Talk:Black supremacy/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Original version of the article

message: 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 any one know more history?  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)
thread_title: No such thing as black supremacy?

message: 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)
thread_title: Melanin: superconductor vs. semiconductor

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Melanin and Parkinson's disease

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: A separate argument: superiority of the black race

message: :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 [this]. 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Talk:Race/Archive 14, 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)
thread_title: Incorporate teachings not as science, but as part of black supremacist doctrine