckers get THOUGH!!!!!

 

 

Lee...

Oh, okay...  It like that huh?  We are breaking cover..Okay, so should I tell everyone that you are really part of the ILLUMINATI!!!  Yep folks she's a real life, flag waving Illuminati mistress in the flesh.  I bet that right now she's doing that circle thing with her fingers around her eye..

 

Within the context of my earlier post, the term "Mad Scientist" was used to explain that defenders of both the intelligent design/creationist argument and the Yacub myth seek to utilize scientific means with an agenda to legitimize their beliefs regarding natural occurrences having an author.  In this case "race" is the topic.  In addition, my earlier posts were in response to questions and points brought up by Vox and Earth and Sky.

You are a bit all over the place.  Creationism as an argument relies more on faith than science.  Certain creationist defend creationism citing inconsistencies in scientific theory however rarely will they assert that the biblical account of creation aligns with common place cosmology.  You seem to be having a hard time understanding what kind of claim the Yakub account is.  It is not a scientific claim at all.  It is a historical claim so it would not be argued by scientists it would be argued by historians who study ancient history.  Creationism is a religious claim. 

 

It is a very useful tactic to undermine religious claims by asking for empirical evidence however in so doing one makes a category mistake since religious claims do not suppose an explanation in science.  This is perhaps what makes certain religious claims untenable in an arena outside of religious conversation. The problem for religion today is that we are moving into a more secular world and proselytizing becomes especially tedious when religious rhetoric lacks rational and empirical support.  So we see religious folk seeking to buttress religious claims with scientific justifications, thats not what you see as it relates to historical claims made by the NOI.  We don't need to do this since our position does not seem to be disputed as much as you would probably like to believe. 

 

Instead, you and MC seem to want to focus on whether or not I am towing the NOI line and presenting the Yakub myth in a matter befitting your sensibilities.  The terms "Mad scientist", "big head scientist" and the like are used by average members and ministers alike and as far as I know there is no official edict that precludes use of these terms as if they are in contradiction with the official myths of the organization.

 

If you are going to criticize my "mythology" at least get it right. I think thats what you are being told. I think we are expressing our views here for the sake of clarifying misconceptions and to lazily dribble out colloquial terms which muddy up the discussion is just inexcusable on your part.  This thing is serious and when brown very nice ladies start throwing people off with diatribes well like i said it doesn't help? 

 

I disagree, please see above.  NOI mythology is not an accepted scientific fact for which I would need to precede with every subject as if it were.  This is not a historical matter.  It is myth v. science- until proven otherwise and the burden of proof would be upon those seeking legitimacy.

NOI claims like what?  That the black man is the original man...seems consistent, that white came from black people ..check..That eating pork is  just wrong...CHECK, That eating one meal a day is beneficial ..check.  These are all claims which would fit into science.  The deportation of the moon from the Earth...check, the speed of light..check, the weight of the earth...check.  

 

Yakub, the Motherplane, the 24 scientists, Whiteman being the devil. The island of Pelan, Even toes for appropriate mates, Shabazz, et al are all historical claims...Not scientific ones. 

 

I'm sorry to disappoint you but I've never been a fan of Hitchens and a head piece does not a quality woman make; it has no part to play in my future..

 

Really...I think you will do exactly what you must in order to survive..Just hope it doesn't come to that.  Hope...thats what you can do...

 

 

 

Last edited by Whirling Moat

Hmm, lively debate we have going on here but let's keep it nice. 

 

Carrying on...

 

In addition to new plants, human beings have also created new types of dogs and cats via selective breeding. The following is an excerpt from the PBS series, Dogs That Changed the World.

 

'...according to genetics, all dogs evolved from the savage and wild wolf — in a transformation that occurred just 15,000 years ago.'

 

'Most of these breeds exploded onto the scene over the past 150 years, spurred by the Victorian-era passion for the “dog fancy” — the selective breeding of dogs to enhance particular characteristics. By tinkering with its genetics, humans made the dog the most varied animal species on the planet — and also created a host of hereditary health problems.'

 

Again, if this can be done to plants and animals, why not human beings? The creation of different types of dog (cat) breeds is no different than what the NOI says that the scientist, Yakub, did but with human beings! According to NOI teachings, it took 600 years of selective breeding (and tinkering with genetics) to create the first Caucasian.

 

To expect white historians and scientists to look closely into what the NOI has proclaimed to sincerely check its validity is to be naive. We are living in the world of white supremacy. The entire system is built on the premise that whites are superior to everyone else. Acknowledging or even seriously considering the possibility that a group of people (whom they despise) is responsible for their very existence would destroy the entire system of white supremacy. It is much safer and more pleasant to hold onto the Swiss cheese theory that whites became white by simply migrating to northern latitudes. 

 

Here is a fact sheet on Vitamin D from the NIH. You can skip to the section on 'Groups at Risk of Vitamin D Inadequacy.' 

http://ods.od.nih.gov/factshee...-HealthProfessional/

 

Finally, I found this article via an internet search. I believe it answers some of the questions raised in this thread.

 

National Geographic Proves Teaching on Mr. Yakub

 IMHO, of course, there is only one true religion: unconditional love and mercy for everyone.  Scientology alien spaceship religions make sense when you’re under the group spell. Otherwise, not. Same goes for all cult theories, Hale-Bopp, Reptile gods in te White House, etc. It makes sense only to the entranced in-group.   We need to come back to sanity.  Love always makes sense even in times of confusion, no?  Earth is a mental institution and the mind is a kind of demon. Mind always destroys the message and the messengers with organized religion salesmanship. . The just person weeps and rages in the wilderness. Mercy, rain down.  There is only one true religion and one God over all peoples.  All organized religions disagree . . . with God. 

Sunny and BO have afros.  Are they Portuguese and Africa wolf mixtures? Maybe they're pedigreed bi-dog racials.  Dogulattos/Negradogs.  White folks have straight hair just like the dogs; should they be concerned??  Maybe in their sleep at night they bark!!

Whirling Moat,
 
 

The creationist, intelligent design argument and Yakub myth all function from the same psychology, logic or worldview. This observation does not require each to be only considered within the framework of a scientific or historical claim.  

 

What is the similarity?  That undergirding some natural process (in the case of NOI mythology it would be racial diversity, in the case of creationism and intelligent design it would be the existence of life itself and the universe ) is a conscientious author.   

 

If I wanted to make it more uniform- to conform to each "framework" I could.  I would simply mention the NOI intelligent design position- I could even present Moat's elaborate gender based "brane" theory- but I am less focused on what "framework" each position remains in than looking at the psychology behind each world view.  It is simply that each require an "author" to a natural process.

 

Try putting it in a Venn Diagram- to help you see similarities across "frameworks" you are limiting yourself unnecessarily by focusing on frameworks.  

 

I also think the more devoted a religious mind is to "belief" it tends to display "fight or flight" response to the cognitive dissonance it will inevitably find itself in.  The best of religious minds, in science, simply compartmentalize their beliefs when doing science and keep their religious "truths" separate and private.  In other words if you believe in

 

  • The black man being the original man- you will focus on archaelogical studies that support this and ignore that the original man is qualified as the maker, the cream of the planet earth and "god" of the UNIVERSE part in order to advance the myth to others.  I can sympathize that, if accepted, it is a great boost to the ego though 
  • White people came from black people- you will focus on archaelogical studies that support this and ignore that the myth also states that these white people are genetic "devils" predisposed to evil and trained by a "mad" or "big head" scientist as he is commonly referred to in the NOI since birth to take over for 6000 years the planet because some gods wanted us to see the evil "germ" that exists in black people.
  • That eating pork is wrong- (which is an opinion not a scientific claim) and as far as I know there is no evidence for the other claim that the reason the pig is "wrong" is because it was "created" for medicinal purposes (although it has been used historically for this reason- would not mean it was created nor for this reason), and that it was created in a genetic cross breeding experiment from a rat, cat and dog.  Oh and god said don't do it because it's bad.
  • Eating one meal a day- Is simply intermittent fasting and the idea existed before the 1930s (e.g. samurai warrior diet).  But that's not the point.  I concede that this is one of very few things that are not tied to myths (except for the one that "god" told him and if I can recall there is discrepancy with even whether the person called himself god or was called god by his followers after he disappeared- but I'm moving away from the point) 
  • Yakub- the big head, mad, devil making scientist 
  • Shabazz- tribe of rebellious, but strong! nappy headed variant of black people apart from the original and pretty straighter haired black people - I really could spend a day just on the insulting lectures behind this by certain ministers encouraging us to brush our hair so it will be straight and pretty. 
  • The mother plane, a spaceship, where god and his scientists reside hovering or somewhere waiting to come down and destroy murica and everyone that doesn't automatically 'believe' will be assumed to be with the white devils
  • The god who blew up the earth and accidentally created the moon because he was angry and wanted everyone on the planet to be the same, so since he couldn't do this tried unsuccessfully to blow up the earth...  

Myths are only historical claims to "believers." Because a believer automatically assumes it has a basis in truth.  Otherwise, everyone else recognizes a myth for what it is - an invented story and way to understand the world.  Whatever the case, no one takes a myth as a historical claim but those who only require as "proof" one man to say he met with god.

Last edited by Eudaimonia
Hello Earth and Sky,

 

Originally Posted by EarthAndSky:

Hmm, lively debate we have going on here but let's keep it nice. 

 

 

"Whirling Moat", "Muhammad Cipher" and I are almost like family.  WM and I have been debating for years.  He is like a brother to me and MC is a good friend (though after this thread, I'm not so sure what he'll say lol).  They are devoted members of the NOI and I respect that their consistency denotes sincerity and devotion to what they feel is right.

 

I only mention this- because our back and forth may look weird to some if you don't know we know each other.  That said, contrary to what Moat may think this thread was not resurrected to engage him.  I was struck by the evolution of my thinking as I read through some of the dialog.  I used to be afraid to state my opinion and honestly WM and MC have been respectful of this process even though it ultimately led to my breaking away from something they hold sacred.  Nothing but gentlemen and supporters through hard times.  True gentlemen.

 

That said,

 

Possibility is not the same as plausibility.  It is also possible to live on Pluto-(as is claimed by one NOI minister (who is not associated with Min. Farrakhan), just not plausible.

 

I agree that racism is pervasive in academia and one always has to be careful of bias.  But caution is not the same as conclusion.  I cannot conclude that every scientific theory, inquiry or conclusion must be wrong if it goes against long held beliefs that stroke the ego.

 

Some of our most lauded academics are simply lazy researchers and use more emotional "logic" than not.  

 

While I am familiar with the Final Call link, and have already stated my position with regards to selective justifications for claims, I am in agreement with the NIH publishing. I will say that I think instead of focusing on Vitamin D so much, I'm more interested in UV rays and their relationship to diet,clothing as well as melanin all play a part in disease as well as "phenotype."  Investigating this will explain the Inuit, the Kuna and other racial variant curiosities across the globe. :-)

 

Last edited by Eudaimonia
Originally Posted by Eudaimonia:
Hello Earth and Sky,

 

Originally Posted by EarthAndSky:

Hmm, lively debate we have going on here but let's keep it nice. 

 

 

"Whirling Moat", "Muhammad Cipher" and I are almost like family.  WM and I have been debating for years.  He is like a brother to me and MC is a good friend (though after this thread, I'm not so sure what he'll say lol).  They are devoted members of the NOI and I respect that their consistency denotes sincerity and devotion to what they feel is right.

 

I only mention this- because our back and forth may look weird to some if you don't know we know each other.  That said, contrary to what Moat may think this thread was not resurrected to engage him.  I was struck by the evolution of my thinking as I read through some of the dialog.  I used to be afraid to state my opinion and honestly WM and MC have been respectful of this process even though it ultimately led to my breaking away from something they hold sacred.  Nothing but gentlemen and supporters through hard times.  True gentlemen.

 

Thanks for the clarification. I now do not have to worry so much that this topic will turn ugly. A good debate is always nice, much preferable to arguing. 

 

That said,

 

Possibility is not the same as plausibility.  It is also possible to live on Pluto-(as is claimed by one NOI minister (who is not associated with Min. Farrakhan), just not plausible.

 

I'm not sure what you believe is not plausible: Gene manipulation or existence of a scientist named Yakub thousands of years ago? Gene manipulation has already been proven as a fact. It's been done many times with cats and dogs in particular. Are you familiar with designer babies? If not, here is a link to an article.

 

What is a designer baby?

 

In regards to history, the history we know (and much of the rest of the world) is History According White Europeans. It is true; conquerors write (or rewrite) history. My maternal ancestor, who was brought over here in chains, was from the Mandinka tribe. My grandmother said that when she was young, her white teachers told her that Timbuktu was a fable because no black Africans had a written language or even had the intellect to rule an empire. My grandmother knew about Timbuktu because her mother told her and so on and so on, back through the ancestral line, long before white historians acknowledged the fact about Timbuktu. My ancestors' facts about Timbuktu were treated as a myth, fable, or fantasy until white men (conquerors) many years later confirmed that they were telling the truth.

 

 

For many years, our people were told (by whites) that when whites came to Africa, they found us swinging in trees like monkeys with bones in our noses and speaking mumbo jumbo. We were told that we were backward, subhuman beings without an ounce of intellect. Sadly, many of us believed this falsehood and became ashamed of our roots. On the flip-side, this propaganda boosted the ego of whites. You can find some of these racist images here.

 

I don't believe the NOI is trying to build black people up at the expense of white people. I believe the NOI is being sincere in wanting us to know the real truth about ourselves as a people, not the racist crap that has been fed to us by our oppressors. If we don't know our true history, how are we to ever succeed in the future as a people? We certainly can't succeed hanging onto an inferiority complex! 

 

I came across an interesting audio, a couple of months ago, featuring Elijah Muhammad (I forgot to bookmark it, so you will have to Google it for yourself). It was made back in the late 1950s, if I recall. He talks about the origin of the moon and what is on it. This talk took place about ten years before Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon. Elijah Muhammad was told back then that he didn't know what he was talking about. Turns out he did know. How did he know?

 

Why does the moon smell like gunpowder?

 

Nuclear Blast May Have Created the Moon

 

And then there is the Dogon tribe (Mali) who knew of the existence, location, orbit, and periodicity of the star, Sirius B, long before NASA discovered it. I'm sure white scientists believed the Dogon tribe was engaging in fancy before they later discovered for themselves that the star really did exist, exactly the way the Dogons described it. How did they know?

 

Whites don't know everything about this planet or the people on it and some things they do know, they either hide it or lie about it, especially if it proves that they are not as superior as they want us to believe. They especially do not know about any history that predates them. All they can do is speculate, theorize, or make conjectures about it. Didn't they tell us for many years that the Egyptian pyramids were built by slaves? Only in recent years was this myth debunked.

 

Question: Why, in general, are theories made by whites considered valid or even factual but theories made by blacks are considered myths, fables, personal opinions, or flights of fancy until proven true by whites?

 

Food for thought:

'And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth the earth.' Holy Bible, King James version, Book of Genesis (1:26)

 

Who is 'us?' This happened on the 6th day.

 

In the second chapter of the Book of Genesis, it talks about God (only) creating man from the dust of the ground (in other Bible translations, it states that he was fashioned out of clay or mud) and God breathing life into him. This happened on the 7th day (the day that was blessed and sanctified). 

 

Either there is a major contradiction here or there is a veiled reference about a group of people who were not created by the Supreme Being. In the latter case, they would have been created by genetic engineering.

 

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×