Skip to main content

this topic is an offshoot of a sub-discussion started in the "the true history
of malcolm X and the NOI" thread. this comment was made there by
uppity negress:

quote:
Originally posted by UppityNegress:
quote:
Originally posted by 1milehi:
for the THIRD time - did you even read the article umbra?

good god amighty!

as far as NOI mythology - what does that have to do with the information
in the interview ... the interview that you didn't even read and yet are all
up in the discussion. what are you afraid of?

the NOI teaches that white people were grafted out of black people .. you
know grafting, the scientific process that white folks are utilizing today in
their labs? if you think that is mythology what is your explanation for how
white people came to be on the planet?

let's hear it.


I was originally gonna stay out of this thread, but as a student and lover of
evolutionary biology, I simply can't let that one pass.

White people "came to be" in the same process as all other people. As a
member of NOI, I understand you may be opposed to evolutionary
biology, and thus have little regard for what I'm about to write. Even so,
there is a wealth of information and evidence which give credence to the
field, so whether you accept it or not is a matter of faith and personal
belief, and not lack of evidence on the part of Science. Now that I've
finished my disclaimer, on to the science part!

Modern humans all evolved on the African continent, most likely in
Eastern Africa. From there, there were several waves of migration, with
some groups going to other parts of Africa, and the rest making their way
through all the habitable continents. As humans dispersed into new
habitats, time, selective pressures, and genetic drift acted upon them.
Some traits were more successful for certain environments, thus over eons
(assuming these environmental conditions were relatively constant) these
traits were positively selected for. Traits which proved to be too much of
an hindrance were negatively selected against. Thus good traits
propogated and bad ones were shoved to the wayside. Now, some traits
were "nuetral", meaning they had no negative or positive impact on the
individual or group as a whole. Sometimes these traits would go away on
their own, other times the frequency of these traits found within a
population would just happen to increase, to the point where it was
common for most people to possess them. This is random drift to
fixation.

The populations within each migrating group may have come from one
originl mega group, but each subgroup may have had certain random
characteristics. When these groups are isolated and small, prolific mating
will produce inbreeding, which would circulate those characteristics at a
higher frequency. Each subsequent generation that breeds increases the
frequency of the characetristic, until it becomes fixed within the whole
popuation of that subgroup. This is called a bottleneck, because a
relatively few people who mated streamlined their genes into a ballooning
population. When groups are isolated, there is little to no gene flow
between groups, thus some populations will retain or develop
characteristics not found in others.

Gene flow bottleneck, selective pressures, and random drift is what
created so many unique ethnicities, of which White Caucasians are one.
You may ask how they got pale skin or blue eyes. Just last year a study
was published which showed that pale skin is the result of a combination
of alleles for a pigment gene which does not "turn on", so to speak, and
thus produces little pigmentation in their melanin. The reason their genes
for this trait didn't "turn on" could be selective--white skin had an
advantage in colder climates--or it could have been a random, nuetral
mutation in one person in drifted to fixation. Or it could be that it was
originally a nuetral mutation, but new selective pressures turned it from
neutral into advantageous. The same can be said for blue eyes.

OK, that is an extremely simplistic argument, but I hope it correctly
conveyed what I'm trying to say. Sorry 1milehi, but this myth of some evil
scientist grafting white skin onto Black humans a few millenia ago is,
scientifically speaking, utter BS.
Last edited {1}
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

first uppity, i should say thanks for answering the question i asked since
the person the question was aimed at never did answer.

quote:
Originally posted by UppityNegress:
I was originally gonna stay out of this thread, but as a student and lover of
evolutionary biology, I simply can't let that one pass.

White people "came to be" in the same process as all other people.

[quote]
As a member of NOI, I understand you may be opposed to evolutionary
biology, and thus have little regard for what I'm about to write. Even so,
there is a wealth of information and evidence which give credence to the
field, so whether you accept it or not is a matter of faith and personal
belief, and not lack of evidence on the part of Science. Now that I've
finished my disclaimer, on to the science part!


well, it's not good to think that someone who believes NOI theology is
opposed to scientific facts.... not theories, but facts. it's also not good to
conclude that students of NOI theology are opposed to a mathematical
thinking process since that is greatly encouraged in NOI lessons. by the
same token, if i were to reverse your statement and put it to you - would it
be accurate:

uppity, as a student of evolutionary biology, I understand you may be
opposed to even considering the value of NOI theology, and thus have
little regard for what I'm about to write. Even so, there is a wealth of
information and evidence which give credence to the what is taught about
the origin of the white race, so whether you accept it or not is a matter of
your personal belief, and not lack of evidence on the part of Science.


quote:
Modern humans all evolved on the African continent, most
likely in Eastern Africa. From there, there were several waves of
migration, with some groups going to other parts of Africa, and the rest
making their way through all the habitable continents. As humans
dispersed into new habitats, time, selective pressures, and genetic drift
acted upon them. Some traits were more successful for certain
environments, thus over eons (assuming these environmental conditions
were relatively constant) these traits were positively selected for. Traits
which proved to be too much of an hindrance were negatively selected
against. Thus good traits propogated and bad ones were shoved to the
wayside. Now, some traits were "nuetral", meaning they had no negative
or positive impact on the individual or group as a whole. Sometimes
these traits would go away on their own, other times the frequency of
these traits found within a population would just happen to increase, to the
point where it was common for most people to possess them. This is
random drift to fixation.

The populations within each migrating group may have come from one
originl mega group, but each subgroup may have had certain random
characteristics. When these groups are isolated and small, prolific mating
will produce inbreeding, which would circulate those characteristics at a
higher frequency. Each subsequent generation that breeds increases the
frequency of the characetristic, until it becomes fixed within the whole
popuation of that subgroup. This is called a bottleneck, because a
relatively few people who mated streamlined their genes into a ballooning
population. When groups are isolated, there is little to no gene flow
between groups, thus some populations will retain or develop
characteristics not found in others.

Gene flow bottleneck, selective pressures, and random drift is what
created so many unique ethnicities, of which White Caucasians are one.
You may ask how they got pale skin or blue eyes. Just last year a study
was published which showed that pale skin is the result of a combination
of alleles for a pigment gene which does not "turn on", so to speak, and
thus produces little pigmentation in their melanin. The reason their genes
for this trait didn't "turn on" could be selective--white skin had an
advantage in colder climates--or it could have been a random, nuetral
mutation in one person in drifted to fixation. Or it could be that it was
originally a nuetral mutation, but new selective pressures turned it from
neutral into advantageous. The same can be said for blue eyes.


before i address this, will you state whether evolutionary biology
considers the above conclusions "fact" or "theory?" thanks.


quote:

OK, that is an extremely simplistic argument, but I hope it correctly
conveyed what I'm trying to say. Sorry 1milehi, but this myth of some evil
scientist grafting white skin onto Black humans a few millenia ago is,
scientifically speaking, utter BS.


question: have you ever read the NOI teaching on the origin of the white
race? or are your statements based on what you've seen/heard/read others
saying about what they think that teaching is?
quote:
Originally posted by 1milehi:
uppity, as a student of evolutionary biology, I understand you may be
opposed to even considering the value of NOI theology, and thus have
little regard for what I'm about to write.

That's interesting... since you didn't actually write anything.

quote:
question: have you ever read the NOI teaching on the origin of the white
race? or are your statements based on what you've seen/heard/read others
saying about what they think that teaching is?

Even if UppityNegress is only responding to the theory you put forth about White people being grafted from Black people, that's enough. The scientific community has proved everything that Uppity Negress posted, while the NOI has yet to prove anything to the contrary. What's your point?
Peace....



quote:
The reason their genes
for this trait didn't "turn on" could be selective--white skin had an
advantage in colder climates--or it could have been a random, nuetral The same can be said for blue eyes.


This theory is exactly what the NOI teaches less the advantage in colder climates.

The cold climate theory for the emergence of whites fails since it lacks empirical proof. The evidence is nonexistence for the emergence of whites in Europe during the Ice age. The first historical accounts for white people come from thiose who called white "Sea People". Anthropologists studied in this field readily admit that Europe was uninhabitable during the Ice age.

The NOI teaching is consistent with the theory of selection. So many people think that we teach that white people were created in a test tube....That is just an indication of their ignorance...Not ours.....



Kai
quote:
Originally posted by Black Viking:

That's interesting... since you didn't actually write anything.


it would really be nice if some of you adults could stop sipping on the haterade long enough to be objective. if i didn't write anything, what was uppity responding to in the first place? if i didn't write anything why were people in the other thread saying i could "never recover" from that which i wrote? i did write something that caused a reaction in others and if you're too blind to see it, that's on you. if you're so much stuck on being silly that you can't see it, that's on you.

stop the madness!

quote:
Even if UppityNegress is only responding to the theory you put forth about White people being grafted from Black people, that's enough. The scientific community has proved everything that Uppity Negress posted, while the NOI has yet to prove anything to the contrary. What's your point?


my point is - to establish whether or not the evolutionary "theory" is no longer being called that and has been changed to being called the evolutionary "fact." are you presuming to answer for her the question that was asked to her?

if the evolutionary "theory" is still, in fact, a "theory" then we can be clear that we're dealing with "theory" on both sides of the issue. do you understand that?

now if you can't come in here with anything but a funky and unappealing attitude, you could've kept your azz somewhere else.

this silliness from some in this adult community is almost ridiculous.
quote:
Originally posted by Saracen:
quote:
The reason their genes
for this trait didn't "turn on" could be selective--white skin had an
advantage in colder climates--or it could have been a random, nuetral The same can be said for blue eyes.


This theory is exactly what the NOI teaches less the advantage in colder climates.

The cold climate theory for the emergence of whites fails since it lacks empirical proof. The evidence is nonexistence for the emergence of whites in Europe during the Ice age.

Since when does colder climate equal Ice Age?

Aside from the "empirical proof" that you say does not exist... It's plain to anyone with eyes that skin tone darkens the closer to the equator (and therefore closer to the sun) one lives.

quote:
The first historical accounts for white people come from thiose who called white "Sea People".

This isn't about History. This is about Anthropology.

quote:
Anthropologists studied in this field readily admit that Europe was uninhabitable during the Ice age.

And for every one of them, I can give you one that claims otherwise. So which do we believe, hmmm?

quote:
The NOI teaching is consistent with the theory of selection.

Really? I wasn't aware of that. Please explain... Smile

quote:
So many people think that we teach that white people were created in a test tube....

That may be so... but that wasn't the claim here.
quote:
Originally posted by 1milehi:
quote:
Originally posted by Black Viking:

That's interesting... since you didn't actually write anything.


it would really be nice if some of you adults could stop sipping on the haterade long enough to be objective. if i didn't write anything, what was uppity responding to in the first place? if i didn't write anything why were people in the other thread saying i could "never recover" from that which i wrote? i did write something that caused a reaction in others and if you're too blind to see it, that's on you. if you're so much stuck on being silly that you can't see it, that's on you.

Ignorant ass...

You said...
quote:
Originally posted by 1milehi:
[i]uppity, as a student of evolutionary biology, I understand you may be
opposed to even considering the value of NOI theology, and thus have
little regard for what I'm about to write.

And then you went on to ask questions about her position......
quote:
before i address this, will you state whether evolutionary biology
considers the above conclusions "fact" or "theory?" thanks.

Therefore, NO... you did not write anything. UP demonstrated sound scientific findings for what she posted in regards to this subject. You then assumed her bias and turned the statement around... and yet failed to back up your reverse conclusion.

quote:
stop the madness!

You first.

quote:
quote:
Even if UppityNegress is only responding to the theory you put forth about White people being grafted from Black people, that's enough. The scientific community has proved everything that Uppity Negress posted, while the NOI has yet to prove anything to the contrary. What's your point?


my point is - to establish whether or not the evolutionary "theory" is no longer being called that and has been changed to being called the evolutionary "fact."

Of course... your point was to challenge evolutionary theory without having to provide one of your own. To you, the more logical option is NOI mythology... even though there is far less evidence to prove those conclusions.

quote:
are you presuming to answer for her the question that was asked to her?

This is a public board. I'll post anywhere I goddamn please.

quote:
if the evolutionary "theory" is still, in fact, a "theory" then we can be clear that we're dealing with "theory" on both sides of the issue. do you understand that?

That was never in dispute. Where's the evidence to support your position?

quote:
now if you can't come in here with anything but a funky and unappealing attitude, you could've kept your azz somewhere else.

You can shut your stupid fucking azz up. I go where I want, when I want... without any need for your approval. Deal with it!

quote:
this silliness from some in this adult community is almost ridiculous.

Whatever.
quote:
Originally posted by Black Viking:
[
Ignorant ass...


likewise.

i will concede, however, that in flipping uppity's statement, i should have changed "what i'm about to write" to "what i wrote" which may, or may not, have cut down on the confusion.

quote:
And then you went on to ask questions about her position......

Therefore, NO... you did not write anything. UP demonstrated sound scientific findings for what she posted in regards to this subject. You then assumed her bias and turned the statement around... and yet failed to back up your reverse conclusion.


some of you all are really wild. my question about whether evolutionary biology conclusions are considered "fact" or "theory" is not equivalent to me asking about uppity's position. i'm asking about the position of "evolutionary theology." there is nothing in that question which assumes "her bias" or is turning the statement around. her "bias" has yet to be made clear by how she answers as to whether or not she has read NOI teaching on the origin of the white race. if she has not, then she must admit that she is not using a scientific approach to this discussion as she's atttempting to critique something she has not studied.

now if that's the case, i don't plan on spending a lot of time with this but i know some of you others will.

quote:
Of course... your point was to challenge evolutionary theory without having to provide one of your own. To you, the more logical option is NOI mythology... even though there is far less evidence to prove those conclusions.


according to some, i already referenced a theory which they call NOI mythology. now whatever problem you have with me that causes you to have a foul atttitude - that's on you. but you're deluding yourself, as someone was in the other thread, if you think that i accept your perceptions and emotionalism as my reality. you're telling me what my point was but you dont' know what it was other than what i told you - but go ahead with your ASSumptions, your ranting and your raving. it's really unbecoming to me and speaks to me of your immaturity.

quote:

This is a public board. I'll post anywhere I goddamn please.


that wasn't even the point and really wasn't even an answer to the question you were asked - but do your thing!

quote:
That was never in dispute. Where's the evidence to support your position?


i haven't as yet stated my position. my statement was something to the effect of "NOI theology teaches that ......" i have not as yet stated my full position on the topic and may not since it's not something i intend to go back and forth about at length. it appears that others of you do have an interest in that so this is a good thread for that to take place in.

quote:

You can shut your stupid fucking azz up.


likewise.

quote:
I go where I want, when I want... without any need for your approval. Deal with it!


and your infantile emotionalism speaks volumes. if you think i'm stupid then you are stupid for even wasting your time addressing me. and once again, it was never in dispute that you can post wherever you want to but if this immature, infantile, emotional, tantrum-like approach is what you've got to offer, i will be officially dismissing you as i did someone else.

oh, and i already know you don't give a dayum about that so you don't have to tell me. i'm just making it plain.

quote:

Whatever.


exactly!
quote:

by the
same token, if i were to reverse your statement and put it to you - would it
be accurate:

uppity, as a student of evolutionary biology, I understand you may be
opposed to even considering the value of NOI theology, and thus have
little regard for what I'm about to write. Even so, there is a wealth of
information and evidence which give credence to the what is taught about
the origin of the white race, so whether you accept it or not is a matter of
your personal belief, and not lack of evidence on the part of Science.



Uh, no--because the NOI has yet to provide any empirical proof for their mythology. Amd while I'm not adverse to considering alternatives to beliefs I already hold, I honestly have little regard for anything NOI cult members have to say in respect to science. Economics and stuff, I'll listen, but for science, I'm way past taking your stuff with a grain of salt. I used to be open minded about it, but you (as in NOI Muslims) have yet to provide anything remotely plausible or even logical. In fact, after reading some of your stuff last night I went back to re-read on NOI "science" just to be sure I didn't miss anything, and I almost choked myself laughing at that malarky. In terms of science, you guys are even more hilarious than Scientologists and their Xenu shyte. But tell you what: you give me some empiracla evidence for NOI scientific claims, and I'll examine them unbiasedly. No strawman arguments.

quote:
before i address this, will you state whether evolutionary biology
considers the above conclusions "fact" or "theory?" thanks.


Both, actually. A lack of understanding between the layman's comprehension of "theory" and the scientific definition seems to be at the heart of any debate about evolutionary biology. The common person uses theory interchangably with "speculation" and even "opinion". In science, theory denotes a model or explanation which can be empirically tested. The purpose of theories are to provide a tool to explain natural/social phenoma or related events in a logical, self-contained manner. Theories, when tested, may prove to be correct, or prove to be false. When proved correct, and re-tested several times by several different parties, theories are generally regarded as facts. Consider the theory of gravity. Yes, gravity is technically a theory, yet it is also a fact which has held up against scrutiny. Of course, anyone who doubts the theory of gravity can prove science wrong and walk off the nearest 10 story building Razz Because the evidence is consistent and (as of yet) unsupplanted by another, more accurate theory, the theory of gravity is also called the law of gravity. Similar situation with electromagnetism. Geology, genetics, paleontology, and even mathematical models have all contributed to the ample evidence in favor of evolution. So, to reiterate, evolution is both a theory and a fact.

quote:
question: have you ever read the NOI teaching on the origin of the white
race? or are your statements based on what you've seen/heard/read others
saying about what they think that teaching is?


Yes, I have. When I was 12 years old, some NOI members in my community were trying to reach out to the youth--a noble effort. Yet part of their "outreach" was an attempt to indoctrinate us with such nonsense as motherships and mad scientists. As an 8th grader, I found their "scientific truths" laughable. As an adult trained in biological anthropology and evolutionary biology, I find their "scientific truths" gut-wrenchingly funny.

**To be fair, I'd like to note that I don't know if the outreach efforts were officially sanctioned by the local NOI chapter, or if some members decided to do it on their own. Alls I know is that there ain't no crazy Yakub out creating whiteys.
quote:
Originally posted by Saracen:
The evidence is nonexistence for the emergence of whites in Europe during the Ice age.


Not true; several nearly complete skeletons dating from the Ice Age and before have been found in Europe. Many of these skeletons were actually corpses well preserved in bogs. Forensic reconstruction (the kind of reconstruction they do for the skeletons of unidentified murder victims) have shown them to be exactly like modern Europeans. DNA tests from marrow in still-intact bones have confirmed that many modern European populations are identical to the skeletons found from as far as 12k years ago. Check out the research of David Miles. This is also pretty nifty:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1334512.stm


quote:
Originally posted by Saracen:
Anthropologists studied in this field readily admit that Europe was uninhabitable during the Ice age.


Outdated; may I point you to John F. Hoffecker, who has done extensive research on Ice Age settlements in the Eastern steppes of Europe.
thanks uppity ... for the response and also for showing your bias, which BV was asserting (falsely) that i'd accused you of earlier.

let me now be more specific. you've mentioned that you read NOI teaching when you were 12 years old. have you at anytime in your adult hood sat down, and invested any amount of time studying what elijah muhammad said about the grafting of the white race?

and i should mention that since everything he taught on that is not in one book, article, lecture or tape - you would have had to have spent a good amount of time piecing together all or much of what he said on the subject.

if you have not done that - and have not spent even 1/4 the time on NOI teaching as you have on evolutionary biology - i suggest that you are not qualified to speak anything on the topic - other than your biased opinions, which you are sharing.

also, may i ask what you read last night that you referred to as "NOI science"?

NOI lessons teach on the weight of the earth; the speed at which all planets travel; the total square mileage of the earth - broken down by how much is the land vs how much is the water; the diameter and circumference of the earth; the distance of the earth from the sun, etc.

now these things were being taught by the NOI way back in 1930 and even white scientists in america didn't know some of these things until they confiscated NOI lessons from elijah muhammad when they arrested him.

so, i am again suggesting that your comments show that you are not qualifed - in any way, shape, manner or form - to critique NOI teaching on this topic or any other. [just as i am in no way, shape, manner or form qualifed to critique what evolutionary biology is about. i haven't studied it .. and can't say i plan to so i find it more intelligent for me not to attempt discussing that which i have little knowledge of.]

the science i mentioned that is part of the lessons cannot be said to be "malarkey" or hilarious.
Last edited {1}
there will always behouse negroes, who always come to the aide of the oppressive white man. Anything this white man writes and says is scientific, is quickly regarded as fact. But when Africans present overwhelming evidence to the contrary it is belittled as unscientific and somehow elementary. If you read any of Hegal or Montisque's work , or even more recently these cats who wrote the Bell Curve, they claim all of their evidence is scientific and in fact Africans are inferrior to the white man.

Eventhough where ever you go in the world, the white man is not indigenous anywhere, not even in Europe.So my question is where did the European come from? He was no where to be found before 8,000 years ago. We know for a fact that Africans have been here at least 4 million years.

This is in noway and attempt to validate Yacubs theory

But great African scholars , such as Chiek Anta Dip, Dr. Ben , Dr John Henrike Clark , has written extensively on the origins of the European and how we was civilized by the African.
i'm not planning on being too much in this discussion and instead of anyone having to reinvent the wheel, this is what a brother posted on another message board in a subject entitled: The Yakub Argument - DEMYSTIFIED


quote:
Mr. Elijah Muhammad advanced an argument that caucasians are not native to any area on the Earth. They are not the indigenous people on any part of the planet. Someone was always present before they set foot on the soil of whatever land they "discovered". These people are the most recent people on the planet. Since they were not always living side by side with the original inhabitants of the earth, where did they come from? How did they come about? Did they just pop up out of nowhere?

The existence of an entire race of people carrying recessive genetic traits requires explanation more than theoretical speculation based on environmental change, since these same people are now dominating the world outside of the ideal enviornment in which such biological changes would be yielded.

Mr. Elijah Muhammad asserts that caucasians are the product of genetic engineering. He asserts that they are a "grafted" people.

What exactly is this "grafting"?

"Grafting", as an account offered by Mr. Muhammad, describes a process based upon marriage and procreation. It involved a subject group (a percentage of original people) and a controlled enviornment, an area where the process could go on unabated. The process involves marrying individuals of two different hues with the objective of producing children possessing the lighter of the two hues. (*Note: According to Mr. Muhammad, two dark-skinned people of the same hue were not permitted to marry.) The offspring of these unions would marry amongst themselves. Generations of progeny were born lighter than the previous generations (*Note: No dark-skinned children survived birth.) and this process carried on for 600 years, according to the account offered by Mr. Muhammad.

Now, basically, the above process which Mr. Muhammad calls "grafting" is simply...

selective breeding n.

The intentional mating of two animals in an attempt to produce offspring with desirable characteristics or for the elimination of a trait

dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=selective%20breeding

It is a very real process used today by those who practice...

animal husbandry n.

The branch of agriculture concerned with the care and breeding of domestic animals such as cattle, hogs, sheep, and horses.

dictionary.reference.com/search?q=animal%20husbandry

And even among the various definitions of "graft", we find...

graft v.

3. To join or unite closely: graft new customs onto old.

In this case, the "joining" is the lighter unto the lighter for the purpose of producing a completely new people.

To those who have read about Yakub and the grafting of the white race, understand that no scientist was sitting in a lab and playing with petri dishes or whatever images come to your mind, when Mr, Muhammad's words are read.

Is selective breeding fantasy? Is selective breeding unthinkable? No. It's not science fiction. It's an ACTUAL SCIENCE that is presently being PRACTICED as you read these words.

Members of some scientific communities are beginning to consider "selection" as the means by which caucasians came about.

Quote:
"Some scientists said they suspect that white skin's rapid rise to genetic dominance may also be the product of "sexual selection," a phenomenon of evolutionary biology in which almost any new and showy trait in a healthy individual can become highly prized by those seeking mates, perhaps because it provides evidence of genetic innovativeness." - Rick Weiss (Staff Writer), Washington Post, Friday, December 16, 2005; Page A01
quote:
Originally posted by 1milehi:
thanks uppity ... for the response and also for showing your bias, which BV was asserting (falsely) that i'd accused you of earlier.


I never said I had no bias. I don't know if you caught it, but I was very clear in explaining that my bias developed only after studying the sad spectacle that passes as science for the NOI. Yes, I have read more in the intervening years since I was 12 years old, and the older and more knowledgable I get, the more ridiculous some of the NOI claims become. I also said earlier, if you wish to provide any evidence for the NOI claims, I would dispense with my biases and give them fair consideration. The evidence has to be empirical to be scientifically viable, and they can't be strawman arguments like "evoltion can't prove x therefore the whole of evolution is wrong". My offer is a reasonable one. Put up, or stop insinuating that I am *unfairly* closed-minded and critical of NOI claims.


quote:
Originally posted by 1milehi:
also, may i ask what you read last night that you referred to as "NOI science"?


Last night I brushed up on my NOI folklore and found this:

quote:
25. How long did it take him to make Devil?
  • Six hundred years he was in grafting devil or making him from the Black man

    26. What year was that?
  • It was in the year - eight thousand four hundred, which means from the date of our present history of Koran.
    Or, about two thousand and six hundred years before the birth of the Prophet Musa.


  • On breeding the "devil" babies:
    quote:

  • The Nurse's law was to kill the Black babies at birth by sticking a needle in the brain of the babies or feed it to some wild beast; and tell the mother that her baby was an angel baby and that it was only taken to heaven, and some day when the mother dies, her baby would have secured her a home in heaven.



  • And all that baloney was found here:
    http://www.thenationofislam.org/muslimlessontwo.html

    http://www.muhammadspeaks.com/Shabazz.html has some interesting revelations, like the original Black man came to Earth 66 [b]trillion[b] years ago....from the moon. Also, pigs are animals created for medical purposes through grafting, and when America is destroyed a mother ship will come to colect all her righteous colored folk while North America burns for nearly 400 years. WTF? The Earth is only ike 4.5 billion years old, pigs are actually quite clean animals and they certainly weren't "grafted".

    These were only two of about the 5 sites I read through.
    Last edited {1}
    quote:
    Originally posted by UppityNegress:
    I never said I had no bias.


    okay, then your explanation would be better aimed at BV who is the one who inferred that i unjustly concluded that you were biased. i hadn't concluded any such thing but i hope he reads your explanation.


    quote:
    1milehi, I would like to suggest that since you obviously haven't spent an hour of serious study in advanced biology, you are not qualified to speak on matters of biology, genetics, and evolution and all you have to share in regards to the subjects are your biased and extremely ignorant opinions. Please cease giving your *opinions* about scentific fields you are in not even remotely qualified to speak on. That wasn't meant to be rude, merely honest :P


    apparently you missed the edit i added to my last post:

    so, i am again suggesting that your comments show that you are not qualifed - in any way, shape, manner or form - to critique NOI teaching on this topic or any other. [just as i am in no way, shape, manner or form qualifed to critique what evolutionary biology is about. i haven't studied it .. and can't say i plan to so i find it more intelligent for me not to attempt discussing that which i have little knowledge of.]

    now, you addressed me on this in the other thread, or you addressed my comment, and i moved it to a separate thread. you all can go at it to your hearts content in here as i've already said i'm not going to be too much in the discussion.

    if you want to refute something, i just posted what a brother put up on another board about selective breeding. if you're looking to argue over something - go tackle his explanation.
    quote:
    Originally posted by ZAKAR:
    there will always behouse negroes, who always come to the aide of the oppressive white man. Anything this white man writes and says is scientific, is quickly regarded as fact.


    O boy, here we go: "if you don't believe any of the unproven and totally illogical claims we have no empirical proof for, you are a minion of da WHITE MAN!". I was wondering how long it would take before someone through that out there. Surprisingly, far longer than I anticipated; I expected it with the first post, really.

    Listen Zakar, I don't believe everything white poeple say merely because they're white. I am, however, apt to believe people of any racial, religious, or philosophical persuasion who can back up their claims with adequate objective evidence. I view white extreme rigth wing Christian fundamentalist and white Scientologists with about equal disdain as extreme NOI. And just for good measure, don't try that "I wasn't addressing you you must have a guilty conscious" defense. It's obvious you were addressing me and any Black person that refuses to fall for your fairy tales.


    quote:
    Originally posted by ZAKAR:
    Eventhough where ever you go in the world, the white man is not indigenous anywhere, not even in Europe.So my question is where did the European come from? He was no where to be found before 8,000 years ago. We know for a fact that Africans have been here at least 4 million years.


    I'm going to assume that you just didn't see a previous post providing evidence for white Caucasoid settlements in Europe as far back as 12k years.

    quote:
    Originally posted by ZAKAR:
    But when Africans present overwhelming evidence to the contrary it is belittled as unscientific and somehow elementary.


    WHAT EVIDENCE!?!?!? FOR GOD'S SAKE, PROVIDE SOME F*&^ING EVIDENCE IF YOU WANT PEOPLE TO TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY! NOI cultist, creationist nutjobs, scientologists: you all whine about people not even bothering to consider the evidence you put forth, * yet you consistently fail to put forth evidence *! Show me scientific proof for your claims, and I will examine them as unbiasedly and open-mindedly as possible. If you refuse to provide said proof, or are unable to, that's your problem. Quit $itching about other people not taking you seriously.
    quote:
    Originally posted by 1milehi:
    quote:
    Originally posted by UppityNegress:
    I never said I had no bias.


    okay, then your explanation would be better aimed at BV who is the one who inferred that i unjustly concluded that you were biased. i hadn't concluded any such thing but i hope he reads your explanation.


    quote:
    1milehi, I would like to suggest that since you obviously haven't spent an hour of serious study in advanced biology, you are not qualified to speak on matters of biology, genetics, and evolution and all you have to share in regards to the subjects are your biased and extremely ignorant opinions. Please cease giving your *opinions* about scentific fields you are in not even remotely qualified to speak on. That wasn't meant to be rude, merely honest :P


    apparently you missed the edit i added to my last post:

    so, i am again suggesting that your comments show that you are not qualifed - in any way, shape, manner or form - to critique NOI teaching on this topic or any other. [just as i am in no way, shape, manner or form qualifed to critique what evolutionary biology is about. i haven't studied it .. and can't say i plan to so i find it more intelligent for me not to attempt discussing that which i have little knowledge of.]

    now, you addressed me on this in the other thread, or you addressed my comment, and i moved it to a separate thread. you all can go at it to your hearts content in here as i've already said i'm not going to be too much in the discussion.

    if you want to refute something, i just posted what a brother put up on another board about selective breeding. if you're looking to argue over something - go tackle his explanation.


    Yes, I did miss your last edit. i will go ammend my earlier post to reflect that. Don't you think it's a bit disingenuous, to start a thread and then declare you aren't going to participate?
    uppity, it's not disingenous ..... it's a matter of a personal choice. the subject would be better discussed in this thread than in the middle or end of the malcolm x thread. common sense decision to me. you all have fun - i don't really have that deep of an interest in arguing over this particular subject.

    what you can do tho is give me the link to the site where you read that elijah muhamammad said the pig is now clean. maybe i mis-read what you meant but he never taught any such thing so i'd like to see whatever it is that you saw.
    I could really give a dam, what you take serious or what you believe, thats your right. But to pass some bullshyt theories some crackpot white people put out there as scientific fact, is just as much bullshyt as you say the NOI is. All the evidence you put forward, there are plenty of evidence that says the opposite. Did you read the link i put forward?? You assume there is no racism in Science, how nieve, why would white people tell you the truth when everything they put forward is only to reinforce white supremacy. Have you ever read any of Dr. John Henrike Clarke work, how about Dr.Chiek Anta Diop, or maybe even some of Dr. Chancellor Williams work? But you want people to except some theories white people put forth as fact. Get out of here. But with a name like UppityNegress, I undertand. Guilt concious? guilty about what? You keep believing everything the European tells you about your history, maybe you even believe "The Bell Curve".
    never mind uppity, i see that i misread you.

    quote:
    has some interesting revelations, like the original Black man came to Earth 66 [b]trillion[b] years ago....from the moon. Also, pigs are animals created for medical purposes through grafting, and when America is destroyed a mother ship will come to colect all her righteous colored folk while North America burns for nearly 400 years. WTF? The Earth is only ike 4.5 billion years old, pigs are actually quite clean animals and they certainly weren't "grafted".


    LOL - it seems that you are the one saying that pigs are quite clean. is that right? if so, *shaking head*...... and you say they weren't grafted but how do you know? do you have facts to back up that the earth is only "like" 4.5 billion years old? havent' your fellow scientists found that there was life, or fossils found that date back trillions of years? if so .... you know something ain't right with your 4.5 billion specul..... i mean .... calculation.
    Evolution is neither a White nor a Black thing. And no, according to "White Man's" Evolutionary theory, racism is completely unfounded because no race is superior to another. No race has any kind of inborn supremacy or genetic superiority.

    The "Better Race Game" is a game of White Supremacists. The last thing we need to do is take part.


    That said, I don't accept NOI mythology any more than I accept Creationist or Scientology mythology. I'll only study those "theories" seriously when they present some hard scientific evidence to back up their claims.
    quote:
    Originally posted by ZAKAR:
    I could really give a dam, what you take serious or what you believe, thats your right. But to pass some bullshyt theories some crackpot white people put out there as scientific fact, is just as much bullshyt as you say the NOI is. All the evidence you put forward, there are plenty of evidence that says the opposite. Did you read the link i put forward?? You assume there is no racism in Science, how nieve, why would white people tell you the truth when everything they put forward is only to reinforce white supremacy. Have you ever read any of Dr. John Henrike Clarke work, how about Dr.Chiek Anta Diop, or maybe even some of Dr. Chancellor Williams work? But you want people to except some theories white people put forth as fact. Get out of here. But with a name like UppityNegress, I undertand. Guilt concious? guilty about what? You keep believing everything the European tells you about your history, maybe you even believe "The Bell Curve".


    Evolution is a "crackpot theory"? If it is, it happens to be backed up with some damn good hard physical evidence. As opposed to.......where's the scientific evidence for the NOI 'theory' that Black people came from a mothership, and the earth is 6.6 trillion years old, and North America will burn for 400 years?

    "The Bell Curve" is an example of crackpot pseudo-science just like Young Earth Creationism. It is not accepted by most scientists and was disproved years ago by Stephen J. Gould as no more than 19th century race junk science. I don't know who told you that the Bell Curve is accepted by mainstream science, but whoever did was lying.
    Since we are talking about scientific fact, it is accepted by both European and Non European Scientist and Scholars, the the oldest human being in existance to date is the African, oldest remains were found in the Highlands of Kenya, no other race, or group of human beings come anywhere close to that finding. So its no superiority or inferiority thing. All humans came from the African man and Woman, who refutes that??
    NOTE: the NOI does not teach that black people came from a mothership. the teaching is that black people are direct descendants of the first god -a black man - who created himself from triple darkness.

    now the NOI has a teaching, a theory if you want to call it that, on the origin of the first man. what does modern science teach on that? is it still that an amoeba split 'x' number of times and eventually became .... or evolved from various animal stages into a human being? isn't that theory as far fetched as what some of you all are ridiculing about NOI teaching?

    also, ridiculing a thing, or a teaching, is not equivalent to disproving or discrediting it.
    But to the main topic of this thread:

    The White race originated from the Black race and from Central Asians somewhere between 400,000-120,000 years ago. Western Europeans evolved from Africans, Eastern Europeans evolved from Central Asians (hence the difference in appearance). About 400,000 years ago, the climate of Africa began warming up (it had been more temperate like Europe is today previously) and some African Cro-Magnons moved northward towards Europe. At the time, Europe was locked in the middle of an Ice Age (the last long Ice Age so far), so these Africans were able to cross the Mediterranean which was frozen over.

    Europe was cold, most likely cloudy, and at a higher altitude than much of Africa. These Africans were ill-equipped to handle Europe's harsh arctic climate. Over thousands of generations, their hair eventually straightened to keep their heads warm (kinky hair is suited for hot weather to protect the scalp from UV rays, straight hair is suited for cold weather to keep heat from escaping the pores in the scalp); their skin lightened due to the cloudy, snowy weather as melanin became less necessary; and their widened and rounded to take in more sunlight in the dimmer environment (the lack of melanin may have caused their irises to range different colors). They lived very primitively, and the poor nutrition in Europe may have stunted brain growth during that era (hence the lack of any development of technology or social advancement). Or it could have been the restrictive environment.

    About 200,000 years ago, Central Asia which had once been lush savannah land started becoming a desert. Some of the Central Asian Cro-Magnons moved northward towards Eastern Europe where the climate was cooler. They experience conditions similar to what Western Europeans experienced (causing their eyes to widen and become rounder, and their skin to lighten). Other Central Asian Cro-Magnons moved eastward toward East Asia and some moved southward to South and Southeast Asia. The ones in East Asia faced an Ice Age in Asia. The Ice Age in Asia was less severe than the Ice Age in Europe, but because Asia was at a lower altitude, the high winds were more severe. Over thousands of generations, they evolved epicanthic folds which gave their eyes an almondish-shape to protect their eyeballs from the fierce, blistering winds. Their skin remained the same color as Central Asians, but the hair on their heads became thicker and straighter to protect them from the cold. South Asians evolved darker skin to adjust to the warmer climate.

    Back over in Europe, the Cro-Magnons encountered the native peoples of Europe who had already evolved there a million years earlier: Neanderthals. The Neanderthals had a higher level of technology and were better equipped for surviving the cold weather. Interaction between the Neanderthals and the Cro-Magnons likely provided the Cro-Magnons with exposure to technology and warmer clothing as well as social advancement from the more primitive individualistic survivalist society to the more advanced collectivist hunter-gatherer society.

    About 40,000 years ago, the Ice Age wore off in Europe and the Neanderthals died out mysteriously. Likely due to the increase in heat as the climate became more temperate, Neanderthals were physically built for weather below 40 degrees Fahrenheit. The Neolithic Era allowed for better hunter-gathering and eventually farming societies. The first recognizeable tribal societies appeared in Europe 30,000 years ago.

    Meanwhile, in Africa tribal societies had been around since 75,000 years ago and some African societies began developing more advanced societies. The first African cities appeared in Africa about 12,000 years ago. Europe did not catch up until around 2000 BC.
    quote:
    Originally posted by ZAKAR:
    Since we are talking about scientific fact, it is accepted by both European and Non European Scientist and Scholars, the the oldest human being in existance to date is the African, oldest remains were found in the Highlands of Kenya, no other race, or group of human beings come anywhere close to that finding. So its no superiority or inferiority thing. All humans came from the African man and Woman, who refutes that??


    No one. I wouldn't say all, but I would say most humans came originally from Africans. Many humans, especially in South Asia and the Pacific Islands, evolved from Australoid peoples who originated from Australia (Aboriginees) independently of Africa. About 25% of humanity evolved from them.

    But aside from that, you are right that our race is the original race on the planet from what we know.
    Black Man Created All Other Races
    Posted: October 10, 2001
    An analysis by
    Dr. Kwame Nantambu

    It is quite clear that any human that had its birth in Afrika could not have survived in an equatorial region without pigmentation. According to Senegalese scientist, deceased Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop (pronounced Jop), the world's modern-day multi-genius or Imhotep, since nature does not do anything by chance, then humankind that was born in a sub-equatorial region was given melanin to protect its skin from the hot rays of the sun.

    For this reason, it is certain that the first man had to be a BLACK man.

    It is only after that Black race left Mother Afrika to people other parts of the world that had different climate conditions that that original Black man changed and took on different aspects or physical characteristics.

    He acquired a different look as a result of his migration. Indeed, scientific evidence suggests that nature created six specimens of man before we get to man as we know him today.

    According to this evidence, it appears that the first three of these species never acquired the potential to leave Afrika. Three others did leave Afrika.

    The fourth and fifth of these species disappeared. What remains is man as we know him today B that is, the sixth species. The fifth species did not have a forehead; the eyes were situated very close to the top of the head.

    However, the brain inside this species was very different from the brain of man today. He did not have the anterior lobe of the brain. That's the major difference between Homo sapiens sapiens B what we are today and the fifth specimen.

    This species was never able to overcome nature to an extent that he was able to create works of art.

    The sixth species was a BLACK man who in pre-historic history is called Grimaldi man. He is the man whom we are today.

    Between 40,000 and 20,000 years ago, this BLACK man left Mother Afrika and went into Father Europe at a time during the last glaciazation. The climate in Europe was extremely cold; it was much colder than it is now and during this period of some 20,000 years, this BLACK man underwent significant physical adaptations to eventually become what we call or know today as the WHITE man.

    This original BLACK man had to adapt or adjust to his new cold environment.

    In other words, this BLACK MAN DID NOT need his sun-required melanin in this cold environment. He lost that. He DID NOT need Black skin in this cold environment. He lost that.

    He DID NOT need his sun-required broad nose, large, thick lips and hair in this new cold environment. His environmental adaptation caused him to loose all of these Afrikan physical features. As a result, his nose had to contract and become thin and narrow so that the cold could not enter, his lips also became thin and the colour and thickness of his hair had to change.

    He thus became WHITE to survive in his new cold climatic surroundings. However, a more vital adaptation took place.

    In his original Afrikan form, this human man was in-tuned with nature but in his derived European human form, he became anti-nature as a result of 20,000 years spent in the ice cold caves during the Ice Age. According to Dr. Diop, it is very clear to all the scientists in this field that the man we know conventionally today to be a White man evolved from a Black man over a period of some 20,000 years of adaptation to a different climate.

    That is the only scientific conclusion at which to arrive. If this sixth specimen has never left Afrika to people in other parts of the world and if those people in other parts of the world in different climates had not through the process of adaptation become what they are in various regions of the world, all humankind would be homogenous and all humankind would be BLACK.

    If that sixth species, that Black man, had not left Mother Afrika then the rest of the world would be just a desert; it would never have been peopled.

    The bottom-line is that the first man was BLACK and it was he who gave birth to other races of the world.

    In terms of human anthropology, there are two theories in regard to the origin of man.

    They are first; the monogenetic theory which contends that man was born in one place and subsequently became different as he migrated to populate other parts of the world. There is only one source for the origin of humankind.

    The second is the polygenetic theory, which suggests that man was born in Africa and also in Europe and Asia. In other words, there are different and several sources or locations for the origin of humankind. Africa is just one of them but NOT the primary one. At face value, the polygenetic theory may seem to make a lot of sense but under very strict scientific scrutiny and analysis, it quickly falls apart and collapses just like a deck of stacked Euro-centric, racist, supremist cards.

    There are two basic flaws in this theory; namely first, nature never creates the same being twice or it never strikes twice in its evolution.

    Second, in the animal kingdom, throughout the evolution of animals, a being was created and it either disappeared or changed somewhat or a new being was created completely.

    The same being was never created twice. And if we are to remain strictly scientific, it does not make common sense to say that man was created twice.

    This is total circular reasoning which does not even compute in the arena of historical sanity.

    In Kenya, the most ancient evolutionary information of humankind is found and it is for this reason scientists can state with certainty that man can only have been created one time.

    All fossils that were found outside Mother Afrika have only been found much recently compared to those found in Afrika.

    In fact, no other Continent contains the complete set of the six human species of man but Afrika.

    The only species that appears in America is that Homo sapiens sapiens. America was peopled through the Bering Strait at the end of the final glaciazation and it is only for that reason we find only Homo sapiens sapiens in America.

    In Asia, we have Homo erectus, Neanderthal man and Homo sapiens. In Europe, we have Homo erectus, Neanderthal man and Homo sapiens. Through their migration process from Mother Afrika to populate and civilise the rest of the world, the original Afrikans used the Suez Canal or the Isthmus of Suez to go into Asia and Eastern Europe or the Straits of Gibraltar to the north into Europe.

    It must be borne in mind that the polygenetic or polycentric theory seeks to establish a hierarchy among races and to indicate that some races are superior to others.

    This theory thus represents European anthropological supremacy at its racist zenith.

    This is all part of the manifestation of "the evil genius of Europe" in their attempt to maintain, perpetuate and strengthen their global power control intent.

    In sum, the polygenetic theory represents the Euro-centric thought process in its geo-politically coded, multi-diversified supremist context.

    It seeks to deny Afrika and Afrikans of any sense of human originality.

    It suggests that Mother Afrika and Afrikans cannot stand-alone; we need a European or Asian connection or imprimatur to make us legit. Indeed, history of humankind totally rejects this European racist and supremist master-plan.

    It must be understood that within the context of European global supremacy, Asians are regarded, treated and respected as "honorary Whites" or "quasi Europeans".

    In the United States of America, they are regarded, treated and respected as "probationary Whites".

    On the contrary view, if man has the same origin then, of course, there can be no intellectual hierarchy because all the three races of the world have the same intellectual ability and capacity.

    If the three races had different origins then one can argue that they had different intellectual capacity as a result of having a different intellectual history.

    The polygenetic theory is essential to defend the position that there must be inequality between races.

    On the other hand, the monogenetic theory supports the notion and contention that because our origins are the same then we have the same intellectual capacity.

    This theory DOES NOT contend that BLACKS are superior to Whites; that would also be false in the reverse.

    The salient fact of the matter is that no race is superior to any other; all races have the same intellectual capacity and human dignity.

    However, as a result of the original and derivative aspects of the human race, we now have two different peoples existing on the planet today.

    We have the Afrikan from the so-called "Southern Cradle" and the European from the "Northern Cradle". These are two different modern-day peoples with two different ways of life, mind-sets and value systems.

    According to Dr. Diop, the characteristics of the "Southern Cradle", Afrika, are:
    1. Abundance of Vital resources
    2. Sedentary agricultural economy
    3. Gentle, idealistic peaceful nature
    4. Matriarchal family structure
    5. Emancipation of women in domestic life
    6. Territorial state
    7. Xenophilia
    8. Cosmopolitanism
    9. Social Collectivism
    10. Material solidarity of right for each individual which makes moral or
    material misery unknown
    11. Ideal, peace, justice, goodness and optimism Literature emphasis, novel, tales, fables and comedy

    Those of the "Northern Cradle", Europe, are:

    1. Bareness of resources
    2. Nomadic hunting economy (piracy)
    3. Ferocious, war like nature with a spirit survival
    4. Patriarchal family structure
    5. Debasement/enslavement of women in domestic life
    6. City, state
    7. Xenophobia
    8. Parochialism
    9. Individualism
    10. Moral solitude
    11. Disgust for existence, pessimism
    12. Literature favours tragedy

    The fact of the matter is that as a result of this ancient Afrikan global migration and adaptation, if one were to go to any part of the world, including Europe and Asia, one would find remains, remnants and reminders of Afrikan original life forms.

    The monogenetic theory proves scientifically that Afrikans are the ancestors of Europeans.

    This theory rejects the slightest notion of Afrikan superiority; it only proves the Afrikan human originality in Mother Afrika.

    It does not represent reverse supremacy.

    The monogenetic theory coincides with the reality that in real life, there is only one original life to live, not three as the polygenetic theory contends.

    Furthermore, in the musical arena, there is only one original master copy, not three; in real life, a child has only one original mother and father, not three.

    Afrikans are the original peoples with original ideas; we are the global majority.

    Every human being on this planet, whether European, Asian, Chinese, Syrian, Indian, Portuguese or even "Dougla" is derived from the original Black, Afrikan race.

    Shem Hotep

    Dr. Nantambu is an Associate Professor, Dept. of Pan-African Studies, Kent State University, U.S.A. a Public Policy versus Human Needs
    It sounds like he's reaching a bit for some of this. Especially that list of social/ideological traits of Africans and Europeans. While it is true that Africans and Europeans have many of those ideals today, it is not true that it was always like that.

    In ancient society, many Europeans had many of the same social/ideological traits as Africans. And many Africans had social traits associated with Europeans. And while it is true that Europeans had more military technology and more wars, it is not true that Africans were peaceful in general, we had many wars of our own. And it is not true that all African societies were materially abundant.
    While 75% of humans originated from African ancestors, that doesn't really mean much racially. It doesn't hint at any kind of "racial supremacy" of Africans, nor does it mean that most humans are Black. Being 1/100,000th Black doens't make one Black unless you accept the White Supremacist theory of miscegnation.

    Hell, the Africans we evolved from aren't the same Africans of today. They were Cro-Magnons.

    Instead of concentrating on our past so much, let's focus on our present and future greatness. Otherwise we'll end up paupers reminiscing about the days when we were nobles.
    quote:
    It sounds like he's reaching a bit for some of this. Especially that list of social/ideological traits of Africans and Europeans. While it is true that Africans and Europeans have many of those ideals today, it is not true that it was always like that.

    In ancient society, many Europeans had many of the same social/ideological traits as Africans. And many Africans had social traits associated with Europeans. And while it is true that Europeans had more military technology and more wars, it is not true that Africans were peaceful in general, we had many wars of our own. And it is not true that all African societies were materially abundant.


    So this professor is wrong and your right?

    Chiek Anta Diop and Chancellor Williams are wrong as well?

    May I ask where did you get your evidence?
    quote:
    Originally posted by ZAKAR:
    quote:
    It sounds like he's reaching a bit for some of this. Especially that list of social/ideological traits of Africans and Europeans. While it is true that Africans and Europeans have many of those ideals today, it is not true that it was always like that.

    In ancient society, many Europeans had many of the same social/ideological traits as Africans. And many Africans had social traits associated with Europeans. And while it is true that Europeans had more military technology and more wars, it is not true that Africans were peaceful in general, we had many wars of our own. And it is not true that all African societies were materially abundant.


    So this professor is wrong and your right?

    Chiek Anta Diop and Chancellor Williams are wrong as well?

    May I ask where did you get your evidence?


    I just went back and re-read what he said in entirety to make sure I understood it all correctly. He's essentially saying the same thing I said. Except he adamantly believes in the mongenetic theory. I believe in a mix of the monogenetic and polygenetic theory. You might say I believe in a bigenetic or trigenetic theory.

    I believe man evolved from Congoids (I don't use the term "Negroid" because it's racist and inaccurate) and Australoids. And possibly Mongoloids as well because Central Asians and East Asians contributed a large part of humanity and there is evidence of old bones in India and Mongolia almost as old as the ones in Kenya.

    But truly, I don't see what this all has to do with Black Liberation.

    quote:
    The fourth and fifth of these species disappeared. What remains is man as we know him today B that is, the sixth species. The fifth species did not have a forehead; the eyes were situated very close to the top of the head.

    However, the brain inside this species was very different from the brain of man today. He did not have the anterior lobe of the brain. That's the major difference between Homo sapiens sapiens B what we are today and the fifth specimen.

    This species was never able to overcome nature to an extent that he was able to create works of art.

    The sixth species was a BLACK man who in pre-historic history is called Grimaldi man. He is the man whom we are today.


    I found this part a bit strange. I've never heard of this species.
    since we're sharing theories, here is more from the NOI angle regarding the origin of the races. this is taken from a 1972 theology of time lecture that elijah muhammad gave:

    quote:
    ....I did not tell you how he [the devil] got here. Yakub got his people here by killing the black baby and saving the brown, so that he could graft the brown into its last color, which is white. I will tell you right now so that you will always know how the races became races. The first race was made from Black man. The brown race was the first one to come out from grafting. The first race was brown. This race you call the Japanese people - that's the brown race. The next is a yellow race. From the yellow, the other race that you see here is white.

    The first man here was black, then when Yakub started grafting out of him to get to white, he was grafting for 200 years. For 200 years, it took him that length of time to get the brown baby out of the black.

    Yakub found that brown germ in us while studying in college. He discovered in the germ of the black man that he had a brown germ in him. He had two - we will say two babies - one brown and one black. He kept looking at that brown germ and he discovered that he could graft it out of the black man. He could take that brown germ, keep it to itself and keep grafting it until he took the brown germ out and replace it with a different color if he could just keep taking the more lighter brown one that came, keeping it to itself, and then killing off the browner and darker ones. He did that for 600 years.

    He took the brown baby, set it aside and kept every brown baby that was produced with a lighter brown color to itself. He killed off the other brown babies, made the lighter brown ones reproduce among themselves until they produced lighter and lighter babies....

    All through the grafting this was done, and everytime he grafted one, it was weaker than the others. The brown baby was weaker than his father, the black man. The brown baby was stronger than the yellow baby and the yellow baby who produced the white baby was a little stronger than the white. The closer to the father, the Blackman, of the races, the stronger and more righteous.

    The little yellow baby became kind of evil and wicked like the next brother, the white. This is the Chinese that I'm talking about [yellow]. The China man is near equal with white folks. He loves to fight, but he's braver than the white because he's back more closer to the father than the white.....

    These grafted people went [migrated] and mix[ed] with many, and by mixing with many, they produced many different colors that made many different races. I want you my beloved [readers] to remember that the white man didn't come from the same God that you came from...


    in another place he said:

    quote:
    ....6000 years ago (up from 76 trillion years ago) one of our Black scientists discovered, while practicing in the laboratory, the behavior of germs. He found in us a germ that was a little weaker than the other one. WE refer to them as black and brown. He discovered this brown germ in our black germ, so God taught me. After testing it, he found that he could make a man from the brown germ through birth control law. He went after it and it took him 600 years to bring this brown germ out of the black germ......
    quote:
    Originally posted by ZAKAR:
    I could really give a dam, what you take serious or what you believe, thats your right. But to pass some bullshyt theories some crackpot white people put out there as scientific fact, is just as much bullshyt as you say the NOI is. All the evidence you put forward, there are plenty of evidence that says the opposite.


    Uh no. Let me try this again, slowly. Evolution has evidence. Concrete, objective, empirical evidence. NOI mythology has the backing of it's members, but no concrete, objective, empirical evidence. The closests NOI scientific mythology comes to fact is a woefully distorted understanding of reccessive and dominant genes. Show me concrete, objective, empirical proof of your mythology--complete with Black people living on the moon 66 trillion years ago, and an evil scientist breeding white people over the course of 600 years 6k years ago, then I'll recant.


    objective:
    1. Of or having to do with a material object.
    2. Having actual existence or reality.
    3.
    a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic.
    b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.

    empirical:
    1. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
    2. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.



    quote:
    Originally posted by ZAKAR:
    Did you read the link i put forward??


    Yes, I did. It merely regurgitated more scientifically ignorant nonsense.

    quote:
    Originally posted by ZAKAR:
    You assume there is no racism in Science, how nieve, why would white people tell you the truth when everything they put forward is only to reinforce white supremacy.


    No, YOU assume that I assume such a thing. I know the history of biology and anthropology. I now how it was distorted and applied to social situations, a procedure even a basic science student will tell you is WRONG. There was much that was wrong in the past. However, that doesn't cancel out all that was RIGHT, and a surprisingly good part of it was right. Today we have rigid processes and methods to guard against bias and improper methods in scientific analysis. Murray and Jensen have been called on the flaws of their arguments, and no one in mainstream science pays them any heed. They are pariahs who can only gte funding the the Pioneer Fundation, which makes no effort to hide it's racist and eugenic slant. Any scientist today caught misappropriating information, faking information, or going outside the bounds of scientific ethics will NEVER have anymore credibility to their names. Their careers are ruined.

    quote:
    Originally posted by ZAKAR:
    Have you ever read any of Dr. John Henrike Clarke work, how about Dr.Chiek Anta Diop, or maybe even some of Dr. Chancellor Williams work? But you want people to except some theories white people put forth as fact.


    Yes, I have read the works of Mr. Diop; what if it? He was partially my inspiration to begin the study of ancient African civilizations. Why is everything a zero sum game for you? If I accept tested evidence handed forth by a scientist who happens to be white I must automatically disagree with a Black scientist, no matter how legitimate his arguments? If I agree with a Black scientists white scientists then are all wrong? That's how you're presenting your views in this regard. Why is it so hard to accept that evidence and facts exist independently of the person presenting them?

    quote:
    But with a name like UppityNegress, I undertand. Guilt concious? guilty about what? You keep believing everything the European tells you about your history, maybe you even believe "The Bell Curve".


    Pointless ad-hominen. I call myself Uppity Negress because my grandmother once told me about how whites would refer to Blacks with any outward measure of education, self-respect, and dignity as an "uppity negro". I wear the title with pride. For the last time, try to get it through your head that because I can accept empirical evidence irrespective of the race of person presenting such evidence does not mean I believe everything white people tell me. That's really just a retarded conclusion to come to. And for the record, I've had long, heated discussion with those Stormfront fucktards regarding the "Bell Curve" and other pieces of Bad Science. Much like you and your NOI cult buddies, when presented with actual facts that contradict their "facts" and show the research to be shaky and illigitimate, they resort to name calling or hiding. You want me to accept your mythology over "da WHITE MAN'S" science, then give me some empirical evidence. Put up or shut up.
    quote:
    Last edited {1}
    quote:
    Originally posted by 1milehi:
    quote:
    Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
    ^Now we just need hard scientific evidence to back up these claims.


    just for clarification - are you referring to the NOI theories or also the theories you and others are advancing?


    Mostly the NOI theories. At least the alternative (Evolutionary Theory) has 170 years of empirical backing behind it. The NOI "theory" is not a theory by the scientific definition of "Theory", it's a speculation. Big difference.

    Add Reply

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