The first noted objection to using the word “Negro” in connection with the “Negro,” came from Malcolm X, formerly Malcolm Little, eventually known by his enlightened moniker, El Hajj Malik El Shabazz, who always prefaced the use of the label with “so-called,” as in, “so-called Negro.” Brother Malcolm was a smart man, but self-taught, and admitted to have been deluded from his first introduction to the religion about the whole nature of Islam, the literal content of the Koran, and racial matters universally. This is because he learned everything he originally thought he knew about Islam from a Pakistani con-man and carpet peddler named Wallace Farad, or WD Fard, or Farad Muhammad and a couple of other aliases. Wallace vanished shortly after brainwashing one Elijah Muhammad (formerly Elijah Robert Poole, son of a sharecropper from Sanders Georgia) into believing the “black race” had been created by God, but the “white race” was the accidental offshoot of genetic experiments by a quasi-divine mad scientist named Yacub, who orbits the earth in a huge mothership, and the “white race” is literally the carnal manifestation of the devil as the result of Yacub’s failed experiments.
Fard had an East Indian appearance, and was a dapper dresser with perfect white teeth and dark eyes. He told followers he was born in the holy city of Mecca, and his light-skinned appearance, courtesy of his Russian Jewish mother, was “pre-ordained” so that he could more easily mix with white people. He claimed to have attended Oxford and the University of California, and then to have begun training as a diplomat for the kingdom of Hejaz (now a part of Saudi Arabia). He was drawn to the United States in order to liberate the African Americans from their “half-slave and half-free” condition. He arrived in Detroit’s Paradise Valley on July 4, 1930, in order to achieve this goal.
Fard worked the streets as silk peddler, but his real sales pitches were religious beliefs and dietary restrictions. He gained a reputation as a healer when his customers, after having adhered to the pork-free diet that Fard espoused, began noticing improvements in their health. His main goal, he often stated, was to bring salvation to African-Americans, whom he often referred to as his “lost uncle in the wilderness of North America.”
Fard taught that approximately 6,000 years ago a black scientist named Yakub conducted gene-manipulation experiments that resulted in the creation of the inferior white race. Their tainted, weakened blood was to blame for the white race’s immorality, which they frequently used to keep the black race in a perpetual state of half-freedom. His concepts attracted hundreds of followers to the Allah Temple of Islam (ATI), as he called his group.
Fard’s demise as the leader of the temple was brought upon him when, on Thanksgiving Day in 1932, one of his followers, Robert Harris, renamed Robert Karriem, committed a human sacrifice in order to bring himself closer to Allah. Karriem cited a quotation from a book entitled Secret Rituals of the Lost-Found Nation of Islam, authored by Wallace D. Fard Muhammad, which read, “The believer must be stabbed through the heart.” This quote, as well as another stating, “Every son of Islam must gain a victory from a devil. Four victories and the son will attain his reward,” convinced the Detroit Police Department — motivated in part by the anti-Muslim hysteria fueled by media coverage of the event — to seek out Fard in conjunction with the murder.
Karriem was found to be legally insane and was committed. Fard, facing possible charges, confessed that his teachings were dangerous and that he would use his influence to disband the ATI. He agreed to leave Detroit forever in order to receive immunity, and boarded a train bound for Chicago on Dec. 7.
The ATI was disbanded as ordered, though in name only; as the Nation of Islam, it continued to grow. Fard snuck back into Detroit in January 1933, but was identified by authorities, arrested in May and again ordered to leave the city.
He returned to Chicago, was arrested on charges of disturbing the peace through his preaching, and again returned to Detroit. After another brush with the law in April 1934, Fard left Detroit for good. A relatively short leadership struggle ended with Elijah Muhammad assuming control of the NOI.
The true origins of W. D. Fard remain mired in obscurity. In contrast to Fard’s story, Karl Evanzz, noted NOI authority and author of The Messenger: The Rise and Fall of Elijah Muhammad, has argued that Fard was born Wali Dodd Fard in New Zealand in 1893. His parents were Zared Fard (a New Zealander whose parents were from an area of East India that eventually became Pakistan) and Beatrice (of New Zealand’s minority British population).
Evanzz believes that Fard immigrated to the United States via Canada in 1913. He earned his living at various times as a restaurateur, gambler, bootlegger and traveling salesman. Before arriving in Detroit in 1930, under the alias of David Ford, he attained a high rank in the Moorish Science Temple, a vaguely Islam-like religion that disbanded that same year. Evanzz reported that Wallace D. Fard died in Chicago in 1971 at the age of 78.
To further muddy the waters, C.E. Lincoln, author of The Black Muslims in America, originally published in 1961, recounted a legend that described Fard as the black Jamaican son of a Syrian Moslem. Another story described Fard as Palestinian.
On the other hand, in a speech made on April 1, 2001, titled “The Greatness of Master Fard Muhammad,” the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan reiterated Fard’s origins in the Holy City of Mecca, and referred to him as the “Mahdi,” a man absolutely guided by God in the Islam faith. Farrakhan referred to the knowledge that Fard passed onto the NOI as “actual facts.” (The speech is at the Nation’s Web site at www.noi.org.)
It is important to realize that Farrakhan is the current leader of one of two main NOI factions that emerged after the Honorable Elijah Muhammad’s death on Feb. 24, 1975. Two days later, Elijah Muhammad’s son, Wallace Muhammad, was named leader of the NOI, and quickly distanced himself from certain aspects of his father’s teachings — most notably those denouncing whites as devils. Farrakhan, a high-ranking member of NOI at the time of Elijah Muhammad’s death, became disillusioned with the new direction and quit the NOI in 1978. After Wallace had renamed the group the World Community of Al-Islam (one of many name changes to follow), Farrakhan was able to reconstitute the NOI under his own auspices in 1979.
To make a long story short, Elijah Poole was born October 7, 1897 within a generation of the emancipation proclamation being signed, had no education at all, and Malcolm Little was a young thug who could have been a successful porter on the booming 30’s train lines except for greed and ambition that led him down the criminal path. In fairness, life for them as “black” men in the 1930’s was every bit as oppressive as Black Lives Matter and today’s generations of MoZoo Millennial whiners claim it is now. Little and Poole were both legitimately ignorant through no fault of their own, and the story being peddled to them by a Pakistani huckster struck home. WF, or “Wali” Farad however, it must be noted strongly, the founder of what became all variants of “Black Liberation Theology” in America, wasn’t “black.” No, we wasn’t a “Negro” at all. And he wasn’t really dark skinned in any way. A nice tan maybe. But nowhere near “black.” Best guesses place him being born in either Mecca, Saudi Arabia, or more likely, an area of India that became Pakistan. He was either Semitic, or a nicely tanned Caucasian.
Think about that irony.
More importantly, Malcolm X, and Elijah Muhammad’s son, Wallace, after actually reading the Koran and meeting actual Muslims, retracted and repudiated their previous anti-“white” statements and sentiments, and began to preach a universal, peaceful surrender to the will of Allah–who made no distinction between races or “colors.”
The current political revision of names associated with the “Negro” are not helpful. “Black” is “Negro” in Spanish and Latin-based languages. It’s simply a political manipulation, a set of sophomoric semantics games with some agenda in mind to go about parsing the difference. “People of color” is now the pop-fad tag for “non-whites,” but frankly, the older term was “colored people,” it means the same thing. “Afro-American,” came and went, and now “African-American” holds that slot. For a while certain “black” academics tried to coin the term “Africoid” particularly in discussing the “Negroid” features of Egyptian paintings etc. But “African Africans” exist in the United States and around the world, so “African-American” doesn’t work much in terms of being universal. The truth is, “Negro” has never been impolite, but now is considered to be old, stodgy, vaguely racist and stupid. But frankly, there is such a thing as a “Negro,” it ain’t “black,” it’s an actual race, not a skin color. It’s a precise, scientific classification and it still holds up as the most accurate label, insofar as any racial assessment can be entirely “accurate.” Likewise, “Caucasian” still holds up pretty well over “white,” because there is no “white” race. Granted, modern research concedes that the “white” tribes probably didn’t originate in the Caucasus mountains, but as a well-known tag it still serves a useful function. “Asian” has taken over the job of “Oriental” for some reason having to do with some vague reference to British colonialism, but really, Indians, Sikhs, Pakistani’s, Mongols, Chinese, Japanese, aren’t all the same “race.” “Asian,” is a continent, not a race.
This little dissertation isn’t really about Black Lives Matter, the Nation of Islam, or any specific group of “Negro” liberation movements through the ages. It’s really about the notion of race itself, and where races come from, and what that means, and what it matters in the end–and this from an LDS point of view. Or, to a lesser extent, from a basic Judeo-Christian point of view. The Mormon faith however, has a few more difficulties than its religious predecessors in resolving longstanding doctrinal, scriptural racial and skin-color concepts. The latest statement on the matter from the Brethren, “Race and the Priesthood,” basically says it doesn’t matter at all at this point. Still, it’s curiously rewarding on both a spiritual and intellectual plane to ponder how modern science and anthropology and archaeology figure into LDS theology. It’s problematic how past dark-skinned and “Negro” LDS doctrines conflict with longstanding Christian, Jewish, Islamic and general Western world views, even if we do agree to “forget all that stuff about the Negro.” Forgetting all that stuff about the “Negro” that we now confess was never true is one thing, but re-writing the entire history of the “Negro” just so the “black community” can feel better about the whole mess is another thing entirely–and some are determined to do it.
From the early days of American “Negro” slavery, the victims of this dehumanizing institution began a close religious identification with the Old Testament plight of the ancient Israelites, who became enslaved by the Egyptian Pharaohs. This, contrary to what you will now be told, was a religion introduced to them by the “white” man, not some ancient cultural heritage reaching back into the dawn of ancient Israel. Fairness has nothing to do with it. That’s just the way it went down. So, what has to be admitted first thing, in order to follow the degeneration of this originally purely metaphysical identification with the Hebrew slaves of ancient Egypt in the beginning, into cultic fables and the invention of a revisionist history about the very lineage and nature of the primarily western African “Negro” slaves who ended up in the US, is that they came across the pond not as civilized, practicing Jews, Muslims, or Christians. Sorry. No, they were never a single, unified clan of practicing Jews, Muslims, or Christians in West Africa before they got rounded up and sold. They were a disparate, random collection of “savages.”
American “Negro” slaves came across the Atlantic already in their second stint at bondage–first as the pagan, animistic prisoners of largely Muslim, “civilized” fellow “Negroes” who rounded up their grub-eating, varmint scavenging, subsistence-level, stone-aged neighbor village citizenry by the thousands, from all over the continent, and sold them on to the Portuguese and Spanish et cetera. No, the unfortunate reality of actual, well-recorded history concludes that American “Negro” slaves were not Pharaohs, Torah-Canting High Priests, or disciples of our Lord Jesus Christ keeping the True Faith in Godly harmony, minding their own business in a closed community in West Africa. Neither “white” men nor “Hamites” or Arab or “Negro” Muslims came out of nowhere and dragged them away from their faithful worship and brainwashed them into forgetting who they really were. (Yes, that’s the gist of the actual fable now being spun.) They were not the kings and queens of Africa. They were not the movers and shakers of a continent. They were not the best and brightest. If they were “God’s Chosen,” you’d have to wonder, “chosen for what?” and ask yourself what “god” chose them. That’s simply fact. They were savages even by “civilized,” technologically, and intellectually advanced Muslim, Christian, and Jewish standards of the region. That is specifically why they were enslaved.
More to the point, even assuming you could go back to Kunta Kinte’s village now, some hundred, two-hundred and more years later, you would still find them chasing down lizards for lunch and digging grubs and berries, hopping around with penis cones and grass skirts. His allegedly more “advanced” “Negro” neighbors with their AK-47’s and Western knowledge, would be only slightly better off, raping, pillaging, shooting up, torturing and maiming each other in traditional, tribal fashion. Whatever ills befell Kunta Kinte as a slave and captor of American, “Western” society, his offspring and descendants faired far better in America, under, through, and after slavery, than did his kinfolk back in Africa. In fact, as a modern African American, I hope you feel free to move back to Liberia any time you want, which began as a repatriation effort of president James Monroe and political associates generations ago, who felt it would be a good idea to offer to return former slaves to their “homeland.” Oddly enough, most of the the noted “educated” ex-slaves and early Civil Rights pioneers wouldn’t go. They said America owed them everything guaranteed in the Constitution like any other American. Those who went back “home” to Africa almost immediately became a permanent upper-class, ruling over the “natives” who as I say, were still chasing locusts for a snack and worshipping trees and wood-sprites. Monrovia, and Freetown Sierra Lione, another freed-slave re-colonization attempt, suffered through generations of civil wars and wars of “liberation,” and corrupt dictatorships–and still do.
There’s no particular shame in wanting to believe that you’re the progeny of Kunta Kinte, the brave Mandinka warrior, who as a free man from some proud, strong, and mighty civilization was unrighteously bound and opressed by the great White Villains. But even assuming that’s true–at least in your own mind–and you manage to prove that your venerated ancestor really was the Mighty Nimrod of some isolated, backward, micro-culture like Kunta Kinte’s back-bush little village, you are still left to admit that Kunta Kinte was by world-standards, outside of that little circle of grass huts, in all fairness, a failed Mandinka warrior who got his ass whupped and became enslaved by other “black” tribes who were bigger, smarter, stronger and braver.
What’s happened in large factions of the “black community” in the US is a sort of shame and self-denial that has so overwhelmed all sense of logic that the “Negro” has first emotionally, and then schizophrenically, changed historical, genetic, and cultural places with “God’s Chosen” as a form of mental defense mechanism, and automatic excuse for failure to achieve. In this re-invention of African-American history, the “Negro’s” suffering and status at the bottom of the social heap is a “sign” of “chosenness,” not a sign of cultural backwardness, and certainly not an indication of personal sloth or ignorance. It’s a sneaky, mentally-creeping self-loathing that emerged after a few generations from its dark place of hiding in the “black community’s” psyche, a rebuttal from the socially oppressed and intellectually crippled “Negro,” who, seeking a defendable premise for a race-wide self-image improvement, went about appropriating an extreme pride in being the oppressed, and embracing membership in a race, a culture, they never were–a people they’d rather be. It was a “feel good,” highly romanticized history, a genesis you’d be happy to be yours–even if it clearly wasn’t.
All that you and I know to be good, smart, wise, powerful, organized, orderly, influential, artful, beautiful–everything that makes the Western World what it is today, a modern “civilized” society, came primarily through the drive, direction, leadership and inspiration of “white people.” Even if you argue that they travelled the whole world and stole every good thing from every culture they encountered, it was in the end, a bunch of plain dumb white guys who put it all together and called it “Western Culture.” If you want to reject “whiteness,” you have to in effect reject all of modern civilization. Then you have to figure out what you’re going to replace it with–and even given what is usually no more than “micro-irritation” at “micro-aggressions,” you have to ask yourself if there’s really anything better out there.
The Church, from Abraham to Jesus Christ came to us today, for the purposes of this exercise, through “white people.” You can go back past all the Romanization, and the Hellenization to try to prove the Biblical Hebrews were really well tanned, but they were clearly Semitic, Western, non-“Negroes.”They were not “black” in the American sense of the word, meaning “Negro.” And even if they were pitch-black, that’s simply a skin tone, and in “scientific” terms, or even Brigham-Young’s early LDS “Curse of Cain” theology, they still wouldn’t be “Negroes.”And more to the point: The LDS restoration and American Protestantism came through some seriously “white”people. I can’t help you argue one way or another if that’s good, bad, a mix, or all down to “God’s will” and Manifest Destiny. It just happened that way. It’s a fact. It’s reality. If you believe there is a God who guides His Church–well, He seems to have guided it from some very “white” nations, through some very “white”clergies, and that arrangement has pretty much conquered the world. So you’re stuck with it.
There is no “white privilege.” There is only “privilege.” And this emanates from the completely racially neutral fact of who got there first. “White people” got there first, so sure, from your “Afro-centric” social justice perspective, you’re probably biased and ego-centric enough to think this has something uniquely to do with “whiteness.” In reality however, the remarkably and increasingly diverse world-dominating force of “Western Civilization” encountered the “Negro” some couple of hundred years ago first in Africa, as a technologically helpless, powerless, ignorant regional type of savage. And yes, Western Society exploited them as a resource just like anyone or anything else it encountered across the globe. That’s just the way it happened, that’s how the modern, Western “Negro” came to be incorporated into the present, ongoing wave of Western culture and “Enlightenment.” Now, you can either accept that, or, as many have chosen to do, invest generations of mindless, wasteful, counter-productive mental and physical energy trying to prove to yourself that this history isn’t fair, it’s all backwards, and the way to fix it is to inflate the “Negro” input into our modern world until it seems “balanced”–and then some. You can go so far as to convince yourself it was the “Negro” who founded all of that, and “white people” stole it. Or, you can acknowledge the true time of your bloodline’s entry point into the modern social system, stop whining about who got there first, who built it, and conquer it, own it, make it your own, and prosper.
African American “Reparation” activists run around claiming the entire American nation was built on the backs of their slave ancestors. The truth is, even at the height of American slavery less than 1.4% of the US population owned slaves. Some 3000 free “Negroes” owned roughly 20,000 slaves, or 28% of all free “Negroes” owned slaves, compared to only 1.4% of “whites,” and of course, all of these only in the southern states where it was legal.
“Reparation” activists will tell you that Washington DC was built on slave labor. Washington DC was however, actually built by skilled Irish, British, European and other “white” craftsmen and Scottish masons. Slave labor was used mainly to supplement unskilled construction cleanup and menial labor largely done by “whites,” like cutting stones. Sure you can say slave labor “helped” construct Washington DC, but that’s a few buildings in one city out of thousands in the US. The notion that slave labor built the entire infrastructure of our modern United States is just silly. At best, slave labor played a hit-and-miss role mostly at menial and semi-skilled labor, as a supplement to the vastly larger bulk of the non-slave workforce. Slave labor, even in the south, played only a part of building the nation. The fantasy that slave labor was the make-or-break engine of the American founding is patronizing and insulting. Nobody “owes” the American nation’s success to slave labor, not even in the construction of its capitol city.
All my Scots buddies think they’re descended from this or that great Laird of the Highlands. My Norwegian cousins all think they’re descended from Leif Erickson. In Norwegian circles, nobody’s great-great-great-great-great-great Viking grandfather ever just un-dramatically spent his life shoveling dung in some obscure fjord for a subsistence living, or lived in a simple, longhouse shed with the pigs to stay warm all winter. They all set out from huge farmsteads with massive great halls, in finely crafted great longships, to merrily go raiding England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales, inbetween discovering America and slaying dragons. In any case, likewise, in the “black community,” especially since actual geneology is so unknown in most cases, speculation was allowed to run rampant. And even the most “respectable” attempts to dig out the “true” story of the American slave, have been less than candid. For one, that whole Roots book and the two TV series that spun off of it are entirely fake, and Alex Haley’s been debunked and discredited as a plagiarist.
“Virtually every genealogical claim in Haley’s story was false,” Nobile has written. None of Haley’s early writing contains any reference to his mythic ancestor, “the African” named Kunta Kinte. Indeed, Haley’s later notes give his family name
as “Kante,” not “Kinte.”
And a long-suppressed tape of the famous session in which Haley “found” Kunta Kinte through the recitation of an African “griot” proves that, as BBC producer James Kent noted, “the villagers [were] threatened by members of Haley’s party. These turn out to be senior government officials desperate to ensure that things go smoothly.”
Haley, added Kent, “specifically asks for a story that will fit
his predetermined American narrative.”
Historical experts who checked Haley’s genealogical research discovered that, as one put it, “Haley got everything wrong in his pre-Civil War lineage and none of his plantation ancestors existed; 182 pages have no basis in fact.”
Given this damning evidence, you’d think Haley’s halo would long ago have vanished. But – given this week’s TV tribute – he remains a literary icon. Publicly, at least.
The judge who presided over Haley’s plagiarism case admitted that “I did not want to destroy him” and so allowed him to settle quietly – even though, he acknowledged, Haley had repeatedly perjured himself in court.
The Pulitzer Prize board has refused to reconsider Haley’s prize, awarded in 1977 – in what former Columbia President William McGill, then a board member, has acknowledged was an example of “inverse racism” by a bunch of white liberals
“embarrassed by our makeup.”
Yet the uniqueness of “Roots” is that it was presented as factual history, albeit with fictional embellishments. Haley himself stressed that the details came from his family’s oral history and had been corroborated by outside documents.
But Professor Henry Louis Gates of Harvard, a Haley friend, concedes that it’s time to “speak candidly,” adding that “most of us feel it’s highly unlikely that Alex actually found the village from whence his ancestors came
What really happened in America with the “Negro” however, was that after being introduced to the Bible, Christianity in general, and hearing the stories of ancient Israel, the American slave caste became increasingly more invested in identifying with the captivity, and eventual Godly liberation of the House of Israel. Excluded for the most part from Christian worship with “whites,” this identification became a strong metaphorical theme in all black churches, hymns and literature. Eventually, this theme has evolved into a literal belief that the “Negro” and specifically the very “Negroes” captured in west Africa and taken in slavery to America–specifically the US–were in fact the actual ancient Israelites who were driven from Jerusalem, and the contention that God’s own word makes this clear. Or so proponents of this revisionist fable will tell you.
(It must be noted that contrary to African American propaganda, the US received a very small portion of the slave trade, the bulk of African slaves being destined for South America, and countries like Brazil.)
Now, the Nation of Islam, and its revived version under Louis Farrakhan has a different spin on this whole theme obviously, but like the Christian and Jewish versions of this modern “Negro Israelite” theory, the Old Testament, and sometimes the New Testament, are relied upon heavily to justify these claims of “Negro” choseness. (The Nation of Islam in fact doesn’t use much of the Koran at all.) It’s this seemingly “logical” or “reasonable” warping of familiar Bible verses that makes the whole bogus notion of a “Negro” based Jewish or Christian legacy palatable to some. It can be a potential pitfall for any “black” LDS member who feels compelled to affiliate with Black Lives Matter, or any number of affiliated “Social Justice” crusaders.
While not necessarily bound by formal, written, organized central documents and dogmas, invariably, BLM and most other “black” protest groups are riddled with persons and factions deeply committed to a number of “black” pop-liberation doctrines allegedly traced to the Bible or simply “science” intended to “prove” the spiritual, genetic, cultural, or moral superiority of the “black race.” The first error of course in that, is that there is no “black race,” because they really mean “Negro race,” but refuse to say so, or have twisted scriptures into “proving” that the “black Africans” who sold them into slavery weren’t really “Negroes,” but “Hamites.” Only “real Negroes” were captured and sold to the Americans, and it is these whom they claim to be the real, original Israelites. True hard core proponents of the movement not only embrace the word “Negro” and
make the same arguments I might make for using that designation in terms of identifying the race itself–but then turn around and deliberately ignore the cultural and genetic connection between themselves, and a whole bunch of other “Negroes,” for alleged Biblical reasons. They arbitrarily divide one “Negro” tribe from others, calling them “real Negroes,” while claiming others who look like “Negroes,” aren’t really “Negroes,” meaning that only “real Negroes” are descendants of ancient Israelites. Of course, how they justify their “Negro as the ancient Israelite” claims in the first place, get to be rather circumstantial in a hurry and often it comes down to randomly pointing at Egyptian hieroglyphs and labeling people depicted there however it best suits their theories. And most of the time, they point to pure-fresh-off-the-boat African “Negroes” and segregate themselves from these so-called “Hamites,” by pointing out their own smoother facial features and lighter skin tones. (Never mind the DNA at this point.) They try to overlook the fact that they’ve been in the country for 400 years inter-breeding by force or by choice with “white” folk, and maybe that’s why they look different than African Africans…
The above carteuche is supposedly labeled “ancient Israelites in Egyptian captivity.” The light skin of these so-called “Shemites”is dismissed by the Negro-as-ancient-Israelite theorist as a “variant.” Honestly. They don’t look very Negroid to me. Particularly the noses. They look Semitic. If this is the best evidence they’ve got, I don’t even see the “Shemites” looking very black at all, much less “Negroid.” And these other very black depictions the author calls “Hamites,” and dismisses them as worthless savages. The very white guy he calls, er, a “white guy.”
In the most Christianized versions of the “Black Israelite” cult of course, they take this revisionist strategy up to Jesus of Nazareth, whom they accept as the Savior, the Messiah, but not a “white” fake-Jew, like they claim inhabit Israel today. Jesus they assert was “black,” and for the most part by this they mean a “Negro.” He is the Negro Messiah, who died to save the Negro–the true House of Israel. Oddly enough, most of the cranks linked above have also decided that dark-skinned Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, and a bunch of other dark-skinned races are also originally ancient Israelites. They come to this conclusion by reading Bible verses, and looking at pictures. One of the most transparently stupid claims made by some of these characters, is that American “Negroes”–descendants of slaves, never came from Africa. They were kidnapped by Africans after being driven from their homeland in Israel, and sold into slavery and then stripped of all memory of their true Hebrew culture and religion.
Again, so much for the DNA studies.
Under all of these theologies lies the claim that the “white race” or “races,” were all barbarians who came down from the north and “took all our stuff.” “White” tribes these hyper-“Negro” theologians claim, are uniquely evil by nature and persecute God’s chosen not because the Negro is inferior culturally, militarily, intellectually, or spiritually, but by guile, cunning, and one sort of dirty trick or another, by sheer force of stupid numbers, or sometimes as a punishment from God for the Negro Israelites being weak and wicked. The specifics don’t even matter in terms of the desired effect: “black” separatism, a dependence upon the ministry preaching it, and the mindless hating of all “white” people. Eventually these world views all culminate in the destruction and subjugation of the “white race” by God’s chosen “Negroes.” This is not considered racism, because “racism” has been dumbed-down and re-defined to mean anything that a “white” person does that annoys a “black” person. This is a specifically “black” subset of the several “Social Warrior” mentalities, which as I say, range all over the Leftist social cause map. It is maintained that “black” people are incapable of being “racist,” because they have no power in the society so they can’t be an oppressor.
I’d summarize this overview of “black social justice” theories, by saying that at one level or another you will find yourself surrounded by and associated with all of these “black” belief systems at nearly any gathering of any brand of “Social Justice” activism. Though not terribly up-front in discussions across the whole “black community,” these attitudes are very prevalent in those elements who have chosen to form BLM-type coalitions. (As I’ve said before, the term “Social Justice” is also used to label a whole Leftist gamut of LGBT/feminist/income equality movements that may also be incorporated into your attempts at “black activism” whether you like it or not.)
Where did this “black” Jesus, “Black Hebrew Israelite” gibberish come from? Clearly it originated in the Nation of Islam (which I remind you has nothing whatsoever to do with real Islam) and was then permutated by one or two spinoffs into its Christian and Jewish forms directly to the credit of one Hulon Mitchell Jr in the late 1970’s and early ’80’s.
Hulon Mitchell Jr, a son of a Holiness Pentecostal preacher and former NOI member. He later proclaimed himself to be God and had a cult following of nearly 20,000 members in 45 cities. Michell was a handsome, charismatic speaker, known for his flowing white robes and jeweled turbans. He controlled a multimillion-dollar business empire that included schools, grocery stores and real estate. His message of black empowerment and black superiority resonated with his supporters. The ranks of his cult were not only made up of the poor and the uneducated, but many of his members were college educated, professionals and even in law enforcement. Membership was as diverse as fraternity boys, sheriff’s deputies, grandmothers, and ex-cons fresh out of prison. Mitchell claimed that he was the “Original Jew,” and taught that blacks were the “true Jews.” He taught his followers that African Americans were one of the missing 12 tribes of Israel, driven
from their homeland. He taught his flock that God was black, as were the heroes of the Old Testament. He proclaimed himself as the black messiah. He named himself Yahweh ben Yahweh, Hebrew for “God, son of God.” He would lead the Black Hebrews back to the promised land of Jerusalem so they could establish their kingdom on earth. He soon focused his religion on a hatred of white people and urged his followers to murder “white devils” and bring him back body parts, a sliced-off ear, finger, or head, as proof of the kill.
So then, was Jesus “black?” No. But more importantly, why does Jesus have to be “black” in your world view? Why is this such a compelling need? Anglo-Europeans drew and painted Him the way they thought people of great stature looked–like Europeans. OK, so obviously he wasn’t Anglo-European. He wasn’t a “white guy.” You win. Leave it at that–He was whatever He was, and it definitely wasn’t a “Negro.” That entire silly notion was invented in the disturbed imagination of a failed Nation of Islam convert who, looking for his own race-baiting franchise, fabricated his own shtick to gain converts to his own independent cult operation in 1979. Then he went around killing “white” people.
Jesus was a Semite. He was Semitic. Semites had a fairly wide range of facial features and skin tones. Some are pretty dark, but the ancient Israelites were not “Negroes,” they were Semites. One of the telling proofs against the whole asinine Black Jesus/Black Israelite fable is that when you dig up 2000-4000 year-old bones from crypts around the area, (and they’re all still there, all still full of dead ancient Israelites,) you don’t come up with any Negroes. You come up with Semites, like the ones reconstructed in the associated photos here.
Where did the Semites come from? Good question. Supposedly the offspring of Shem, son of Noah, who begat Arphaxad, who is also noted in some Jewish traditions to have become Melchizedek, King of Salem. He’s not listed in the Bible as carrying a pedigree from Africa, however. Here’s the best discourse I have on that, including a map of where the Semitic language group has been spoken:
The original homeland of all ancient Semitic peoples, including Hebrews, was not northern Arabia, as is currently believed, but northwestern Mesopotamia. Around 6,0004,000 years B.C., an ecological catastrophe in the Black Sea area forced the IndoEuropean tribes to migrate outward in all directions. On their way to the south and the south-east, the Indo-Arians displaced and partially mingled with the Hurrians of Eastern Anatolia. In turn, arianized Hurrians first displaced the Eastern
Semites (Akkadians) from the upper courses of Tigris, and then, at the end of the 3rd millennium B.C., occupied the land of Western Semites (Amorites) in the upper courses of Euphrates. The referencing by the Bible of Harran as the original birthplace of Abraham is the indirect evidence of these ethnic changes. The last wave of Western Semites (Arameans) in 12-11 centuries B.C. was also caused by the movements of Hurrians and Indo-Europeans in northwestern Mesopotamia.
The Bible concretely designates the fatherland of the Jewish patriarchs, specifying the region surrounding the city of Haran which was situated approximately 30 km to the southwest of today’s Turkish city Sanliurfa (ancient Edessa), not far from the border with Syria. The biblical texts unambiguously show that the city of Ur in Sumer, from which Abraham came into Canaan (Palestine), was never his place of birth. Moreover, on the way to Canaan, the family of Abraham and his father Terah, stopped for a long time in the place of their birth, Haran.3 This is where Terah died and the clan leadership was transferred to his son – Abraham. Later, the Bible again recalls that the native land of the ancient Jewish forefathers was not Canaan, but Haran, in northwestern Mesopotamia
–Dr. Igor P. Lipovsky
Where did the Ancient Semites come from?
Just for reference, Adam was not a “Negro” either. The argument that would make him one comes from a mix of revisionist fantasy and secular science. It’s nothing to do with the Jewish, Christian, or even Islamic canon, and nothing to do with ancient traditions connected with any of these three religions, even though the proponents of the “Black Jesus,” “Black Abraham,” “Black Adam” cults would have you believe all three were founded by “Negroes,” (“True” Negroes that is,) and the scriptures and prophets of all three clearly support the notion. I’m not going to argue my way from Adam to 1979 when it’s just simpler to say that the whole theory was made up, pulled out of some religious huckster’s backside in 1979 and its origins are clearly documented in above arguments, and easily found in a net search.
We must admit however, Biblically, and even in modern LDS canon, the whole race thing gets very murky. Was the Garden of Eden in northern Mesopotamia? Daviess County Missouri? I just don’t care, so I won’t argue that further. But either way, it was not, Biblically speaking, in Africa. Did races get supernaturally designated when the languages were scrambled at the Tower of Babel? Who knows?
And likewise, Biblically speaking, all the “Africans” and everyone else got killed off in the Great Flood–Negroes or not, so it’s just Noah and his immediate family we have to pinpoint. Which brings us back, Biblically speaking, and LDS Standard Works-speaking, to that one genetic line through Ham, son of Noah:
26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.
27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;
As Latter-day Saints then, I guess we agree canonically with the secular consensus that at one time, and in our case, originally, the Egyptian empire was founded by “Negroes.” Or at least, that has been the universal LDS belief to date–assuming it has not been quietly changed by a memo on lds.org’s news bulletin page. This line of Pharaohs came through the maternal line via Egyptus, a descendant of Cain, a “Negro.”
21 And it came to pass that the Lord showed unto Enoch all the inhabitants of the earth; and he beheld, and lo, Zion, in process of time, was taken up into heaven. And the Lord said unto Enoch: Behold mine abode forever.
22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.
You could fairly say then, that 4000 years ago the “Negro” of Egypt was sitting in the cat-bird’s seat of civilization. But I’m not going to wade through all of that again either. It’s just a fact. There is nothing inherently marvelous about it one way or another. The question is: What have you, as a self-boasted, “chosen,” “Negro” race done since ancient Egypt? If you are indeed God’s chosen, descendant from this self-professed great race of world-conquering “Negroes,” OK. But really, it’s been more than 4000 years. Are you still blaming your woeful fall from world domination on GW Bush?
Therefore, if you’re going to argue that all of modern science says all mankind and all civilization began in Africa, and that’s what you’re going to go with to prove Adam and Eve were “Negroes,” and Abraham was a “Negro” and so forth, then don’t be disappointed when I don’t buy your quasi-Biblical arguments and pseudo-science when you’re well off the mark of all the empirical evidence, unanimously disproving your other wacky theories, like the abundance of DNA evidence that soundly mocks your “Negro” Hebrew Israelite nonsense. Because in some cases, the science is pretty clear. The fact is, the genealogy, the histories, the DNA, the records of priesthood ascension in the existing “Jewish” communities around the world are very conclusively indicative of a very non-“Negro” homeland, religion, culture, and family tree.
So let’s instead get to something thoroughly entwined in the “Black Israelite” theology that’s more recent, really stupid, and a myth we can actually verify scientifically. Are “white” European Jews “real” Jews, with bloodlines to their Abrahamic forefathers, or are they the descendants of the so-called “Kazar” converts in the 8th to 12th century or so? This is largely an anti-Zionist political argument, because the so-called Palestinians would lay claim to Israel by “right of return” and deny these “fake” Jews by the same blood-connection rules. It’s not strictly a religious question of faith. But I would remind the Latter-day Saint that as Mormons we’re pretty much “Zionists” and absolute boosters for the modern state of Israel. So, can we as Latter-day Saints even toy with the notion that half the population of Israel, the “Ashkenazi” or European Jews, could be “fakers” with no valid, blood-right to the Promised Land?
Basically, no. Short answer.
DNA studies trace “Jewish” bloodlines throughout all of these “fake” Jews, concluding that they all had at least a mother or more commonly a father, of original Semitic/Hebrew/Israelite heritage all along the family tree. These are not just “white” converts with no blood connections to father Abraham. They intermarried, yes. That doesn’t cut them out of the bloodline.
The theory that all or most Ashkenazi (“European”) Jews might be descended from Khazars (rather than Semitic groups in the Middle East) dates back to the racialism of late nineteenth century Europe, and was frequently cited to assert that most modern Jews aren’t descended from Israelites and/or to refute Israeli claims to territory also sought by Palestinians. It was first publicly proposed in lecture given by Ernest Renan on January 27, 1883, titled “Judaism as a Race and as Religion.” It was repeated in articles in The Dearborn Independent in 1923 and 1925, and
popularized by racial theorist Lothrop Stoddard in a 1926 article in the Forum titled “The Pedigree of Judah”, where he argued that Ashkenazi Jews were a mix of people, of which the Khazars were a primary element. Stoddard’s views were “based on nineteenth and twentieth-century concepts of race, in which small variations on facial features as well as presumed accompanying character traits were deemed to pass from generation to generation, subject only to the corrupting effects of marriage with members of other groups, the result of which would lower the superior stock without raising the inferior partners.” This theory was adopted by British Israelites, who saw it as a means of invalidating the claims of Jews (rather than themselves) to be the true descendants of the ancient Israelites, and was supported by early anti-Zionists.
And the science:
Not only did the genetic researchers corroborate the oral history of an ancient Jewish priestly caste, but they also confirmed the genetic link between both Sephardic and Ashkenazi populations, indicating that before the two populations separated, those who shared the CMH also shared common Israelite ancestry. Today, the CMH is considered not only the standard genetic signature of the priestly Cohanim, but also the yardstick by which all Jewish DNA is compared for determination of Israelite genetic ancestry. Thus, if a haplogroup is not shared by both Sephardim and Ashkenazim at a similar frequency, then it is generally not considered to be of Israelite origin.
Part of the problem of “Jewishness” has to do with the tradition of passing the religion along via the maternal line, not the paternal. That’s a recent invention. In the case of the Ashkenazi Jews, it seems their particular diasporatic pattern of community and family centered around a male Israelite, usually Sephardic, (from around Spain) taking on a local European wife. So on the one hand, if you’re a neo-NAZI you can argue that this is not a valid claim to being a “real” Jew relative to any offspring of this union because of a “Gentile” mother. On the other hand, scientifically speaking, it’s a completely valid, genetically verifiable bloodline. According to the Torah, and the earlier Aaronic Priesthood tradition, priesthood authority is passed down the bloodline father-to-son. So in any case, the priesthood claim of authority would be more than valid amongst the Cohanim, the priesthood line of the Ashkenazi. And also please note that this particular study definitely disproves the bogus “Kazar” fake-Jewish convert lie.
Overall, we estimate that most (>80%) Ashkenazi mtDNAs were assimilated within Europe. Few derive from a Near Eastern source, and despite the recent revival of the ‘Khazar hypothesis’16, virtually none are likely to have ancestry in the North Caucasus. Therefore, whereas on the male side there may have been a significant Near Eastern (and possibly east European/Caucasian) component in Ashkenazi ancestry, the maternal lineages mainly trace back to prehistoric Western Europe. These results emphasize the importance of recruitment of local women and conversion in the formation of Ashkenazi communities, and represent a significant step in the detailed reconstruction of Ashkenazi genealogical history.
The Khazarian theory–which historians and scientists now believe should more accurately be called a myth—was more recently recycled (to great applause by anti-Israeli activists and some pro-Palestinian groups) in no less convincing form by Israeli French historian Shlomo Sand in The Invention of the Jewish People, published in 2008—a book panned by both historians andgeneticists.
Elhaik reengaged the controversy late last year when the Oxford journal Genome Biology and Evolution published his study, “The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses.” The young Jewish researcher challenged the so-called “Rhineland hypothesis”—the broadly accepted genetic and historic evidence that about 80 percent of Jewish Ashkenazi males trace their ancestry to a core population of approximately 20,000 Eastern European Jews who originated in the Middle East. Elhaik wrote that the Khazars converted to Judaism in the eighth century, although historians believe and genetic evidence confirms that only a fraction of the population converted, including almost certainly royalty and some members of the aristocracy.
A paper published in 2000 by geneticist Harry Ostrer, a professor of genetics at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, and University of Arizona geneticist Michael Hammer showed that most Ashkenazis, Italians, North Africans, Iraqi, Iranian, Kurdish and Yemenite Jews share common Y-DNA haplotypes that are also found among many Arabs from Palestine, Lebanon and Syria. Only a small percentage of the Y-DNA of Jews originated outside of the Middle East—some in the Caucuses.
The competing Rhineland and Khazarian theories were most recently discussed by Ostrer in two studies published in 2012 and in his well received book, Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People. He found that geographically and culturally distant Jews still have more genes in common than they do with non-Jews around them, and that those genes can be traced back to the Levant, an area including modern-day Israel. “All European [Ashkenazi] Jews seem connected on the order of fourth or fifth cousins, Ostrer has said.
The concept of the “Jewish people” remains controversial. The Law of Return, the Israeli law that established the right of Jews around the world to settle in Israel and which remains in force today, was a central tenet of Zionism. The DNA that links Ashkenazi, Sephardi and Mizrahi, three prominent culturally and geographically distinct Jewish groups, could conceivably be used to support Zionist territorial claims —except, as Ostrer has pointed out, some of the same markers can be found in Palestinians, distant genetic cousins of the Jews, as well. Palestinians, understandably, want their own ‘right of return’.
That disagreement over the interpretations of Middle Eastern DNA also pits Jewish traditionalists against a particular strain of secular Jewish ultra-liberals who have joined with anti-Israeli Arabs and many non-Jews to argue for an end to Israel as a Jewish nation. Their hero is the Austrian-born Shlomo Sand—and now Elhaik. His study gained buzz in neo-Nazi websites and radical anti-Israeli and more radical pro-Palestinian blogs.
And then in the same article I found this little LDS faith-promoting nugget:
Unlike Christianity and Islam, Judaism is not solely a faith-based religion. Its origins, as is the case with the other prominent surviving ancient religion, Zoroastrianism, are tribal. The blood connections mentioned endlessly in the Hebrew Bible are not just symbolic; the Jews of ancient Israel were a clan of connected tribes who coalesced over hundreds of years. While Jesus and later Mohammad transformed the notion of “blood” into “faith”—one could become a Christian or Muslim through faith alone—Judaism has always retained an ancestral component.
In the Torah, that blood link is patrilineal, passed on from father to son. That tradition is preserved today in the Jewish priesthood, known as the Aaronite line. According to the Bible (and we have no way to know if this is historical or apocryphal), Aaron was anointed as the first Jewish priest and his sons and their descendants became the seed population of the Jewish priesthood. Jewish Cohanim—the word means ‘priests’ in Hebrew—supervised the inner sanctum until the destruction of the Second Temple in the first century, after which the Aaronite line was preserved by tradition, with Cohanim having special privileges and responsibilities to this day.
Are present day Cohanim descended from Aaron? That question is unanswerable; we do not even know for certain that Aaron or Moses even existed. However, DNA studies of the Y chromosome have determined that a majority of self-proclaimed Cohanim (it’s an oral tradition) has a set of genetic markers that trace back approximately three thousand years to a single common ancestor. In other words, if there was no Aaron, there was certainly a High Priest early in the Jewish tradition whose ancestors have retained evidence of that tradition in their DNA.
DNA Tester: 75 Percent of Jews Trace Ancestry to Middle East Founder of U.S.-based company says that anti-Jewish polemics can’t hide the science proving that Jews did indeed originate from the region.
“We’re not interlopers who came here from Eastern Europe, and we’re not Serbs or Kazars,” says Greenspan. “You can use whatever polemic you want to discredit the Jews or discredit the nation, but saying that we weren’t here is a lie.”
Greenspan was referring to the controversial book written by Tel Aviv University historian Shlomo Sand, which asserts that the Jews of today did not originate in this part of the world and that a “nation-race” of Jews never existed. Most of today’s Jews, he argues in “The Invention of the Jewish People” (2008), are the descendants of people who lived elsewhere in the world and were converted to Judaism. However, a major study published two years later by Harry Ostrer, a medical geneticist from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, claims that many contemporary Jews do, indeed, have a distinctive genetic signature and can trace their ancestry back to the Middle East.
Greenspan delivered a guest lecture in Israel on Wednesday at the Netanya Academic College on the DNA of the Jews. Nothing more than a bit of saliva, insists the entrepreneur and genealogy enthusiast, is required to prove the similarities in the genetic make-up of most Jewish men and women, and that’s because their ancestors once lived the same place. In response to a question from Haaretz, Greenspan said he estimates that “No less than 75 percent of Ashekanzi, Sephardi or Mizrahi Jews, their ancestors came from what we call the general Middle East” – an assessment which he says is based on his company’s database.
I was going to wrap this up with a list of false religious and social beliefs spread through these perverted “Black Supremist” religious cults into the “Social Justice” and “Black Community Organizer” cultures. You know how it generally goes:
1–All white people are racist.
2–All white cops are racist, and even black cops aren’t “black,” they’re “blue,” which is also “white.”
4–White people are just as racist today as they ever were and it’s just as bad in America as it ever was.
5–Black people are forced into violent criminal lifestyles by the “white power structure” that prevents them from any meaningful achievement, political, or social power.
6–There is a war on against black males. Cops and white people kill black men by the hundreds every day.
7–Jews are the worst of all “white” people.
Bla bla bla bla bla….
But frankly, I’m tired of typing to myself. If you haven’t bothered to read deeply enough into my work, or if you just can’t see the folly and self-destructive nature of these sorts of social-failure, self-justifying fables, or if you can’t even admit or see that you’re surrounded by them every time you’re in a group of “Social Justice Warriors,” I’m wasting time for both of us. And all you’re doing for yourself is perpetuating hate and insuring you’ll be on the losing side of a race war you’re starting on yourselves.
If you can embrace any of these intellectually and spiritually dishonest central principles and still call yourself LDS, I guess that’s between you and the Lord and I’ll leave it at that.