Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:45, 24 March 2005

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This is the original version of this article, which was replaced by a differing opinion:

Some believe that there is no such thing as black supremacy; if there were, "Black Supremacy" groups, the government would have intervened. If anything, it's more like Black mobilization after centuries of brutality by whites. Black people want to live free of the continued subjective internalized hatred that they are met with on a daily basis. This hatred towards Blacks is were the Black Panthers and the Black Muslim party sprung from; not any notion of black supremacy. The white groups adhere to the supremacy as a way on instilling their racialized mytholgies of supremacy due to skin color.

I have re-inserted these comments into the article, editing them to present them as a point of view under the NPOV policy. -- Anon.

---

I disagree. We must not present these statements as facts. Some irrational people truly believe that the world is flat, but this has no place as an equal point of view in an article on the Earth. Rather, that point of view should only be a minor point in an entry; this point should then link to a section on paranoia, pseudo-science and conspiracy theories. Simiarly, some American blacks (a very small percent of the community, to be sure.) deny that racism exists in the black community. They sometimes claim that some supposed pro-white government wouldn't allow these black supremacists to exist. This claim is just plain false, as well as a bit paranoid, and only tells us that some people really are too deep into conspiracy theory. Other black racists in America claim that racism can only exist among those with political power and money, and since blacks (on the average) earn less than whites, black people by definition cannot be racist. Obviously, this claim is incoherent as well as. Plenty of black people have money and power; and plenty of black people are racist. I have personally witnessed black Nation of Islam rallies which were scary as hell, due to the hatespeech they spewed towards all white people, as well as Jews and mainstream blacks. RK

I concur with you that this article should mention the existence of these beliefs, but the article should not imply that this is a mainstream view among black people. They should be presented as a minority view, usually spread by the Nation of Islam and the New Black Panthers; the article should then link to the proper sections on racism and conspiracy theory. RK

Hold up a minute. These views were never presented as being part of the black mainstream --though, in my experience, they are far more widely held to some degree than a lot of nonblacks would suspect -- which is precisely why I thought such an article would/should be of interest to Wiki readers. And, no. Not all folks who subscribe to all or some of, say, Melanin Theory or Frances Cress Welsing's Theory of Color Confrontation, are members of organized groups -- not by far. Many are relatively apolitical black folks. Don't try to pigeonhole people into readily identifiable organizations because you think they fit a particular mold or because it makes you comfortable to write them off as lunatics. Black people are no different from anyone else -- e.g., not all white folks who believe in black inferiority/white supremacy are memberse of the KKK or some other group -- not by far. I've got to get back to work, and so I haven't read any of the changes. But I'll do so later on in the week, after I've knocked out a couple of deadlines. deeceevoice 14:16, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please feel free to do so. I also invite the original poster to comment more on this. -- Anon.

I removed this paragraph until someone can re-write it:

Some people believe that there is no such thing as "black supremacy"; they believe that if there were, "Black Supremacy" groups, the government would have intervened. If anything, they consider it to be more like Black mobilization after centuries of brutality by whites. They say "Black people want to live free of the continued subjective internalized hatred that they are met with on a daily basis". According to them, this hatred towards Blacks is what the Black Panthers and the Black Muslim party sprung from; not any notion of black supremacy. In their opinion, the white groups adhere to the supremacy as a way on instilling their racialized mytholgies of supremacy due to skin color.

I removed it simply because it does not make sense. Are the "some people" in question claiming that Blacks are not superior to Whites; that no race is superior to any other race; or that there is no organized movement among Blacks that espouses "Black supremacy?" Who exactly are these people -- do they themselves representa a movement? Are they historians? Politicians?

Also, I don't get the "debate" over the origin of the BP. Yes, it is a question whether the BP officially espoused Black supremacy -- I do not know, this is a straightforward empirical question. But this paragraph is trying to account for the origins of the BP -- certainly it is possible that BP arouse BOTH as a response to White racism AND as a celbration of Black supremacy. I am not saying this is the case, I am just saying that they two "causes" are by no means mutually exclusive.

Also, does nay one know more histoyr? I cannot believe this article begins with the 1960s -- shouldn't Marcus Garvey at least be mentioned? Slrubenstein

Garvey's UNIA was not a black supremacist movement and did not teach/preach black superiority over whites. Ditto for the Black Panther Party for Self-defense and the Nation of Islam. deeceevoice 21:18, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The BHI information is obviously cut and pasted since the contributor didn't bother to even remove the "31" footnote number. But I don't find it with Google. -- Zoe

Melanin: superconductor vs. semiconductor

There's been an interesting exchange in Superconductor with regard to an egregious cognitive glitch I made in editing this piece. (I meant to explain that, contrary to Melanin Theory, melanin is a semiconductor, rather than a superconductor. Instead, I continued to use "superconductor" (which makes no sense). I've since recognized my error and made the appropriate changes in this article and related others. I also did some checking on the Internet with regard to Melanin Theory. There are references to it on various Afrocentric websites that properly refer to melanin as a semiconductor, so I have to assume that the "superconductor" business is simply a corruption/misapprehension of MT that has taken place over time. I've also made appropriate edits in this article to reflect this fact. deeceevoice 12:07, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Melanin and Parkinson's disease

Can anyone provide information on whether or not there is any correlation between levels of melanin in the skin and in the substantia nigra? Appended to a paragraph on Parkinson's and melanin is the statement, " Possibly related, there is also a higher incidence of Parkinson's disease in whites than in blacks." I wrote this because a "race"-based variation in the incidence of the disease pointed to a possible correlation. But I could find nothing of this on the Internet. Someone in another discussion raised this point (rather intemperately), and some clarification would be useful. If there definitively is none, then the piece should definitively state that. deeceevoice 09:47, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Go get this book In the blood: god, genes, and destiny by Steve Jones. On pg. 193 he mentions there are "suggestive but inconclusive" associations between melanin and resistance to Parkinson's Disease. As far as I know that's the only reference I found. Maybe somebody will find more source from this reference. I wouldn't add it in outright though as it can very well be heresay Wareware 11:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hm-m. Interesting. Thanks. Guess the poster in the melanin forum was just blowing steam and didn't know what the hell he was talking about. I'm not famililar w/Jones, but I Googled him. I don't think Jones' information would be "hearsay"; he's a well respected scientist and author. I think I'll add it to the article, and perhaps someone else more familiar with the subject can expand on it, if they so desire. deeceevoice 11:47, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What I meant was that we don't know in what context Steve Jones was talking about this correlation between melanin and Parkinson's. He could very well be repudiating this notion. Again, the only source I knew that Steve Jones wrote something about this was from a two-sentence mention from Afrocentrism by Stephen Howe. So we basically don't really know if Steve Jones is supporting, disapproving, writing from original research, or simply mentioning this correlation. I'm not challenging his credentials or position, it's just that we simply don't know the context. I guess that means somebody needs to pick up the book and actually turns to that page. Wareware 00:49, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Again, somebody needs to pick up the book and find in what context is Steve Jones talking about the relationship between melanin and Parkinson's disease. I'm afraid mentioning his name and the quote is not enough and may be very misleading. Wareware 04:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits reverted by Deeceevoice

I changed and then you reverted the section:

"Melanin is, in fact, an organic semiconductor. It is also a neuropeptide, a polymeric substance that conducts electrical impulses in the neural networks of some living creatures, including humans. It also mediates the conduction and absorption of light and heat. As such, it is the subject of intense interest in biotech research and development, most notably in plastic electronics and nanotechnology. Researchers postulate that melanin, in both its organic and synthesized forms, may be among a number biopolymers that one day could routinely supplant conventional, inorganic materials like gallium arsenide and silicon in some high-tech devices such as microchips."

This is just incorrect misinformation I'm afraid.... Firstly melanin and other organic semiconductors will never be used as a substitute for GaAs or Si in microchips. ever. The electron mobility in organic molecules is just far too low. It is not a substitute for these materials in any way. Secondly where is melanin used in nanotechnology? Really I don't think that it is at all, or ever has been. Also you are misapplying the word "biotechnology" here as this field has nothing to do with organic semiconductors. The sentence " It also mediates the conduction and absorption of light and heat." really REALLY needs to go, it is completely irrelevant to any applications of melanin either commercially or biologically and is worded very improperly for a scientific statement. Furthermore it is not entirely clear that melanin "conducts electrical impulses in the neural networks of some living creatures..."

Now on to your other reversion: "There are some blacks who today believe that, because blacks are the most ancient human beings on Earth"

What I object to here DC, is not that "black people" (more appropriately, Africains) were the first humans to arrive in the evolutionary tree, it is the statement that "blacks are the most ancient human beings on Earth" which needs a bit of a tweaking. To say that black people today are more or less "ancient" than other racial groups implies a "static state" of evolution which simply does not exist. We have all been evolving since the first humans appeared and current "blacks" are likely just as far (evolutionarily speaking) from the first "ancient" humans as say...south east asians are.

I really must insist upon citations if we are to keep the reversion you applied to the melanin/semiconductor section though. (ps. I hope,HOPE that you aren't getting your info from this crazy site. That site is so full of scientific inaccuracy and outright falsehood it makes me feel dirty just linking to it! :o) It's made by some guy who calls himself a doctor and sells all sorts of crazy hair growth potions .--Deglr6328 00:02, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I haven't even bothered to follow the link you provided, because I don't think it has anything to do with where I retrieved my information. I've been visiting a number of sites on the web to obtain information. The 2004 International Symposium on Environmental Nanotechnology featured at least one presentation on the use of (plant-derived) melanin in nanotechnology. Google it; you'll find articles and references to melanin films (nanocoatings and nanocells). I've seen references to nanotech and melanin dealing with innovations in the textile and clothing industry and all sorts of potential applications -- including as a polymeric coating in microchips. Melanin (plant- and animal based, synthetic and natural) is an "amorphous semiconductor threshold switch," that electroluminesces when it switches. This has been known for 30 years. (If you dispute/question this basic information, I'm pretty sure I can dig up a link to the article, if you'd like.) This research website at the University of Queensland, Australia, may be of interest. They are focusing on melanin research, investigating in a wide variety of possible applications, including nanotech: http://softsolids.physics.uq.edu.au/our_research.html

I also contributed info in this vein to the article on melanin. There may be something there that I haven't mentioned here.

With regard to the business about black people being the oldest humans on the planet, it is true in the sense that the very first human beings were black Africans. Geneticist Spencer Wells, who specializes in genetics and population studies (The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey), describes San (bushmen) has having "oldest DNA on the planet"). Now, I know, of course, that humankind has changed somewhat over time, but that's hardly the point. I am describing a belief grounded in scientific fact. The same is true with Melanin Theory. It's a postulation grounded in scientific fact. It may be hogwash; it may be "pseudoscience," but it is what it is. It is not presented here as fact; merely presented and explained.

I've got some terrible deadlines this weekend and early into the week. But I'll check back for questions, comments, when I can. Hope you find my response at least somewhat helpful. And sorry if I, perhaps, haven't addressed all your issues; but I'm really pressed for time at the moment. Peace. deeceevoice 03:43, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You said- "I am describing a belief grounded in scientific fact. The same is true with Melanin Theory. It's a postulation grounded in scientific fact. It may be hogwash; it may be "pseudoscience," but it is what it is. It is not presented here as fact; merely presented and explained."

Uhhh, say again? It was indeed presented here as fact. And it was quite wrong. One single article does not constitute "intense interest in biotech research and development, most notably in plastic electronics and nanotechnology." It is really currently quite a backwater in conductive organic compound research, there are materials with far better properties for research purposes.

also, you say "Now, I know, of course, that humankind has changed somewhat over time, but that's hardly the point. I am describing a belief grounded in scientific fact." huh? That IS the point! Something is either scientifically factual or it is not. Saying that "black people are more ancient" than other groups is inaccurate. Perhaps certain aspects of current african inhabitants have changed less (retention of dark skin for instance) since ancient times, than other racial groups (say...eskimos) but that does not make current africans "more ancient". Perhaps it might be permissable to say (I'm not certain) that modern african people are more closely genetically related to these ancient groups but by definition, we are all modern humans today.

I trust that your knowlege in the areas of africain-american history are more accurate than mine though I am not so convinced regarding your knowledge about scientific issues. As you yourself recently admonished another user for being too obstinate saying "you can't know everything" perhaps we can have an agreement here that other users might know a bit more on the subject?--Deglr6328 04:35, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deglr, reading comprehension. Melanin Theory is presented as precisely what it is -- and not as fact. And "one single article"? I read several different sites before I wrote the material on nanotechnology, semiconductivity, etc. I'm not wedded to any specific language in this piece, but I think it important to explain what black supremacy is and how it differs from white supremacy; also to explain what Melanin Theory is, how it relates to black supremacy, what is and is not known about the properties of melanin in this context, and how Melanin Theory is regarded by the mainstream -- all of which I have attempted to do. Before people start excising wholesale sections of text, it would be wise to discuss questions here. While I may not have a perfect understanding of the scientific aspects of melanin research, I've at least done reading from various sources on the subject. Have you? deeceevoice 01:16, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes I have actually. To be honest I couldn't possibly care less about the difference between white/black supremacy, it bores me utterly and I'd much rather leave those battles to those who care about such things. Again, CITE articles where you are getting your information if you're gettting it from the web. It only takes a few seconds! I am concerned here, merely with the scientific accuracy of portions of the article which relate to hard science. As it was, there were egregious errors in the science content of this article. They're mostly gone now, as someone else removed them. What caused me to initially suspect there was inaccurate science content in this and other articles, was your insistance in the superconductor article that melanin is a SUPERconductor (and you reacted rather nastily when your edit was rightly reverted, to the point that you instantly suggested racism was at work and began to actually antagonize other users, suggesting that they "check themselves"). Your admission that this was an error on your part is fine and good but it betrays what I suspected was a deeper ignorace of science in general(which is of course NO BIG DEAL, we're all ignorant in certain areas, I'm the first to admit). No one versed in common scientific knowledge, let alone the specific and complex conductive polymer science and semiconductor/superconductor science would EVER make, and then insist upon such a claim. It stuck out like a sore thumb to us who edit that page. Unfortunately my suspicions were confirmed when I came here and to the melanin article. When I removed a statment that melanin might someday replace GaAs and Si semiconductors (an utterly preposterous idea to anyone who knows anything about semiconductors) and you then replied with a revert and the comment "never say never", I thought we might be in for a bit of a quibble here. The statment "never say never" is generally not one used in the scientific arena, physical law strictly forbids certain events from occuring and "never" is in fact a perfectly apt word to use sometimes. Anyway, I implore you to be a bit more willing to compromise on edits to these articles. I know after you've contributed a great deal to an article it's difficult not to feel a certain sense of ownership over it. However none of us owns these articles, they are everyones and as the bottom of the page does say "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it".--Deglr6328 03:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've already explained how that error occurred; believe it or don't. See my later comments regarding the science of melanin and technology, melanin and deafness. My reactions have absolutely nothing to down with a sense of "ownership." With regard to my lack of understanding of science, I'll be interested to read your responses to the information I've posted below. I haven't taken the time to read the changes made in the article, but I suspect I'll be retoring a good deal of the information when I do. You seem inordinately and unwisely fond of tossing around words like "bizarre" and "preposterous." When I find the time to hunt up the passage about melanin replacing gallium arsenide and silicon, I'll provide the link. deeceevoice 00:54, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A separate argument

Deleted and/or Edited: It its simplest form, black supremacy is the belief in the inherent superiority of the "black race." Historically, however, it has manifested itself as a tool in framing an intellectual and conceptual dialectic (in the Hegelian sense) that has been utilized as a kind of liberation theology for the societally marginalized and oppressed. In neither its intellectual nor its political context, however, is black supremacy -- as many nonblacks are inclined to believe -- mere sophistry; it is a strongly held notion. Even so, it is little more than an intellectual construct. Author and social commentator bell hooks (1995, p.154) writes...White supremacy, in contrast, has been historically— and remains today— a political ideology, a worldview, the power of which is projected outward as an instrument of dominance and oppression to preserve, protect and regain white hegemony, white power and white privilege. The power and pervasiveness of white supremacy are such that even people of color, whose intrinsic worth it devalues, may subscribe to it. This internalization of a belief of a (usually) dominant group in the inherent inferiority of another group by members of that subject group generally is referred to as self-hatred. Based on an understanding of power and ethnicity such as that expressed by hooks, there is no such thing as black supremacy, per se, as a corollary of white supremacy; it simply does not exist. But black supremacy as a core belief in the inherent superiority of indigenous peoples of Sub-Saharan and West Africa and their progeny has been a fairly marginal, but growing, school of thought among blacks for 75 years or more in the modern era.

What's this apologist drivel? Simplifying world politics, economy, and history into black-white context is simplistic to the point that it is confusing. What is the point of this passage? All we need to what black supremacy is, what are its tenets, who believes in it, what has changed, not some dense drivel that goes into semantics and doesn't really have a clear-cut definition or reasoning to it Wareware 01:29, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Still stalking me, eh? And another incivil reaction. You will note I was not the individual who included the quote by bell hooks; it was part of the article when I came to it. But I do agree with its inclusion and hooks' explanation. It is not "apologist." It, as well as subsequent passages, makes a very important point that black supremacy is not white supremacy in blackface -- which is what very well could be the natural assumption of the reader. It is important that the differences be clearly explained. I won't have any other comment on your response on this matter, or on any other matter, until you learn to engage in civil discourse. deeceevoice 03:49, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gawd, at least I wasn't the one having all those arguments with other contributors and the one being requested to act with civility from sysops. Teach me civil discourse will you, eh? Try looking into a mirror and see if you can see a savage yourself. Are you gonna respond or just blanket revert and adding all those pointless rant in the article? Wareware 05:48, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do not presume to teach you anything; frankly, I've begun to doubt that you are even marginally trainable. "Savage"? I have responded, civilly and with specific information -- which is far more than you have done. deeceevoice 01:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Did you read anything I wrote? You haven't given any specific arguments except more semantics and "verbal diarrhea," as one user puts it. You're the one having all those heated arguments with other users, from afrocentrism, cool, to other assorted articles that had you have edited on, not me. You say you acted with civility, you gotta be kidding me. Is your reading comprehension way below average or do you need somebody to take the jungle out of you? Wareware 04:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

parkinson's / deaf cats / and semiconductors

I've made several changes to this section, most notable the removal of a bizzare section which included a mention of deaf white blue eyed cats. Deafness in this case is not a result of lack of melanin as was claimed, but instead is an unrelated conincidence of the "Dominant White Syndrome" "disease" in cats. See here:.--Deglr6328 04:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A rebuttal

I've been really busy lately and haven't had much time to read this piece -- or any piece on Wiki -- in detail lately. But I caught the word "bizarre" somewhere. That's very POV and should be changed. The notion of black supremacy is no more "bizarre" than the notion of white supremacy. And no matter what one may think of either of these ideas, the way to refute both is not to attach value-laden labels to them, but to conduct a scholarly examination of the facts, letting the facts speak for themselves. I find the subject of black supremacy intriguing for many reasons -- not the least of which is that it runs so diametrically counter to prevailing notions of white supremacy.

I don't think whites (or people, generally) know much about the foundations of modern-day black supremacy, so I think this is a great opportunity to examine the notion -- and to do so dispassionately and thoroughly. Tags like "bizarre" are not helpful and contribute absolutely nothing to the subject.

Now, with regard the science, the connection between melanin and deafness is not as crazy as you might think. This from the April 2, 1988 issue of the Hereditary Deafness Newsletter" on linkages between vitiligo (loss of pigmentation throughout the body, most noticeably in skin):

Vitiligo

Vitiligo, an as yet unmapped mutation characterized phenotypically by progressive depigmentation, was screened for hearing loss using broadband freefield click-evoked auditory brainstem potentials as described above. Five vit/vit mutants and 5+/? littermate controls were tested. All five mutants showed moderate to severe elevation of hearing threshold. One of 5 mutants had a 40dB elevation, 3/5 had 60dB elevations and 1/5 had no response at 60dB HL (the highest stimulus intensity available in this particular testing paradigm). All animals have been fixed by intracardiac perfusion and histologic processing is in progress. These preliminary data suggest that the mutation Vitiligo is associated with a peripheral type deafness. (Rauch)

In the same journal, another lengthy treatment of "The pathogenesis of pigment anomaly-associated hereditary deafness" in mice:

In order to investigate the pathogenesis of pigment anomaly-associated hereditary deafness, we studied the black-eyed white mutant mice (gene symbol WWv. The WWv mutant mice belong to the white spotting category of inherited pigment abnormality. We used F1 hybrids WWv mice from the breeding pairs C57BL/6J-Wv with WB/ReJ-W (Jackson Laboratory). The amount of spotting is affected by the combination of the mutated genes and the genetic background. There are essentially two kinds of pigmentary anomalies: albinism on the one hand, where the synthesis of melanin is disturbed, resulting in a general lack of melanin including the eye, and the white spotting kind of abnormal pigmentation on the other hand, where the formation of melanocytes in the neural crest or the migration to the target organs is disturbed . The mutants represent a model, where the inner ear lacks neural crest-derived melanocytes. At regular intervals from the 6th postnatal day to about 18 months of age, we examine the inner ears of 100 mutant mice with the block surface technique, including electron microscopy. The primary alteration in the inner ear appears to be located in the stria vascularis, which remain much thinner as normal; in the electronmicroscope at age 8d the stria of the mutant appears to be composed of only the marginal and basal cells, intermediate cells are missing . An unequivocal identification of melanocytes is possible by demonstration of tyrosinase, the enzyme which is essentially responsible for the synthesis of melanin from Tyrosin and Dopa (Dihydroxyphenylalanin). We found tyrosinase-positive reactions in the golgi apparatus of intermediate cells of normal inbred mice (C57BL/6 and C3H/He), guinea pigs, cats and humans proving that intermediate cells are really melanocytes . ... vimentin was seen to stain only the basal cells in the mutants, confirming our previous finding, that intermediate cells are lacking in this case of hereditary deafness .

The article also makes reference to similar findings with regard to intermediate cells and melanin in guinea pigs, cats and humans. And lest you be tempted to say this is some "crackpot" publication, the newsletter is published by the Royal National Institute for the Deaf (105 Gower Street, London, WC1E 6AH).

Thanks for the "dominant white syndrome" terminology. I googled it. According to this article, dominant white syndrome is directly related to melanin deficiency/absence. In "COLOR AND PATTERN ASSOCIATED DISORDERS IN THE GREAT DANE, by JP Yousha (August 2000), this:

...problems that are pigment related have to do with harlequin family breedings, and generally fall into two genetic categories, but both are associated with lack of pigment and a predominately white dog . The first is color-related problems associated with the dominant Merle allele, and the second is color-related problems associated with the recessive Piebald allele(s). Both are spotting genes that increase the white on a dog-that is they both reduce the amount of pigment that dog has.

The Merle allele is an autosomal incomplete dominant mutation and a pleitropic allele that is believed to irregularly disrupt the maturation of the melanocytes, thus resulting in the typical "mottled" or "patched" appearance. Like von Waardenburg's Syndrome in humans, and various other "lethal dominant white genes" found in a wide variety of mammals, the Merle allele also can adversely affect various other bodily systems, most particularly the sensory system (i.e. eyes and ears), along with the integumentary system (i.e. skin and haircoat). Homozygous (MM)"double merle" or "white" Danes are usually deaf and may suffer from a variety of skin problems and eye anomalies, all associated with the general lack of pigment that results when the dog has two "doses" of the merle gene. This association is directly related to the lack of pigment, rather than having an absolutely straight-line association with the Merle allele. Any harlequin or merle (Mm) animal with the pigment severely reduced (less than 15% pigmented as a rule of thumb), or any animal lacking head pigment may very well also suffer from any of the problems listed below.

...with any predominately white animal, it would seem generally best for breeders to avoid producing and rearing such pups whenever possible, rather than face a situation requiring some time to pass for a complete and appropriate diagnosis, and likely requiring special training and/or special medical treatment .

Here's another article you may find interesting, a recapitulation of a presentation by George M. Strain, "Hereditary Deafness in Dogs and Cats: Causes, Prevalence, and Current Research," presented at the Tufts' Canine & Feline Breeding and Genetics Conference, October 2-4, 2003. Strain is with the Department of Comparative Biomedical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, Louisiana State University: http://www.lsu.edu/deafness/Tufts.htm

Strain writes in "Pigment Genes and Hereditary Congenital Sensorineural Deafness":

An association between deafness and blue-eyed white cats was noted as early as 1828, and Darwin commented on it in his famous publication The Origin of Species in 1859. Blue-eyed Dalmatians were noted for having deafness as early as 1896. So, the existence of a relationship between white pigmentation and deafness in dogs and cats is not new, and there is an extensive bibliography on the subject (Refs 6-12), but the mechanism behind the relationship has only recently begun to be understood.

It seems your entire approach to this section is based on an assumption that I subscribe to the Melanin Theory and that I have set about finding isolated examples to bolster that hypothesis. Nothing could be further from the truth with regard to my research. In fact, that I can readily find so many references that state essentially the same thing would seem to indicate that selective reading has been your approach to this subject -- not mine.

The fact is I find the subject intriguing -- enough to do quite a bit of reading on the subject before attempting to write anything at all about it. I certainly do not consider myself to be an authority on melanin at all -- not in semiconductors or plastic eletronics research. And because I am not, I've read numerous articles online regarding the subject where melanin research figures prominently -- including in research regarding deafness. I keep an open mind and find such things absolutely fascinating. What I contributed to this piece I see as objective fact. Melanin Theory exists; that's a fact. That melanin is an organic semiconductor currently being widely researched in a number of fields, including plastic electronics, is fact. (The 2000 Nobel Prize for Chemistry was awarded to a trio of scientists involved in such research.) That melanin deficits are linked to deafness and to Parkinson's is fact. That Melanin Theory is generally discounted outright by the scientific community is also fact. The business about melanin potentially replacing gallium arsenide and silicon in microchips is also something I got directly off a credible scientific site on the web. Melanin has been proven to be a natural electrical "switch" of sorts -- that emits a flash of light when it switches on, for God's sake. Modern-day scientists would have to be plain stupid not to study its application in such electronics applications as microchips (it's lighter, less bulky and a hell of a lot cheaper in its synthetic form than other materials currently in use) and other applications.

It makes perfect sense that beause melanin conducts neuronal impulses, loss of melanin and or/damage to melanocytes can result in hearing impairment. The same with Parkinson's disease and other disease states with Parkinsonian symptoms characterized by loss of neuromoter control related to dopamine and dopaminurgic production of melanin.

Now, how all that relates to theories, beliefs, lore about presumed black supremacy is, obviously, a matter of contention. Again, the article as I wrote it made no statement about the validity or fallacy of Melanin Theory -- except that the scientific community generally regards it as less than worthy of addressing. But the facts are the facts.

I'm back to work. I'll tend to this article at a later date. deeceevoice 22:25, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are you aware that all mainstream scientists consider all this talk about "Melanin science" to be nonsense, and many scientists consider it to be racist nonsense? What you are decribing are less than fringe views. They are better described as views that do not exist within the scientific community at all'. RK 00:05, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

___

Im not a specialist in genetics or genetical diseases, but if those informations are accurate, you might want to include them into the article about Albinism.

Since this article is about Black supremacy, it might be more appropriate to elaborate the melanin theories in context of black supremacist doctrines.

I think some people generally use tags like "bizarre" because most black supremacist doctrines are indeed based on bizarre theories. For one, many melanin theorists continuously imply that melatonin or neuromelanin are responsible for skin color.

Second, many Black supremacists strongly believe in a strict black/white dichotomy and equate the Caucasian/white race with Albinino. Most prominent example is probably Frances Cress Welsing, and her therories about the origin of the "albino mutants with defective skins" (white people), and her doctrine that whiteness is a "disease".

"The quality of whiteness is a genetic inadequacy or a relative genetic-deficiency state or disease upon the genetic inability to produce the skin pigments of melanin which are responsible for all skin coloration. The psychological reaction of whites has been directed toward all people with the capacity to produce the melanin skin pigments. However, the most profound aggressions have been directed toward the Black, `nonwhite' peoples who have the greatest potential and therefore are the most envied and the most feared in genetic competition." (The Cress Theory of Color-Confrontation and Racism" by Dr. Frances Cress Welsing)

"The original rejection by, the Black mothers and Black fathers in Africa of the albino, white, mutant offspring, were forced to try to love themselves if they were to survive; but they could not arrive at a point of true self-acceptance and self-esteem because there was never parental and group acceptance or validation at the time whites mutated from the Black parents.

The failure, if not refusal, to perceive, the repressed conceptualization of the white self as, the albino offspring from Black progenitors, is an inability to place the "white self" in the total perspective of the "hue-man" family and the totality of the Universe, without admission of the genetic defective status of skin whiteness." (The Isis Papers - the Keys to the Colors," by Dr. Frances Cress Welsing)

"It talks about people migrating north and therefore losing color. I maintain that’s not at all what happened. They lost the color through a genetic mutation to albinism, which genetics defines as a genetic deficiency state and they were forced out of Africa into Europe. Scientists who classify themselves as White don’t want to say . You can’t simultaneously think White is superior and then say that White is a genetic deficiency state" (An interview with Dr. Francis Cress Welsing published by FinalCall.com News)

She even states that male homosexuality is an "attempt to incorporate into the white male body more black substance by either sucking the penis of another male and orally ingesting the semen" while he "may fantasize that he can produce a product of color" which would make him "genetically equal to the Black male".

If all that is not "bizarre", then I honestly don't know what it is. Pharlap 01:30, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pharlap, you are correct. Among scientists who know about this issue, they do not consider it merely incorrect. They consider it racist pseudoscience. These views, fortunately, do not exist within the scientific community. RK 00:05, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

A response:

The information I presented in my original additions on melanin belongs here, because such information forms the foundations of Melanin Theory, which is an element of black supremacy. I mean if I were reading this article and thought the notion of black supremacy was "bizarre," I'd certainly be interested in how the hell anyone could possibly believe such nonsense, what the foundational knowledge or premises were and whether there was any truth in such claims. I also briefly introduced this information (in a primarily scientific context) a segment in melanin. You didn't object to it before on the basis that it was irrelevant -- because it is not. You simply said it wasn't factual -- but now I've proven that it, in fact, most certainly is. And, because it belongs in this piece and because I've provided more than sufficient documentation regarding the scientific facts in discusses, it should, and will be, restored.

I likely will do a completely separate article on Melanin Theory (as indicated in the "see also" section. As well, I've stated my intention to do a piece on Frances Cress Welsing's Theory of Color Confrontation -- one of these days. Perhaps, since you've followed the "see also" list to info on the ToCC, you will share what you've learned in such an article -- or begin one yourself. It's been a while since I've read anything of hers, but she still lectures regularly on white supremacy, and her ideas are still being disseminated; so, folks should know something of the subject. (I don't know if her book is still in print.) Finally and again, regardless of what you or I (or others) think of these ideas, labeling them in such a way adds nothing to the discussion or the information; it is POV. It's our responsibility to present the information -- and to let the reader come to his or her own conclusions about what is and what is not "bizarre." I don't believe I've read any reference on Wiki to white supremacy as "bizarre." It's kind of humorous -- and very telling -- that nonblacks are so accustomed to the notion of black inferiority, that the converse, which parallels such a pervasive notion as white supremacy, is "bizarre"; yet white supremacy -- even if considered aberrant -- is de rigueur. The very idea that black folks -- the "lowest of the low" -- to whom racist, soul-sick, pathetic mental cretins like Wareware refer using "ape," "savage" and "jungle" references would consider themselves superior to white folks just enrages and outrages them. I understand perfectly how it's a real mind blower. But when it comes right down to it, it really pulls the sheets off. 'S crackin' me up. Gosh, knowledge is fun -- iddinit? :-p deeceevoice 13:41, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're so pathetic deeceevoice. You're the one having all those arguments on edits and civility and you accuse me of being a racist. What's your evidence besides my mentioning of apes as an insult to your character and behavior not race. Is that any worse than your insults of other editors and me("mental cretins", "intentionally obtuse", "stupid or otherwise in denial", "remotely trainable"...etc etc)? Give me a break, you pathetic louse. Black supremacy, just like any kind of supremacy, should enrage people and not to be diminished by reverse racism and whitewashing. You gotta be a fucking racist if you think otherwise. Wareware 19:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Ape." "Savage." "Jungle." "Big black momma." Blatantly racist comments. And the pathetic thing is you hasn't even the good sense/common decency to be ashamed. Most animals who feel as you do at least have the good sense to say such things in private. ROTFLMBAO. What a sorry, sick, foolish, little excuse for a human being you are. *shakin' my head* Dang. I must really get to you. :-D deeceevoice 18:12, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Man, do you read anything I've written? Can you even read? So I guess it's perfectly okay for you to hurl extremely acerbic insults to me and others but not okay for me to say a few things back that are perceived racist by the overly sensitive. Why the double standard, little racist sister? You poor little pathetic thing! I guess next time I'll have to be a bit more creative and come up with some politically-correct comments to match yours won't I? Now I feel like that Daily Bruin editor who was censured for calling that some obstinate and stupid opinion just sticks on like the stink on a monkey. Here, have a banana, it'll make you feel better :) Wareware 19:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're even more pathetic than I thought. You don't even know what racism is, apparently. I've not once directed racist rhetoric at you or anyone on Misplaced Pages. I challenge you to find a single instance. You can't. What? Don't like being despicable and wretched all alone? You need company -- so much so you're trying to paint me a "racist"? Don't hurt yourself. Trip on over to Stormfront. I'm sure they'd love to have you. Oops! My bad. No, I guess not. I forgot. You're not a member of the great white race -- are ya? I'm done with you. *x* You're beneath me. deeceevoice 19:22, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're dumber than an ape really. Do you understand anything I wrote? The one about double standard? Or are you just in denial? You gotta be kidding me if you are delusional to believe that you haven't hurl one racist insult (among a great many "non-racist" insults). Why don't you check Talk:Racism a while back for your racist rhetorics on penis length and intelligence (LMAO)? Or do you think black people can't be racist because they're black. If that's not racist then I don't what else is. Wareware 20:00, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note: The reference to genitalia was regarding the presumed size of my "balls" -- and was one which Wareware initiated, ASS-uming I was a male; not I. And, no, there was no correlation drawn to anyone's intelligence. deeceevoice 20:09, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gawd, that's a pathetic excuse. I don't think most people would bother to read anyone's user page and find out your gender before making a comment. You might very well be a robot or a bag of feces for all I care. Plus the balls is a reference to one's confidence and self-worth, as the argument in particular was that Afrocentrism would make black people feel better through its "therapeutic" qualities. I guess for some people sex is always on their minds that they ASS-ume the argument was about genitals. And then deeceevoice goes on to make the racist statement that mongoloids have small dicks, so I play the game to say that black people compensate their lack of intelligence (in civilization and technological achievement terms) by showing off the length of genitals. Who made the first racist remark? Is anyone more racist than the other? Like I said, some people just think black people can't be racist by the token they're black. Despicable double standard. Wareware 20:18, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Liar, liar. Pants on fire!" LOL. You're hilarious. Such crude language is not my style. I said no such thing! Folks who really care (and I doubt that many do) can find the discussion thread. I myself don't care to look it up, but why don't you provide the link, Wareware, since you're so obsessed with the matter? Could it be you'll find it too embarrassing? (Is that why you twice reverted the bold font of my comments? You're hoping people won't see them? :-p Too late, fool. They're part of the cyber record for posterity.) After all, I'm not the one who made the comment about smelly apes' testicles. :-p LMAO What? Afraid people will wonder, as I did, how it is that you purport to know about such things? (Just what were you doing down there, anyway? :-p) That they'll find out what a pathetic, racist, spiteful, small-minded, soul-sick little creep you are? I made light of one of your stupid, racist remarks, and you wound up looking like the horse's ass you are. So now you stalk me from forum to forum taking pot shots. You repeatedly put your foot in your mouth. Don't you learn? Guess not, 'cause now you're trying to project your sickness on to me. Ha! You want readers to know who's the racist (presuming they care at all)? Provide the link and let them read for themselves. Go ahead. I dare you. Everyone can use a laugh once in a while -- and God knows your Wiki antics are just funny as hell. deeceevoice 06:27, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Race_(Archive_15), everyone go on a have a laugh at the ape (scroll to the one about egyptians). Check out how deecee just leaves and calls me a racist when confronted with the cruel reality about africans. Pathetic Wareware 07:37, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gee, thanks. Now everyone can see you for the pathetic thing you are. "Leave?" I got bored with the hassle and blatant intellectual dishonesty. With all the photos available of bonafide Egyptian artifacts with indisputably black Africanoid images, the best you guys could come up with was some incredibly mediocre, cartoonish artist's rendering from the cover of The Crisis? Laughable -- and so obvious. deeceevoice 07:58, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A couple of other points

• Discussions regarding article input on Wiki should be depersonalized. I do not find it helpful to label contributions by contributor. After all, I am not -- or certainly should not -- be the topic under discussion. This is not the first (nor likely the last) discussion page where my contributions will be discussed under a header bearing my user tag. But such headers specifically identifying me (or anyone else, for that matter) really should have no place on Misplaced Pages. A suggestion: in the future, if contributors wish to address information or ideas presented, then do so by making reference to those ideas, to that information -- and not to the person who contributed them.

• I've been meaning to mention this. I've been editing it and editing around it, but I really fundamentally don't get the inclusion of the Nation of Islam in this piece. It is not considered a black supremacist organization by sociologists and political scientists who have studied it. Why is it included at all? (Initially, someone had written that the NOI was a black supremacist organization, and then a few sentences later, the statement was made that it wasn't.) I don't know if this incongruence was simply the result of multiple contributors (likely), but given that it doesn't fit the category, I don't think it should be referred to at all. Is there some other organization that is indisputably black supremacist that can be substituted? deeceevoice 23:04, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deeceevoice, your claims are simply not true. Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam is cosndiered a racist black supremacist by many political scientists and sociologists. I cannot imagine why you are claiming otherwise. You have the right to agree with those people, but you do not have the right to deny that they exist. When you make such demonstratably incorrect claims, you lose credibility. RK 00:05, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

If you bother to read my comments in full, they address the fact that I was not previously aware of specifically black supremacist teachings of the NOI and that the material presented in the article did not support the claims -- only that the NOI was a hate organization. (My introduction to the NOI was through Malcolm X and the fact that the NOI went into depressed black communities and into prisons and got black men and women off the street, off drugs and into productive lives. Most black folks I know simply haven't been steeped in that dogma; we've been focused on the black nationalist aspects of the organization. IMO, my pressing for specificity and accuracy in this regard where it was ambiguous has improved the quality of the article. Lastly, I'm not worried about my "credibility," so don't concern yourself. deeceevoice 01:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

___

There are several teachings of the Nation of Islam which are undeniable of Black Supremacist nature.

Additional to the Yakub doctrine, it's the teaching of the Nation of Islam that Allah, (God) himself is the original and supreme black man and that all black men today are a part of this God-race and the black race is thus divine and superior to all other races.

Furthermore, it's also the teaching of the Nation of Islam that some time in the future, Allah will bring a spaceship into the earth's atmosphere and bomb the cities of the world so that the unconverted white race will be purged from the world.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to include the Nation of Islam into this article.

Additional, the article should also mention other organizations founded by former NOI members, such as Khalid Abdul Muhammed's "New black panther party" and their call for white genocide (“We kill the women. We kill the babies. We kill the blind. We kill the cripples. We kill them all. When you get through killing them all, go to the goddamn graveyard and kill them a-goddamn-gain because they didn’t die hard enough.” Khalid Abdul Muhammed) and the former NOI member and self-proclaimed black messiah Hulon Mitchell Jr., leader of the Yahweh ben Yahweh cult who urged his followers to murder "white devils" and bring him back body parts - a sliced-off ear or finger or head - as proof of the kill.

Also, The Black African Holocaust Council, a anti-white/anti-semitic organization, could be at least mentioned in the article. Pharlap 05:36, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First, let us not confuse what may be a black hate group with a black supremacist group, or hateful, possibly unsanctioned rhetoric of indiviudal members of a particular group with that group's officially stated ideology, founding principles or mission. For instance, I first read of the Doctine of Yakub 40-some years ago. This is the first I've read of any explicitly black supremacist rhetoric. If you can point out definitive sources in the group's own official literature, then that would be helpful. The New Black Panther Party, however, as I am familiar with it (and only marginally in local politics -- struggles around a public hospital and affordable housing/gentrification issues) is neither a hate group nor a black supremacist group. I would request the same specific information before any mention of it is made. I've never heard of the Black African Holocaust Council. Again, however, it sounds as though it may fit into the category of a hate group, but not necessarily of a black supremacist organization. The problem with loosely organized groups with little local control over members, whose members have a tendency to engage in inflammatory rhetoric, is that a lot of off-the-wall rhetoric becomes associated with the group itself.

Neither Hulon Mitchell Jr. nor Khalid Abdul Muhammed were merely members of those organizations, they were the leaders. Pharlap 12:38, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So far, however, the only seemingly bona fide example of a black supremacist group is the old Rastafari (something I didn't know until I read this piece). There are probably others, but we should be clear just what black supremacy is and which groups claim it as a core ideology/belief. deeceevoice 11:31, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, this from the Nation of Islam: "... teaches that the black man is the original man of the planet Earth and that Caucasians were created by a grafting (selective breeding) process devised by a scientist called Yakub. ...that Caucasian muslims are their brothers in the faith of Islam and should be honored as such." That doesn't sound like a white supremacist group to me. Again, provide references that specifically refer to NOI doctrine -- not the rhetoric of some minister -- otherwise, references to the Nation should be removed. deeceevoice 11:43, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pharlap, great stuff! So that this discussion thread can be followed more closely, I've taken the liberty of moving your addition here to the section below. (Hope you don't mind.) deeceevoice 12:41, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Again, the New Black Panther party is considered a hate-group by many people. While you have the right to disagree with them, you do not have the right to falsely claim that these views do not exist. When you do so, you lose credibility. RK (Posted March 22, 2005)

What the hell are you talking about? Reread my comments. I have a right to write whatever I wish, and I do not need you to tell me what I may and may not write. My comments in the discussion have been inquiring. When contributors have made assertions that fit more into the category of hate groups, I've asked them to point to specific doctrines that clearly state white supremacist sentiments so that they could be included in the article. That's just sensible/good journalism. And when they have provided such information, I have been appreciative. What? You got a problem with specificity? Damn. Another freakin' Wikipedian with selective comprehension. *x* deeceevoice 01:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nation of Islam = black supremacists

I strongly disagree, The Nation of Islam are textbook black supremacists, indeed I can think of no better example. Does anyone else remember the meeting between Elijah Muhammad and George Lincoln Rockwell? They found they had alot in common. . (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 11:50, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The NOI also joined forces with the Ku Klux Klan (even inviting Metzger to a NOI rally in Los Angeles) and the Lyndon LaRouche's organization. Khalid Muhammad joined forces with the Aryan Nations, the Posse Comitatus and former Klan leader and Aryan Nations recruiter Louis Beam, and Garvey even invited a KKK spokesman to speak at one of his rallies. We should include all that in the article as well. Pharlap 12:50, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Clearly, there is disagreement on the subject. I'm sure there's no shortage of personal opinions on this subject, but that's not helpful. What we should be looking for is some doctrinal evidence of black supremacist dogma in the NOI. Fine if the NOI stays put in this piece; I have no problem with that at all. But it's got to be backed up with solid evidence -- but the NOI is not generally held to be a black supremacist organization, and there seems to be information even on Wiki that contradicts such an opionion. Again, a reminder: there is a distinct difference between a supremacist group and a hate group. deeceevoice 12:18, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there is very little disagreement. The vast majority of people who know about the NOI view it as a racist hategroup. And for your information, never in history has there been a difference between racist supremacist groups and hate groups. Ever. RK 00:05, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

That makes no damned sense; is downright silly. Of course there's a difference. One can hate another group without believing oneself to be superior to them. deeceevoice 01:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

From the Final Call, all articles © Copyright 2005 FCN Publishing, FinalCall.com

"Master Fard Muhammad—the man who taught Elijah Muhammad and came to raise us up from a dead level and make us rulers over those who once ruled us" (Louis Farrakhan at Mosque Maryam in Chicago, first published 2001)

"You, Black man, are the Original. You are not naturally inclined to sin. You are naturally inclined to Allah (God). If you were in the right environment you would be more god-like than you are. The Black Man, or gods of the Black Man, are infinitely wise. They are being aroused to their Wisdom today to rule the people again throughout the ages of time." (Reprinted from "Our Saviour Has Arrived," 1974.)

"Due to the presence of Allah in Person, Master Fard Muhammad to Whom Praises are Due forever, and His Aims and Purposes to take over His own, it brings us hourly to a showdown of who shall rule the Nations of Earth. ... The present world (White people) have had their time and have gone over their time to rule....The earth actually belongs to the Black Man.

This is made clear in the Bible and Holy Qur’an. The prophetic sayings of the prophets for 4,000 years from Moses have constantly warned the present rulers (White) that the day of showdown was coming and that the world belongs to the Original Owners (Black Nation)....Integration is against the Desire and Will of God, Who Wants and must Do that which is written He Will Come and Do: Restore the earth to its rightful owner, the Black Man." (Reprinted from "Our Saviour Has Arrived, 1974)

"Not only is our Black Nation to become the equal, but it is to become the superior of the Nations of Earth, as it is written (Bible) that we shall no more be the tail, but the head." (Reprinted from Muhammad Speaks, October 17, 1969.)

"The real satanic people are the white race who have disguised themselves to deceive the Black people to follow them." (Reprinted from “The Fall of America,1973.)

"Allah came to us from the Holy City Mecca, Arabia, in 1930. He used the name Wallace D. Fard, often signing it W. D. Fard, in the third year .... He measured and weighed the earth and its water; the history of the moon, the history of the two nations, Black and White, that dominate the earth. He gave the exact birth of the White race, the name of their God who made them and how; and the end of their time, the judgment, how it will begin and end....He declared the doom of America for her evils to us was past due. And that she is number one to be destroyed. He described the destruction of world with bombs, poison gas, and finally with fire that would consume and destroy everything in the present world. Nothing of the present world of White mankind would be left. Those escaping the destruction would not be allowed to carry anything out with them. He pointed out a destructive dreadful-looking plane that is with bombs, made like a wheel in the sky today. It is a half-mile by a half-mile square; it is a humanly built planet. It is up there and can be seen twice a week; it is no secret." (Reprinted from “Message To The Blackman,” 1965.) Pharlap 12:38, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) ---

Again, this is great stuff. I think there's enough info now to take this and incorporate it into the article -- perhaps a subhead of "Black supremacist groups" and then with separate third-level headers under that for "Rastafari" and "The Nation of Islam"? Also, it would be great to find something in Elijah Muhammad's own words on this subject. Question: do adherents of the NOI still believe that lunacy about spaceships? Or has this, like black supremacy in Rastafari, fallen by the wayside?

This material also brings another issue to mind. White supremacy is founded on a belief in the inherent superiority of whites and, for all intents and purposes, since the end of the Crusades -- and certainly with the trans-Atlantic slave trade and the subsequent rise of world capitalism -- white dominance has been pretty much a fact of history, generally. It's a given. So, when we describe black supremacy, we speak of it in terms of solely a belief in the inherent superiority of blacks. But not addressed in that definition is the belief that is so strongly enunciated here that blacks should dominate. Now, this is a corollary of white supremacy that is considerably less common, among even those who believe blacks to be inherently superior ot whites -- but an extremely important one. The article, I think, rightly puts black supremacy in a kind of liberation theology framework. But, clearly, it needs to address the NOI as a group that preaches not just black empowerment, inherent black superiority, but that advocates black domination (whatever that means).

Another question: in that regard, is the NOI pretty much sui generis? Also, in light of this material, it would seem that the definition herein of black supremacy and the Wiki article on the Nation needs some expanding to include the notion of dominance. And the paragraph ending in: "By comparison, there is no powerful, far-reaching nexus of instruments under black control that have a corollary effect on whites. Nor does there appear to be a significant desire on the part of so-called 'black supremacists' to have one" as well needs an addition which cites notable exceptions to this general rule. deeceevoice 13:07, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Those are the own words of Louis Farrakhan and Elijah Muhammad, reprinted and published by the Nation of Islam in their official paper, the Final Call. Obviously they still believe in all their doctrines, otherwise they wouldn't reprint it. Pharlap 13:52, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I realized that when I went back and read the piece again (because of the reference to "Message to the Black Man" before I clicked "save page" and, I thought deleted that sentence (along with a question which I did delete). But something else comes to mind upon reading this again: this "humanly built planet" -- is that literally "human," or are these the "aliens" to whom someone (you?) referred earlier? It's not clear to me. deeceevoice 16:39, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The land seizures engaged in recently in Zimbabwe would be an example of Black Supremacism in a position of empowerment. . Also, you seem to misunderstand white supremacism. They don't feel particularly empowered either, and theirs is also a "liberation theology" (minus the communist undertones and catholic emphasis, of course ;). White Supremacists and black supremacists seem to agree that Jewish Supremacism has the real reigns of power. Interestingly, there is not a Jewish supremacism article (not for lack of trying, it gets deleted early and often). An area where white supremacism and black supremacism differ is on Communism. Black power / black supremacism is more friendly with leftism, white supremacism / white power clearly is not. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:42, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Certainly not! Land seizures in Zimbabwe are part of a policy of land reform and are not "black supremacy" in operation. From the bad old days when the nation was called Rhodesia, whites controlled the majority of the land, and the most lucrative land. When virtually any nation struggles to reorganize its economy and mete out some degree of economic justice after a prolonged period of colonialism and usurpation of the land by a few/an oligarchy, the issue of land reform comes to the fore. It must, because, particularly in the third world, land is the basis of all wealth; it is the engine that sustains families, as well as national economies. As tragic, catastrophic and seemingly unjust as land reform can be for the few families of privilege stripped of their holdings by the new order, the status quo is far more tragic, far more unjust. If the ruling class is based on color privilege, on white supremacy -- as it was in Zimbabwe, as it was in South Africa -- then the policies of the new order that seek to topple the old regime and restore some semblance of equanimity to land (and power) distribution, to the superficial or ignorant observer, can take on the appearance of a reverse kind of supremacy, of black supremacy -- particularly when accompanied by race-based resentment/animus on the part of the colonized. The fact is land reform in Zimbabwe is no more black supremacist than was, say, "land reform" in post-revolutionary France, when the peasants and former serfs took possession of old estates and refused to ante up.

The issue of land reform isn't all you misunderstand, apparently. My comments spoke to the somewhat limited definition of "black supremacy" as a belief in the superiority of blacks. My comment was that the definition should be expanded to include a belief, among some black supremacists, in black dominance -- nothing more. And black power is most certainly not the same as black supremacy! deeceevoice 16:28, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Land reform in Zimbabwe is not black supremacist. It's a political maneuver to gain votes among black people and divert attention away from his own corruption and failures. Too bad the farms now are mismanaged and Mugabe now needs fat American tourists to operate them. (I'm not kidding) Wareware 19:27, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Great photo!

I'm half-asleep, reworking the section explaining black supremacy, and when the edit takes, I see this great image. I'm awake. Thanks, Pharlap. deeceevoice 12:10, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

DC's recent reversion (melanin/science etc.)

HI DC, as per your recent reversion of the changes I made, I must admit I am quite baffled. You posted here two ~20yr old scientific studies on melanin in animals but I fail to see how any of this relates to black supremacy or even to the so called melanin theory. There is no existing information on any connection between Vertiligo an black supremacy and it therefore is what is called on wikipedia "original research" which is not permitted. Also I'm rather disappointed that you took my inclusion of the statement "in the early 1970's led to a bizarre chapter in the history of the black supremacy movment which involved pseudoscientific..." and somehow twisted it into "black supremacy IS bizarre" when I said no such thing. I was merely referring to the PERIOD in its history where the supremacists used the incorrect idea that melanin is a superconductor to bolster claims of superiority. That's very bizarre thing, don't you think? Also you have not provided any refrence or source for the incorrect scientific claims you put back into the page. (again, with the "melanin is a replacement for inorganic semiconductors" mention being the most outrageously incorrect) I must insist that they remain out of the article until sources are noted. Then, I'd be happy to include them, but as it is now, I see nothing supporing this view. Cheers.--Deglr6328 17:43, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also I forgot to mention, there is no previous connection between either melanin theory or black supremacy and parkinson's disease or and this is therefore also original research which is not permitted on wiki I'm afraid. Please see here: Misplaced Pages:No original research--Deglr6328 18:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Look, let's face it: deeceevoice knows nothing about science. Just because there is some research going on doesnt mean it's going to replace current technology (microchips) any time soon, if ever. It's fucking stupid. It's like saying nerve cells may be used as batteries in the future because the voltage gradient across the cell plasma membrane is 200,000 volts per centimeter (a typical power line is around 200,000 volts per kilometer). Sure, the nerve cell is damn amazing, but is it going to replace batteries any sooner? NO! and perhaps NEVER. Unless you live in the Matrix's real world of course. Wareware 19:07, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes I really wish I knew where this idea that melanin will someday replace inorganic semiconductors in microchips came from. It is quite preposterous. I strongly suspect DC got her information from here , since the information she's entered here so closely matches what's from that site. That site is loaded with crazy nonsense and the guy who made it seems rather loony himself too . DC however, says she refuses to visit the site when I mention it further up the page where she replys "I haven't even bothered to follow the link you provided, because I don't think it has anything to do with where I retrieved my information." which, I have to say was somewhat unhelpful..... Sigh.--Deglr6328 22:19, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think parts of Deeceevoice melanin essay can still be used in this article, since it is a prime example of black supremacist thought: Whites are all defective albino mutants, therefor whiteness is a horrible disease and therefor white people suffer collectively from all kind of disorders, like uncontrollable aggressive behavior, limited intellectual capacities, deafness, vitiligo (which, by the way, affects all races and both sexes equally, according to the National Institutes of Health) and all other kinds of nerve degeneration, and will therefor never evolve intellectually, physically or spiritually past the level of a sick dog or cat. Blacks, on the other side, are the super(conductor)humans, and, because of their built in supreme melanin based electrical and neural skin-to-brain network, which would even emit flashs of light when switched on, they are the supreme humans with superior intellectual, physical and spiritual capacities ... indeed bizarre ... Pharlap 00:09, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The so called melanin theory should be described as accurately as possible, yes. But, it should be described as it has existed in the past 30 years and not expounded upon here with conjectural elaborations such as vitiligo/parkinsons/all the rest of it, because this has had no part historically, within melanin theory and would therefore as I mention up top, be orig. research. In other words, melanin theory should be described as the term is used by supremacists and not as what it could be or what other people might want it to be or what it might be in future. --Deglr6328 00:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

More info:This is from the University of Queensland website I provided earlier. I'm still looking for the specific reference, but here's one very similar. The introductory paragraph states:

Our main materials of interest are Melanins, and synthetic conducting polymers such as MEH-PPV. Currently, our application focus is 4th generation photovoltaics ... although various forms of biocompatible sensor may make an appearance in the very near future. A growing area of biophysical interest is the spectroscopic signature of Melanin pigment contained within cancerous melanoma. Here are brief descriptions of our main research projects....

Conducting Molecular Crystals (collaboration with NSW Physics) Over the past few years there has been an explosion of interest in the field of "plastic electronics". These are semiconducting and conducting organic polymers and molecular crystals, which one day may replace conventional inorganic materials such as silicon and gallium arsenside in high technology devices.

Note: Gallium arsenide films and silicon are used in microchips -- as are melanin films. Looking less and less like crackpot science, eh? And, no. The content I've offered cannot be described as "original research." I'm not the one in the lab probing the possible uses of melanin. Melanin Theory is what it is. And the bona fide scientific properties of melanin are what they are. Those who subscribe to Melanin Theory have been following the field -- just as they have known about the discovery of melanin as a semiconductor for more than 30 years. Further, the 2000 Nobel Prize for Chemistry fueled even more interest in the theory. There's a distinct connection. And as I said earlier, if I'm reading an article on Melanin Theory, I'd want to know what the hell is behind it. The explanation of the properties of melanin provides that information. deeceevoice 07:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ahh no and no. Melanin has never been used in an IC device sucessfully. And while that site does claim that organic polymers "may replace conventional inorganic materials" I would still think any inorgainic semiconductor scientist would caution that this is EXTREMELY wishful thinking to the point of near impossibility. The problem is with the inherently low electron mobility of organic semiconductors, they're POLYMERS(ie. highly disordered) they will never be able to replace thier conventional high speed inorgaic cousins. Anyway...What you entered into the article (read what I wrote please) about parkinsons/Vertiligo/etc. is not traditionally connected (ie. historically) to melanin theory so this IS original research. read the wikipedia article on original research Misplaced Pages:Original research--Deglr6328 08:50, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Melanin and quantum chemistry:

Quantum chemistry of melanin semiconductors - supervisors: Ross McKenzie and Paul Meredith

The melanins are a unique class of biopolymer found throughout nature . They are based upon heteropolymers of indolequinones and indolequinone carboxylic acids. In humans, they act mainly as pigments and photoprotectants. In recent years, these materials have also been found in the inner ear and brain stem. No one really knows why they are there, or how they function. A common theory is that the biopolymers act as charge transport mediators. What is clear, is that the melanins are the only know biopolymeric solid-state semiconductors. They are also UV/Vis broad band absorbers - the property at the heart of their pigmentary and photoprotectant functions.

The electronic structure of these materials is of great interest to medical and biophysical researchers alike. The pi-electron Huckel method is one of the simplest ways to calculate the electronic band structure for organic molecular crystals. This has been done for a perfect crystal of 5-6 indolequinone , which is one of the most abundant constituents of eumelanin (the most common form of the biopolymer, and the major component of human skin pigment). This project will extend these calculations to the class of melanin semiconductors that will be used in electronic devices at UQ and will also consider the effect of disorder on semiconducting properties. In so doing, it is hoped that we will gain insight into: electron transport mechanisms in these disordered heteropolymer semiconductor; possible routes to achieve "tuning" of electrical properties; the dependence of conductivity on molecular weight, monomer ratio, and other characteristic chemical properties. These findings will be integrated with experimental observations to build more complete knowledge of these exotic, and potentially useful biopolymers.

• M.Blois, Photochem. Photobiol. Rev. 3, 115 (1978).

• D.S. Galvao and M.J. Caldas, J. Chem. Phys. 92, 2630 (1990). deeceevoice 07:53, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And about the Proctor website:And, Deglr, I followed your link to the Proctor site. Curiously, I don't see anything "loony" or "preposterous" about what I skimmed only briefly. I skimmed it because it simply seems to repeat the same, basic info on the link between melanin and deafness in mammals -- or, cats, at least -- that the London Royal National Institute for the Deaf and Dr. George Strain did. If it's not "loony" or "preposterous" when they address the phenomenon of melanin-related deafness, then it's not preposterous on the Proctor site. He also, interestingly, provides a link to the 1970s research that is the genesis of Melanin Theory, "Amorphous Semiconductor Switching in Melanins," as it appeared in Science magazine. (Another "loony," "preposterous" publication?) :-p deeceevoice 08:08, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"If it's not "loony" or "preposterous" when they address the phenomenon of melanin-related deafness, then it's not preposterous on the Proctor site." Wow that's some reasoning skill you've applied there. Well here's one crazy excerpt from the site:"This is strong electron-phonon coupling in potent sound-absorbing organic semiconductors such as inner-ear melanin." That sentance is so nonsense filled I don't even know where to begin.(nor do I wish to bother) There are many others on the site.--Deglr6328 08:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, darlin', you dug it up; you can read it! My first reaction to that information, though, is that it doesn't seem outrageous at all. Melanin clearly does mediate energy conduction and transduction, and sound is a form of energy. But since science isn't my chosen field, I'd have to decode "electron-phonon coupling" before I could say anything more. I perceive a fundamental difference between you and me. I keep an open mind and investigate to inquire, rather than to automatically debunk. Inquiry is the essence of science, the essence of learning. I have other things to do, so I didn't read the Proctor site thoroughly. But the sections that caught my eye make perfect sense, particularly in light of the other findings that support the information he presents to which I've already alluded. Additionally, I have to say that I briefly googled "melanin conduction deafness," and the three words do seem to appear frequently in the same articles. I haven't time to search through the sites; but, hey, sounds intriguing/interesting to me. deeceevoice 08:38, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks but I'll pass on taking advice on methods of scientific inquiry from civil rights era grandmas, no offence. ":p" The idea that electron-phonon coupling would occur at biological temperatures and that it could possibly have anything to do with deafness and melanin is idiotic. Phonon.--Deglr6328 08:55, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

LOL deglr that's a good one. That aside, melanin clearly does mediate energy conduction and transduction, and sound is a form of energy. Well, that doesnt really make sense at all, except more technobabble that makes it sound a wee bit legitimate. Energy conduction and transduction is not specific to melanin. Every cell in the body can do that since they have mitochondria, which mediate the electron transport chain to provide energy. Every kid who has taken high school biology can probably reiterate that mitochondria is the "powerhouse" of the cell. Saying so for melanin doesnt really mean anything at all, even though melanin isn't a cell (that's reserved for melanocytes). Throwing technical terms around doesnt do you any good unless you understand them and the context in which they're used. And I think there is a fundamental problem with comprehending the definition of original research. Nobody here argues that the Queensland report is original research, but the link between that and black supremacy is. You just can't make connections on your own if they sound good to you, because that would be original research. The individual components don't necessarily have to be, but the connection (no matter how flimsy) is. And shows that "black supremacy" and "microchips" only have 3 articles, two of them have nothing to do with the purpoted connection and one is a direct copy of the wiki article. gives 139 results of "microchip" and "melanin" together. None is about melanin application in microchip manufacture, and the last two on the first page are, again, direct copies of wiki articles (shows you how easy and dangerous for people to stumble upon bullshit through wiki disinformation). When melanin and microchip are in the same article, the microchip refers to DNA microchip array, which is a technique to detect changes in gene expression, NOT computer microchip. It has nothing to do with electronics. That pretty much means that if you say melanin could replace microchips/silicon/whatnots, you're doing original research. And for those who don't know much about science and exaggerate the application of melanin by extension of some mundane scientific facts, see my previous analogy to nerve cells. Wareware 09:05, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There's a simple fix to your objection, deglr: delete the specific reference to microchips, and the statement is absolutely sound. deeceevoice 10:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm up working on a project, but I'm remembering a comment by someone that melanin's conductivity is too low to be useful in electronics devices. But I recalled reading something somewhere about "doped melanin." I googled it. I turned up:

• Nature Vol. 248 April 5 1974, p475 ( News and Views )

"Semiconductors in the human body?" from our Solid State Physics Correspondent

"...Now at least one biological material has been shown to have a strikingly large conductivity when correctly excited. McGinness, Corry and Proctor, of the University of Texas Cancer Center, Houston, report in Science (183, 853; 1974) that melanins can be made to 'switch' from a poorly conducting to a highly conducting state at fairly low electric fields (say from 10K ohm- cm to 100 ohm-cm at a field of 300 V cm-1). This remarkable phenomenon occurs both in melanin made synthetically from tyrosine and in that extracted from a human melanoma. The large conduction is not destructive in any way and is reversible;. According to some tests, conduction seems to be electronic rather than ionic...."

And then a lengthy examination of different types of melanin and their properties which states, in part:

• "The conductivity of melanin in its natural state is rather poor but what can influence the electrical conductivity may be the presence of foreign substances or metals (doping effect ) or a proteic part which is difficult to dislodge from the complex. It is also to remember that heating modifies planarity of the system (hydrogen bonds and conductivity)." deeceevoice 11:53, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're confusing conductivity with electron mobility. See here for discussion of the problem . If you delete the refrence to microchips that would make things more accurate, yes. I do think this should go in the melanin article and not here though. No need to be redundant. If readers are interested in specific electronic properties of the material they should go there, not here. --Deglr6328 14:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I determined last night that much of what I've presented here should go in melanin, which is why this a.m. I put a note on that article's discussion page directing them to this discussion thread -- in the hopes that persons who've contributed to that article, who are more familiar with the field of plastic (organic) electronics, will take it further. (When I first came to the article on melanin, it said nothing about high-tech applications or biotech research.) I've been meaning to get back to this article, but I don't have the time right now (or the patience). When I do, I'll reinsert/insert some appropriate, pared-down language briefly referring to the physical properties of melanin that I believe are relevant to Melanin Theory and refer readers to melanin. In presenting much of what appears here in the talk section re ongoing melanin research, I was simply providing information in response to the debate about research applications, melanin's physical properties and its connection with deafness and Parkinson's -- unless someone has done/does it first, to my satisfaction. Much of it is not something I have any intention of inserting into the article. deeceevoice 18:22, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok by me!--Deglr6328 21:40, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One more thing, Deglr, re "civil rights era grandmas": in the future, when we have discussions/debates in the future, let's stick to the subject at hand and leave the personal remarks out of it. deeceevoice 06:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RE-> your (unfounded) not-so-subtle insinuation of racism in a reply to me: "It's kind of humorous -- and very telling -- that nonblacks are so accustomed to the notion of black inferiority, that the converse, which parallels such a pervasive....", and you've got yourself a deal. :)--Deglr6328 09:06, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This reads like an excuse for your childishness. The corollary of white supremacy -- which is widespread -- is the notion of black inferiority, and it is pervasive -- insidiously so -- (as Wareware has demonstrated repeatedly and quite admirably). That whites and other nonblacks would be accustomed to such a notion is not surprising -- nor is it racist to state such. By the way, subtlety (if you hadn't noticed) is generally not something for which I generally strive. :-p Besides, when stating the obvious, IMO, it would be silly/a wasted exercise. deeceevoice 10:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My point is I never said those things!! someone else did and it pissed me off when you accused me of it and then insinuated that I was racist because of it.--Deglr6328 21:19, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Never said what things"? Never mind. It's not important, because I never insinuated you were "racist." Insinuation isn't exactly my style, either. :-p If it's something you inferred from what I wrote, then there was a misunderstanding. For all I know, you could be, but as a matter of fact, the only person I know for a fact is racist in this discussion is Wareware -- because of his repeated use of racial slurs. deeceevoice 21:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please, let's concentrate on the article. I don't think it's possible to reason with someone who defines wikipedia as "enemy territory" and its members as "arrogant", "ill-informed" "wikiwhites", who "all too common" show "deep-seated, anti-black antipathy/animus" and "blatant hostility/racism". We should spend our energies on more constructive discussions. Pharlap 04:27, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Aw, get over it, Pharlap! What? And I suppose you haven't noticed all the racist crap around here? I suppose we should all ignore it and pretend everything's just hunky-dory, eh? I see openly addressing the race bias on Wiki as being constructive. Besides, what I have to say about Wiki on my personal page has nothing to do with this discussion -- speaking of "spend our energies on more constructive discussions." And speaking of this discussion, would you care to explain to me why someone like Wareware continues to spew racial slurs with complete impunity? Why people like you see fit to criticize me for calling attention to a very real problem, yet you have absolutely nothing to say in the way of reproval or criticism about or to a Wiki member who uses words like "ape," "savage" and "jungle" when referring to a black person? And you think when you criticize me you have some kind of credibility? Hypocrites like you are really laughable. Credibility? You got none. Criticism from someone like you reads like glowing praise. Thanks for the compliment. *x* deeceevoice 10:08, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about mocking you with racial slurs, deecee. I think next time I'll have to come up with more creative and more PC ways to address your intelligence and conduct. I suppose a bag of shit or a cockroach nincompoop is better than apes or savages for the more sensitive. You'll have to excuse me since I'm not really acquainted with yo mama jokes and the dozens to come up with original insults like you do all the time, so I just took the lazy way and called you an ape directly. Also it's too bad that I didn't know non-racist slurs can be thrown around with impunity like deecee here did (maybe except one warning of civility from a sysop), but a single mention of ape is going to get me labelled a racist. Just remember kids, it's okay to insult people if you're creative and don't jump into using racial slurs like I did, and make sure you don't ever call black people apes or else they'll go monkey on you. Wareware 12:02, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Careful

As it stands right now, the melanin theory bit contains some copyvios. I don't know who added them (nor do I particualrly care) but please be careful of direct text copying. All that's needed are some phrasing tweaks to make everything ok. I'll leave it to others... --Deglr6328 04:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I rephrased the article, somebody please double check. Pharlap 12:40, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Most recent round of edits

I've made several edits to the text, which I believe are improvements. Doubtless, there will be some disagreement, but I've tried to provide an explanation with each change.

One rather large, wholesale edit is with regard to the following paragraphs:

It its simplest form, black supremacy is the belief in the inherent superiority of the "black race." Historically it has manifested itself among various religions or cults.

I've deleted the reference to "religions" or "cults," because it black supremacy is not, by far, limited to religious groups or cults. It's my experience that the majority of blacks in this nation who believe in the inherent superiority of blacks are not members of what might be commonly called the "lunatic fringe," do not belong to any cult or similar organization, and are either mainstream Christians or are irreligious. (I do, however, mention the word "cult" in a later reference to the Nation of Islam, where it does apply.)

Unlike many "white supremacists," who generally embrace the label, most "black supremacists" reject the term because of its implicit meaning. They do not regard their belief in black superiority as an equivalent opposite of white supremacy, rather, they claim they are advocating the love of their own people, self-acceptance and black pride and see themselves as a kind of self-empowerment for the historically marginalized and oppressed peoples.

This is not the heart of the issue. The rejection of the term is not to disguise their contempt for whites; many (usually on the fringe) are quite vocal about that. The distinction, the reason they reject the term is because of the implicit parallel to white supremacy and the way white supremacy functions in the world. Further, the section is poorly worded in an attempt to incorporate my earlier wording regarding the notion of "self-empowerment for historically marginalized oppressed peoples." And it is inaccurate. Again, there are lots of black supremacists who do not express this belief through organizations or cults targeted at the poor and dispossessed; they are everyday people. In this way, they are no different from lots of whites and Asians folks who believe black people are inherently inferior. It is misleading to pigeonhole black supremacists as though they are all loud, outspoken, militant, on-the-fringe nut cases "down for the cause."

Black supremacy as a core belief in the inherent superiority of indigenous peoples of Africa has been a thriving, if marginal, notion among blacks since the 1920s.

Black supremacy is certainly far, far older than that. Native Americans considered whites poor, stupid and pathetic when they first came into contact with them. Asians considered them "barbarians." Muslims considered them "infidels." Many West Africans' first impressions of Europeans were that they were low-minded; godless; ignorant and, of course, brutal, having no respect for their religious traditions, no respect for village elders or the virtue of their women. It's probably as old as black-white contact. It is in the unfortunate nature of civilizations/peoples to regard outsiders/"the other" through lenses colored by their own indigenous values and by historical precedent. That is why, when I wrote the original language, I used "the modern era" -- which is particularly relevant here because this article deals only with black supremacy from the Rastafari onwards.

Further, I have restored (again) some of the comparative information on black and white supremacy, because it is important. It is not an "apology" as the racist Wareware claims. In fact, I was not the one who originally included the quote from celebrated author bell hooks; someone else thoughtfully included it. She's a highly respected writer, and the quote is directly on point.

I also reverted (again) the change in order of the paragraphs. As an editor, I definitely would put the basic information about and elucidation of black supremacy before the examples of black supremacist organizations. People should understand the fundamentals of the concept before they find out who espouses it -- a strictly journalistic decision, which I think serves the article far better. (Though I admit it would be more striking to see the colorful image accompanying the info on Rastafari earlier on.) deeceevoice 15:20, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One more thing: someone objected earlier to my use of "liberation theology" to describe some applications of black supremacist doctrine -- and changed the language -- on the basis that it LT is a Latin American concept. Nothing could be further from the truth. While the phrase may have been coined to characterize the practice of Catholicism among Latin American peasants who agitated for land reform and challenged the fascism, terrorism, violence and greed of often U.S.-supported military regimes in Latin America, the concept is a universal one; and the phrase has come to be more broadly applied. For example, no knowledgeable student of African-American history would dispute that enslaved Africans practiced liberation theology when they identified with Moses and the "children of Israel" and their exodus from Egypt. "He's a battle axe in the time of war and a shepherd in the time of the storm." That's from a traditional African-American spiritual. Denmark Vesey considered himself a prophet, an instrument of God -- as did John Brown. As well, few scholars would contest the use of the term to describe the heavily syncretic African "Christian" religious practice in the Americas during their centuries of bondage. deeceevoice 15:43, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The point isn't what you think if black supremacy is connected with or similar to liberation theology, but if scholars generally apply this theology to black supremacy. Otherwise, you're doing original research again. It might make sense to you to make the connection but if it isn't backed up by sources, it shouldn't be here. A google search shows only 37 results and that liberation theology and black supremacy aren't even mention in the same paragraph and there are no relations, even though you claim that one can describe another. That's original research. Can you show us a source where it says liberation theology is applicable to black supremacy? Otherwise I'd just stick with something similar "therapeutic self-empowerment." Wareware 19:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The point is that "liberation theology" refers to the NOI's black nationalist "do for self" ideology. The NOI made a reputation for itself as a self-help organization. It got addicts off dope, prostitutes off corners, kept people out of prison, helped released convicts reestablish themselves, taught people to carry themselves with dignity and respect and discipline, established a huge network of black-owned businesses, etc., etc., etc., encouraging its members to "buy black." It reformed people lots of traditional black churches shunned. As other forms of liberation theology -- in Latin America and Africa -- the NOI was/is a religious organization that sought to address and redress the material, real-life socioeconomic difficulties its members face. It still does, though the NOI divested itself of its businesses (bakeries, restaurants, publications, supermarkets, barbershops, etc., etc., that employed thousands of adherents) years ago under Wallace Muhammad. It is these aspects of the NOI that historians and social scientists (and others) took note of when referring to it as a black nationalist or black separatist organization, its theology as liberation theology. It is these attributes of the NOI that are its most enduring legacy and what gave the NOI its street credibility in black communities across the country. It is these attributes of the organization that the U.S. government and municipal governments took note of when various administrators of public housing projects around the country employed members of the Nation of Islam (the Fruit of Islam) to provide security for government housing projects in the middle of the crack cocaine epidemic a couple of decades back. I've been acquainted with the NOI for years, and all this time never knew that it was a black supremacist organization, per se. There are other aspects of the NOI that have come to the fore in shaping perceptions of the organization, particularly since the black supremacist rhetoric has waxed and waned with different leadership, different circumstances, different movement objectives over time. Liberation theology also has been used to describe movements to uplift the downtrodden in Haiti, South Africa and other nations. The concept of liberation theology had been used more broadly, outside of the narrow confines of Latin American Catholicism, to refer to religion in the service of social and economic upliftment of the dispossessed for decades. It is in this context that the NOI as a religion is a kind of liberation theology. deeceevoice 19:57, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Again you're the one making the connection between the rhetorics. Repeating it twice in greater extent doesnt make it any more legitimate. Can you give us a source, like from a book or even a website, that claims black supremacy as a kind of liberation theology? Another thing, in the context that you've written, liberation theology applies to black nationalism or black separatism, not black supremacy, especially in the way you described NOI. But the sentence reads Historically, however, black supremacy has manifested itself among various religions or cults as an ideological tool in framing a kind of liberation theology for the societally marginalized and oppressed, so there's definitely something wrong with that. You seem to support that NOI is not a supremacist group, but a separatist one, so why meld supremacy and liberation theology together now? Wareware 03:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No. Your contention was that I was attempting to equate liberation theology with black supremacy, which is not the case. The link with liberation theology and the Nation of Islam is its work in the black community for which it has been known for decades and in the light of which it has long been regarded by many in the African-American community. Liberation theology has nothing to do with black supremacy, but everything to do with, again, the use of religion as a tool in the upliftment and mental, spiritual, political and socioeconomic empowerment of the dispossessed. Such work of the NOI has in the past overshadowed its black supremacist dogma, which generally has been downplayed over time -- because that is the face of the NOI that generally has been most visible to outsiders, including to federal and municipal government officials. And that explains why the NOI has not traditionally been considered a black supremacist organization, but a black nationalist/black separatist organization, by sociologists and historians. That is one of the reasons the placing of the NOI on the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of hate groups made such news (a fact which I've already added to the article). deeceevoice 11:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're not answering the question. The sentence highlighted clearly states that "black supremacy has manifested itself...as some kind of liberation theology." Can you read? If anything, liberation theology as you described it should go into black separatism or black nationalism, not black supremacy. The sentence would be okay if it were changed from black supremacy to black separatism. But as it stands, you're pretty much contradicting yourself again. Wareware 02:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Again, no. Read the passage again. Here is the exact quote: "Historically, however, black supremacy has manifested itself among various religions or cults as an ideological tool in framing a kind of liberation theology for the societally marginalized and oppressed." And there is no contradiction. deeceevoice 05:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics