A Luta Continua

By Dr Selwyn R. Cudjoe
June 29, 2021

“Nations seldom listen to advice from individuals, however reasonable. They are taught less by theories than by facts and events.”

Life and Times of Frederick Douglass

Dr. Selwyn R. CudjoeLast week I commended President Joseph Biden for signing into law a bill that made June 19 a national holiday to commemorate the end of slavery in the United States. It took two and a half years (that is, on June 19, 1865) to notify enslaved African Americans that “all slaves are free” and the 13th Amendment to free them officially on December 6, 1865.

Frederick Douglass, that great African-American abolitionist, foresaw the purpose of the war. He wrote in The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass, the last of three autobiographies: “When even Mr. Lincoln could tell the poor Negro that ‘he was the cause of the war,’ I still believed, and spoke as I believed, all over the North, that the mission of the war was the liberation of the slave, as well as the salvation of the Union…. In every way possible-in the columns of my paper and on the platform, by letters to friends, at home and abroad, I did all I could to impress this conviction upon the country.”

Although Biden’s declaration was a brave act, I am sure that it was not lost upon Trinbagonians that T&T was the first country in the world to declare a national holiday to commemorate the legal abolition of enslaved people. Although Trinidadians have celebrated Emancipation Day since 1838, it was made an official holiday in 1985.

This year, the theme of the Emancipation Support Committee of Trinidad and Tobago (ESCTT), is “Advancing Pan-African Solidarity Towards a Balanced World.” Its goal, as the ESCTT noted is “to foster and embrace opportunities for closer Afro-Caribbean connections, as well as connections with the wider African diaspora and the African continent, connections that are geared towards advancing our collective development as a global people.”

Douglass can be seen as a prototypical figure in this effort to examine our collective humanity and our determination to break the bonds of slavery. He was inspired by the emancipation of the Black people in the Caribbean to do the same thing for his people in the United States. He saw their fate as inescapably bound with ours.

On August 1, 1847, at Canandaigua, New York, Douglass delivered his first of four speeches commemorating the abolition of slavery in the West Indies. Embracing the enslaved West Indians as “our brothers and sisters,” Douglass declared West Indian emancipation as an event “which may be justly regarded as the greatest and grandest of the nineteenth century . . . a splendid achievement, a glorious triumph of justice, love and mercy, over avarice, pride and cruelty.”

He saw the liberation of West Indian people as a prelude to the future of slavery in the United States when he said: “We shall be summoned to rejoice over the downfall of Slavery in our own land.” He also likened West Indian emancipation to “a city upon a hill” and treated its emancipation day, August 1, “as more sacred than the Fourth of July.”

The Trinidadian, a Trinidad newspaper published by Black people, followed those events intently and reported on them. On January 10, 1849, the Trinidadian published an excerpt from one of Douglass’s letters that reminded Trinidadians about the evils of slavery. In July 1850 it began to serialize Douglass’s Narrative in its newspaper.

Des Sources, the editor of the Trinidadian, wanted the ex-slaveholders to know that Black people were their equals and should be treated fairly which he felt was an indisputable condition for the freedom of all.

The global struggle for African liberation and the connective tissue (intellectual, cultural, etc.) that holds Black people together are important to our advancement as a people. The creation of a healthy sense of self-esteem and knowledge of our achievements is indispensable for our development, particularly as it concerns the social development of young people.

There are those who believe that racial discrimination and systemic racism play no part in stymieing the advancement of Black people. They are convinced that some kind of genetic inheritance, both at home and in the diaspora, prevents us from achieving what others have achieved. Some critics even claim that if only there were two parents in the family, we would be further advanced in our social, cultural and intellectual development.

Over the past century, scholars and activists such as Edward Wilmot Blyden, Carter G. Woodson, W. E. B. Du Bois, C. L. R. James, Arthur Schomburg, Eric Williams, Kwame Nkrumah, Marcus Garvey, Walter Rodney, and Frantz Fanon, just to name a few of the more recent proponents, have been teaching and analyzing the importance of race in the making of the modern world. It is a study that my own generation of scholars and activists has tried to follow.

It is laudable that a politician such as President Biden has recognized the tremendous hardships that Black people in the United States have undergone. It is equally as important that he has recognized some of the factors that still hold them back and is willing to put the necessary resources in place to correct the situation.

It is important to understand the links that bind Black people together and to give thanks to those, such as Douglass, who saw the oneness of our people, although we lived in different lands. Most important, it is imperative that we disregard those who feel that race has played no role in our denigration as a people. As we continue to forge our liberation as a people we should always remember the words of martyred forebears: “A luta continua.”

28 thoughts on “A Luta Continua”

  1. “It is laudable that a politician such as President Biden has recognized the tremendous hardships that Black people in the United States have undergone”. The most amount of hardship black people have experienced is in Africa. . As of 2019, 234 million sub-Saharan Africans were chronically undernourished, more than in any other region. In the whole of Africa, 250 million people were experiencing hunger, which is nearly 20% of the population. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-H78NESQnQ

    When you are your own worst enemy how do you expect others to respect you? With 17% African American in America and over 50% of them jailed inmates. The future does not bode well for the next generation.

    How does religious people see blacks?
    Mormons: The church’s first presidents, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, reasoned that black skin was the result of the Curse of Cain or the Curse of Ham. As early as 1844, leaders suggested that black people were less valiant in the pre-existence. Many leaders, including Ezra Taft Benson, were vocally opposed to the civil rights movement. Before the civil rights movement, the LDS Church’s stance went largely unnoticed and unchallenged for around a century.

    1. Before european colonialism, human trafficking and enslavement began in africa, food crises were unheard of 500 years ago. However manual scavenging, enforced illiteracy and prostitution (Devidasi), have been religious ‘duties’ for at least 1500+ years in india.

      Prostitutes of god | The Independent | The Independent

      Christian groups help thousands of girls serving as Hindu temple prostitutes in India and Nepal

      Prostitutes of God (Documentary About Devidasis)


      1. Inconvenient, Again you are out of context, Dr. Cudjoe is mentioning the immense oppression black people face and instead you are copying and pasting all about India. You are an Indian wannabe. Everyone knows that these social constructs were wrong especially the exploitation of women. You would not find that in TnT or Guyana. The closest to it is the regular supply of beautiful Venes coming in each week by the Chinese junket into PoS. The Maduro girls is part of Rowley lustful elitist accord. Note the coast guard just wave them through. For ten thousand dollars you can get Vene virgin playmate for a week. And the pleasure derived is worth over a $30,000.
        As an Afro Tobagonian once said, after you taste a Vene you don’t want the local dishes anymore.

  2. Notice the pattern? Mamoo and friends cannot debate an issue when confronted, and after insults,slander and malicious propaganda fail, they hopscotch unto another hussle.

    Food Colonialism Increasing Africa’s Hunger Crisis

    .Glass houses and stones…

    “Manual Scavenging,” Caste, and Discrimination in India

    Whose worst enemy?

    1. I try not to exploit the shame and suffering of others on this board. What I mentioned about hunger in Africa is common globally. Hunger is a global thing just to varying degrees.
      And I thank Mr. Inconvenient for making that point…

  3. The struggle continues, but victory is not certain.
    The question must be asked and answered. Why do many immigrant groups and refugees, including Africans from Africa arrive in America with very little or nothing at all, prosper after a relatively short period of time, creating wealth , becoming skilled and educated and establishing legacies for their next generation?
    What are the factors which are still holding back so many US Blacks?
    Once these factors are identified, what specific steps are to be taken to remove these negatives?
    What are the responsibilities of the Black community itself?

  4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-iZ6_FI4S4 Nam was a defining moment in Africana history. As Muhammed Ali said “I have nothing against those people out there”. Ali used his celebrity status to help end that outrageous war.
    In Vietnam this is what happened d
    58,148 were killed in Vietnam, 75,000 severely disabled, 23,214 were 100% disabled, 5,283 lost limbs and 1,081 sustained multiple amputations.
    Of those killed, 61% were younger than 21 years old.
    11,465 of those killed were younger than 20 years old.
    Of those killed, 17,539 were married.
    The average age of the men killed: 23.1 years

    The voice of black folks against this terrible war that changed the lives of so many as Vietnamese today continues to suffer due to the dispersion of agent orange on the green foliage. Ali stood strong and the anti war movement gain strength…

  5. I am moved to comment on the “race and identity” aspect of this article.

    it is imperative that we disregard those who feel that race has played no role in our denigration as a people.

    I cannot but agree with this broad postulate. At the same time, it is clear to me that the present generation of “Africentrist” scholars have gone seriously astray in their understanding of these matters. They do not understand the identity question at issue. The older author/scholars were not confused on the identity question. Douglass
    spoke plainly about the “Negro”, as we see in this quote drawn from the article:

    …Frederick Douglass, … wrote …: “When even Mr. Lincoln could tell the poor Negro that ‘he was the cause of the war,’

    We we were known then as “Negro”. It was a very specific term of identity, It was not a term of “denigration”. It was an emotionally and morally neutral term of identity. The cognate term, “nigger”, was the term intended to derogate and disrespect the Negro as to his core identity. Its denotative meaning was identical to the neutral term, “Negro”, but it was spat out in a way intended to connote disrespect. For as slave, the Negro was in no position to command respect. In the way it was used, the term, “nigger” was intended to “de-nigrate” — to “take the Negro out of the Negro”, literally. We make the mistake of thinking that to denigrate is to impute something, when the Latin prefix, “de-“, connotes rather the taking away of something. When we consider that the term Negro actually means the “people of the king”, referencing “king David”, it becomes clear. The entire slavery project required that an erstwhile king had to be broken — he had to be, literally, de-nigrated. He had to be made to forget his true identity as hailing from the root — or race — of Judah, the same as king David. The older scholars therefore used the term “Negro” without embarrassment, even as they felt the intended put-down of the term, “nigger” used and intended as a term of abuse, derogation, and yes, denigration.

    But a term of identity is what it is. One cannot run away from it if in truth, — however inconvenient it may seem,– it is indeed the truth.

    One must honor one’s father and mother, even if they are poor as the proverbial church mouse, living 12 to a room in a barrack-yard, or indeed someone’s chattel property, a slave. I am the great great grandson of John Jacob Thomas, a distinguished scholar of an earlier generation. Like Douglass, he used the term Negro without apology and without shame. That generation also knew that they were not “black” as to identity. They also knew, like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that a land of sojourn does not confer identity. The commandment says to honor mother and father, not land of sojourn. Like Abraham, one may sojourn in many lands. But it is not any one of those lands that confers identity, rather the seedline identity inherited from one’s forebears. The color of one’s skin is not that definition of identity, neither is it some landmass, no matter how emotionally attached one may become to some piece of land. Our Negro forefathers were swept off the land of Canaan, then swept off the land now known as Africa, and brought over here to the Americas. (Some of our Negro brethren, truth be told, came over to the Americas long before Columbus and the slave trade, while others made it as far as Fiji and Hawaii and other lands of the far South Pacific, and populated those lands before any other people.) We remain Negro, the people of the same line from which come the king, king David. That is the invariant of our identity as a people.

    Like it or not, we are Negro. Like it or not, our “negritude” traces back to our biblical forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Leopold Sedhar Senghor, Aime Cesaire, Leon Damas, Frantz Fanon, Marcus Garvey, and others had that clear understanding, and did not shrink from it.

    So what happened, that all of a sudden, the word Negro, in itself, came to be regarded as a term of derogation? Why is it now the case that we have essentially all “Africentrists” throwing out our core — and indeed noble identity, slavery notwithstanding — identity, and seeking to embrace a false identity linked to a land-mass of temporary sojourn, or worse, linked to a skin color of zero intrinsic worth. They have to be mad! Or so psychologically Willie-Lynched that they simply give up even trying to think straight!

    As we see here with Dr. Cudjoe. He is not even aware of the incoherence of thought in the variety of terms of race and identity he uses for the Negro: African, African American, black, Black, people of color, brown and black, brown and Black. I wish he and the present generation of so-called scholars seeking to define and advocate for us as a people, would stop it!

    We are NEGRO. Our identity traces back to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, through Judah, the people of the KING!

    That claim would be met with disbelief by many I know. A full showing of its truth would require much scholarly discourse, in particular of a sort that upholds and does not discount the truth of Genesis, Jasher, Jubilees, Enoch, and other books of Holy Scripture that it has become fashionable to discount by the present misguided generation of scholars. But facts are stubborn things that withstand scrutiny, and certainly last as long as the eternal verities, where mere fashion, even academic fashion, come and go. Look up the Hebrew phoneme, NG, variously vowelized as NEGA, NAGA, NIGA, and look up its semantic domain. Then look up the associated term, NGR, and again its various vowelizations, NEGRO, NIGER, NAGAR, NEGAR, etc. and the simple linguistic and historical truth of the matter should become as clear to the present generation of scholars as it was to earlier generations whose thought processes were not tainted by Willie-Lynch-induced political correctness, artfully vectored into popular consciousness by such non-scholars as Elijah Muhammad, Malcolm X, and Louis Farrakhan (Muslim nonsense about Asiatic original Black man), and by Hamitic-Egyptian blurring of distinctions brought about by the work of Cheikh Anta Diop, Theophile Obenga, and others, that had the Negro yearning to be associated with the glory of ancient Egypt. Well, we are not Hamitic, we are Shemitic, of the line of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. We sojourned in Egypt, and mixed with the Hamitic host there, but our core identity is of the line of the father. It is Shemitic and Israelite, not Hamitic and per se “African”.

    Much of this criticism applies equally to Nantambu’s recent piece.


    “And may these juggling fiends no more believed
    That palter with us in a double sense,
    That hold the word of promise to our ear,
    And break it to our hope!”
    — Shakespeare, Macbeth

    1. Has the “present generation of “Africentrist” scholars gone seriously astray in their understanding of these matters? Do they not understand the identity question at issue?
      OR like DR. Cudjoe, with full understanding of the terminology, I presume, are they not using terms to effectively communicate to a broad audience in an effort to make their articles readable and comprehensible to their readers ?
      Simplifying their material and reaching their readers in a convincing manner might be more effective than getting caught up in mundane intellectual terminology signifying nothing in terms of modern relevance.

      1. The present generation has gone astray. They don’t know who they are, because they have too blithely dismissed Scripture as having no relevance to the “struggle” (even this term gives away Marxist and therefore godless leaning, as we see evident in Nantambu’s piece).

        One who would know Negro history must study, repeat study, Scripture, at least as diligently as the canonical texts of the Africentrist discipline. It is a study deliberately made difficult by the enemy. See my response to Kian, in particular the discussion surrounding the quoting of Psalms 83:2-8.

        That also explains btw why such as yourself make it your business to know what the Negro are thinking, and to try indeed to control what they think. It is a phenomenon that explains as wide a range of instances as COINTELPRO and the insertion of Ralph Maraj into I95.

        I am thankfully trained as an engineer. I hate sloppy thinking when it comes to basic concepts and categories, in this case as it pertains to the identity question. As an engineer you learn not to say energy in the technical sense when you mean power, or vibration when you mean wave, or weight when you mean mass. If you get such fundamentals confused, everything else you think you know will be confused also. The same applies to history, race and identity.

        If you tag your article with “race and identity” at least be clear as to both. “Black” is not a race. “African” is not a race. (Neither is “Indian” btw, but that’s a separate discussion for the Dalits to take up). “Negro” IS a term of race. But for some silly reason they’ve got Negros thinking it is per se a derogatory term. Somebody with an agenda, — well hidden and well disguised — went to a great deal of trouble to make it so. Why?

        I withhold my peace from you — what business do you even have with this discussion? To others I say


    2. Yoruba, you appear to be insistent on us being described as “negro” even though from all historical perspectives, there is nowhere in (real) African context are any groups being identified as such. It is true that the European referred to us as such because of slavery, but no continental African identifies himself as such. What are your sources for this identity? And why are you saying we are of the Shemitic stock? There does not appear to be such a term only “semitic”.

      “Semite | ˈsemīt |
      a member of any of the peoples who speak or spoke a Semitic language, including in particular the Jews and Arabs.

      1. Kian:

        …insistent on us being described as “negro” even though from all historical perspectives, there is nowhere in (real) African context are any groups being identified as such.

        Thank you for that comment, which allows me to clarify and amplify.

        Let me preface my response with the following scripture. It lets us know that the children of Israel would be “hidden ones”, and that there are enemies of Israel (and the most High) who seek to cut Israel off from remembrance of who we are, even from remembrance of our very name as a people.

        Psalms 83:2-8. “For, lo, thine enemies make a tumult: and they that hate thee (the most High) have lifted up the head.
        3 They have taken crafty counsel against thy people, and consulted against thy hidden ones.
        4 They have said, Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation; that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance.
        5 For they have consulted together with one consent: they are confederate against thee:
        6 The tabernacles of Edom, and the Ishmaelites; of Moab, and the Hagarenes;
        7 Gebal, and Ammon, and Amalek; the Philistines with the inhabitants of Tyre;
        8 Assur also is joined with them: they have holpen the children of Lot. Selah.”

        The enemies are identified. They are Esau/Edom, Ishmael, and others allied with them. They form a conspiracy. They are “confederate” against the most High and His Chosen.

        Today, the Edomites are those who have ruled the world these last two millennia, having risen to the dominion with the coming of Greece and Rome and their successor kingdoms. They have a “white” face. But not all Esau is white. The indo-Aryans are a branch of the Esau-Edomite family tree, having mixed with the Greeks among others.

        Ishmael, today, is found among the Arabs, and is mixed in also with some Hamitic tribes. They mixed also with white — Turkic peoples including of the Ottoman empire — and today come in all shades. They too are white supremacist at their core. They too hate the Negro.

        Why this Negrophobia? Because we the Negro are of the Chosen seed of Israel. We are moreover the Chosen of the Chosen, for we are of the tribe of Judah, the tribe ultimately to (again) have the dominion. That is the tribe of king David (NEGA DEOD in the Hebrew).

        2 Esdras 6:9: “For Esau is the end of the world, and Jacob is the beginning of it that followeth.”

        Jacob is the one whose name was changed to Israel. Judah, the fourth son, is the one from whose loins came NEGA DEOD (king David). When Israel again assumes the dominion, it will be that Esau would have fallen. And it will be that a NEGRO will rule the whole world. That is the source of all white-supremacist Negro-phobia in the world.

        It is also why there are “brown” and even “black” people that hate the Negro. (Go to Nigeria and ask about the Fulani — who are these “black” people clearly at war with the Negro Yoruba and Igbo people, and in the same sly way as the indo here in T&T, though non-white, are fundamentally at war with the Negro. In the case of the Islamicized Fulani, they are continuing an Islamic war against the Negro started in the 19th century, and their aim is to “dip the Quran in the Atlantic”, being invaders from the North. They too use the Constitution left by the British as a shield as they perpetrate their jihad. The Federal Govt is dominated by Fulanis, and they are in covert cahoots with and in sympathy with the ultimately Ishmaelite aim of turning Nigeria into an Islamic Caliphate under Sharia. But I digress.

        The point is that the Negro is hated because he is the Chosen of the Chosen, as I said. It is his near-kin that hate him the most. Their hatred stems from envy: that of the son passed over, for the son given the inheritance. It is as elemental as that. Like the New Testament story of the prodigal son and his brother.

        Esau-Edom was the elder twin, yet the inheritance — the birthright and the blessing — went to Jacob, the younger. As to Ishmael, he too was the elder, but the inheritance line passed to Isaac, the younger. It was compounded in Ishmael’s case because he was the son of the handmaid, Hagar. Abraham’s wife had Ishmael put out altogether from the camp. Other near kin-folk also nursed envy. Moab, Ammon fall into that category. And Ham got into the mix of envy also, because Esau-Edom early mixed with the Hamite Canaanites, and the Hamite Egyptians. He later mixed with his Ishmaelite kin-folk. Even later he mixed in with all the seed of Japheth — Greeks, Romans etc. So all the envious arrayed against Israel and most especially the Negro, are essentially mixed in with Esau-Edom in one way or another, including some very black Hamitic tribes.

        And why are you saying we are of the Shemitic stock? There does not appear to be such a term only “semitic”.

        Because our forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob come from the line of Shem. Noah had three sons, Japheth, Shem, and Ham. There was none called Sem. The name Shem is significant in itself, because it means literally “name”. It foreshadows that the inheritance line would come through him.

        This term, Sem, and its derivate, Semitic, is a concoction of the so-called Jews. They claim by that name to be of the seed of Judah, but in fact are mostly of the seed of Japheth. Ashkenaz is listed in the table of nations given at Genesis 10, as descended from Japheth. Most Jews today are Ashkenazi. Esau-Edom is mixed in with them also. They had taken over the Pharisee sect by the time of Iyeshuah’s first advent. Herod was Edomite, and was “king of the Jews”, jealous of Iyeshuah’s claim to that title. The Edomites had “converted” to “Judaism” several hundred years prior, sketchily recounted in books carefully left out of the so-called Bible. The Khazars also “converted” en masse ca. 750 AD (see Koestler’s The 13th Tribe, and Sand’s The Invention of the Jewish people). But as one cannot convert to a seedline, they also concocted the idea that Judaism is a “religion”. They cannot be of Shem by seedline, because they’re not, but they can blur the issue by concocting a new term, Semitic, that suggests it but in the end stops short of blatant falsehood.

        Scripture prophesies their lie:

        Revelation 2:9. “I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.”

        The most High counts their lie a blasphemy! We know it’s them, because they are the ones calling themselves “Jews”. We the Negro, the true seed of Judah, do not call ourselves “Jews”.

        We also know, scripturally, our true identity as sons of Israel because we uniquely are a fulfillment of the curses put upon us for our disobedience. See Deuteronomy 28:15-68. But see more specifically:

        Genesis 15:13-14. “And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;
        14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance.”

        We the Negro are the clear fulfillment of the slavery (affliction through servitude) prophecy, specifically for 400 years out of which we are now emerging. Those that afflicted us –Esau-Edom, Ishmael and their confederates — are now being judged. That is the true meaning of Covid, and all the other plagues unleashed on the earth. The judgement is now upon them. The cup of affliction has passed from us to them, as prophesied:

        Isaiah 51:22-23. “Thus saith thy Lord the LORD, and thy God that pleadeth the cause of his people, Behold, I have taken out of thine hand the cup of trembling, even the dregs of the cup of my fury; thou shalt no more drink it again:
        23 But I will put it into the hand of them that afflict thee; which have said to thy soul, Bow down, that we may go over: and thou hast laid thy body as the ground, and as the street, to them that went over.”

        This is the true struggle. It was always about the most High. For our part, our job is to “come out of her, my people”:

        Revelation 18:4. “And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. ”

        Those of us that love the world and its dainties and delicacies are put on notice that they too will be part of the judgment of those that afflicted us. Come out of her, MY people!

        Now, as to the term NEGRO (root people of the king), and its cognate NEGA (king) this is found in the Hebrew. One has to look it up, although when last I did so it was well hidden. The vowelization is also uncertain, because vowels are not given in the original paleo-Hebrew. But the use of both these words is there littered about, and it has survived in disparate languages, e.g.:
        – KEBRA NEGAst — Ethiopian Hebrew — Chronicles of the KINGS
        – ABEDNEGO — name of Daniel’s companion, means servant (ABed) of the king (NEGO)
        – Simon called NIGER — (Acts 2:13) Latin form of NEGA
        – NAG HAMMADI — this would be a reference to a village chief named HAMMADI, a name itself which means “the son of David”
        – NAGA JUNA — Buddhist prophecy of the Second Coming
        – NEGA JUNA — variant of above
        – NAGAR JUNA — another variant
        – KING — English for NEGA, with the Hebrew phoneme, NG surviving
        – KOENIG — German for NEGA, with one Hebrew vowelization present and suggesting the NIGER form
        – etc

        Now note carefully, Negro would be a term of identity WE GAVE OURSELVES! It obviously was still present down into slavery times, and post-slavery times.

        Such other terms as “black”, “African”, African American”, etc. were trick-forced upon us by EDOMITES and ISHMAELITES and HAMITES. The trick was to DE-NIGRATE us by making the term, Negro, itself, into a term of derogation. See Willie Lynch for this technique. It works well with us because as a people we tend to EMOTE when it is we should THINK!


        1. PS. (Regarding African usage of the term Negro)

          Certainly the colonizers used it. The British used it tongue in cheek when they named the country of “Nigeria”. And

          Yes it is true that there is no tribe that called itself specifically “Negro”. But one of the terms by which the Yoruba people called themselves was “the NAGO people”. Here NAGO is a variant vowelization of NEGA. Again the idea present is that of “people of the king”, alluding to the line of NEGA DEOD (king David).

          That that idea is in play is further evidenced by another term for the Yoruba, which is ODUDUWA. This was the name of the founding king that came from the east. The name itself means essentially “of the line of DUDU”, a variant rendition of DEOD or David.

          Further, the name YORUBA means “House of IYERUSHALEM”, with the suffix BA deriving from Hebrew letter BEIT referencing literally a house, and by extension a people coming from the same house, and YORU referencing in abbreviated form the word IYERUSHALEM, the Hebrew for Jerusalem.

          The Yoruba language connection to ancient Hebrew is proven. Ancient paleo-Hebrew may be read as Yoruba words when appropriate vowelization is imparted to the vowel-free ancient paleo-Hebrew text. See the YouTube channel Yoruba Torah Research.

          Some of the Hebrew origins for various of the tribes are apparent, e.g. NUPE tribe are Naphtali, BINI tribe is Reuben. It seems that after the scattering out of the original land named after our forefather Israel (IYE-SHARALOH), many made it to West Africa, where tribal organization was retained.

          There was also further splitting. For example the Yoruba are not the only ones from the tribe of Judah, but their names emphasize their connection specifically to the House of David.


        2. PPS. (Y-DNA angle)

          We the Negro of the Caribbean and the Americas carry Y-DNA haplotype E1B1A. The Bantu tribes in general carry that same Haplotype. Hence the terms Negro and Bantu are used interchangeably as terms of racial identity, and often combined, as in Negro/Bantu.

          Hamitic tribes and Ishmaelite tribes differ from the Negro/Bantu ones in that regard. For example the Nilotic people — eg the Nuer, Afar, Somali, Oromo, among many others carry different Y-DNA. In West Africa, the Fulani are different also, and appear to be Hamitic of the line of Phut, a branch of which settled in what is today Libya. Phut was the 4th son of Ham, the others being Kush, Mizraim (aka Egypt) and Canaan.

          All “black” people are NOT the same. We the Negro are SWA-SHACHOR (bronze) as to skin color. Kush was famously so dark as to be designated CHAR-SHACHOR. There were other terms in Hebrew designating skin color. SA-SHACHOR was pale or “white”, with the pictograph for SA being the moon, suggesting paleness. The SWA phoneme survives in such words as SWAgger, SWAhili, SWAziland (now ESWAtini), even in English as SWArthy, and German as SCHWArtz. Our friend Arnold Schwarzenegger carries an essentially Hebrew name which suggests Negro origin. We populated western Europe before Esau came invading. And before Moorish conquest ca. 8th century AD.

          There is a lot to this race/identity thing where we are concerned. The Africentrists have some facts right, but are missing the Abraham/Isaac/Jacob Hebrew connection.


  6. Having laid some foundation as to the Hebrew origin of the Negro, let me now address,– as briefly as I can, for it is by its very nature a huge topic, — the question of the nature of the struggle alluded to in the title of Cudjoe’s article. Along the way I will remark also on Nantambu’s earlier piece.

    Unlike Cudjoe and Nantambu, my take on the matter is Scriptural. I make no apologies for that. I am trained as an engineer and mathematician among other things. I deal in facts and evidence, and I certainly do not deny the evidence of my senses. I understand clearly the limitations of Science and Mathematics as founts from which are supposed to flow Knowledge, as distinct from Speculation. In a recent post, I made the point, well known to philosophers of Science and Mathematics, that Science of itself may never establish the truth of any general scientific theory, and likewise, Mathematics cannot establish from within any mathematical axiom system, the internal consistency thereof. Science is however well able to establish the falsehood of hypothesized general theories whenever it is well able to contrive experiments to test a general theory. And Mathematics is well able to disprove the internal consistency of a mathematical axiom system whenever one may derive a theorem, T , and its negation, not-T , from within the same axiom system. Thus, Science and Mathematics, both, must proceed gingerly forward on the basis of Faith. Any idiot that suggests otherwise needs to study the matter more carefully. I make this point because I proceed as a Believer, and as a Believer I know and accept that I too must proceed on the basis of Faith. But I do not delude myself otherwise, as do many naive atheists that discount the most High, and Scripture.

    But what is faith? It is ultimately the reliance upon certain events to occur in the future, possibly involving the contrivance of certain present acts one hopes will bring about the future events. It is a matter of category, Faith, as opposed to Knowledge, because the Future is never something for mere Man to know for certain. Nevertheless, we may proceed with all due and deliberate Reason.

    This is where facts and evidence enter the picture. I place faith in the promise of Scriptural prophecy because the evidence of history bears out the unerring unfolding of prophecy over the course of thousands of years. Our forefather, Moses, was given to prophesy, ca. 1500 BC, the enslavement, again, of the children of Israel when he led them out of that earlier enslavement in Egypt; Deuteronomy 28:68. Three thousand years later, starting ca. 1500 AD, that prophecy began to be fulfilled, the preconditions having been met. One that is led by Reason does not ignore such evidence. And such evidence engenders faith, that other prophecies from the same or like source, also will be fulfilled in due time. It also engenders faith that claims of fact — cosmogonical, cosmological, historical, — made within Scripture may also be taken as true, unless conclusively established otherwise by patient empirical test and examination; books may be tampered with, after all.

    Therefore, one is bemused to see the casual dismissal of the evidence and claims of Scripture by those of the Africentrist canon when it comes to even the basic question of race and identity, at the same time we see strong — and speculative at that — claims made as to our history as a people.

    Basic question: when does our history start? The Africentrist answer is that it starts somewhere in Africa thousands of years ago. This is also the Speculation of Science. They don’t really know for sure, and cannot know, based on the evidence adduced — the claimed fossil remains of an alleged humanoid found in the African Rift Valley being the oldest such remains ever found anywhere. But since Science allows them to “update” their understanding as more evidence comes to light, they run with it and take it as the “best guess” for the time being. In the meantime, the critical question remains carefully unaddressed: if that, or another like it, was the first human, how did it come about? The answer we are supposed to assume is Evolution. But evolution can only proceed when Life already exists. The question is logically prior to that. To that question there really is no answer, except to suppose the unthinkable, that the first life form emerged, by itself, as an energy-matter phenomenon, from the dust of the earth, and then evolved into the multiplicity of life forms we see on the earth today. Who wants to believe that is certainly free to do so, but it is to my mind a palpable nonsense. I would go so far as to say it is a provable nonsense as long as there is not even a posited pathway to go from energy-matter reality to the known reality also of Spirit and Intelligence. The latter must always have existed because it would take these to create these, hence these must always have existed, since exist they do. But Man per se is a different matter, as is the Earth per se, and all the living breathing life forms that populate the earth. As to these, we see them come and go. So there must have been a beginning.

    What then is the purpose to the earth, the purpose to Man. What is the point of it all? And what is this “struggle” in which we are called to engage, and why?

    The materialist answer to these questions is not satisfying to me, But I find reasonable and compelling answer in Scripture. In short, the Scriptural answer is that we have a Maker, the “God” of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He it was who made the heavens, the earth, and all that therein is. Earth is a school-house. He put Man on earth and gave him dominion over all, and further made Man in His own image and likeness. Therefore we are essentially gods-in-training:

    Psalms 82:6. “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.”

    The struggle is to overcome the world — to go from the carnal to the spiritual, to go from the dog-eat-dog world of injustice, greed and carnality for the moment ruled by the Devil, to a Zion of justice, peace, and righteousness, then to be begotten by the Father as a graduated “god”, able to create, sustain, enjoy, and experience new worlds, as His “first begotten”, Iyeshuah, was tasked to create this world, and to tutor a new batch of “gods”.

    Psalms 2:6-8. “Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. 7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. 8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.”

    Revelation 2:17. “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.”

    So we are in a struggle to find “Zion”. In simple terms, Zion is a place of peace, justice, and righteousness, a place where the strong help the weak, where there are no more poor, neither sickness nor disease, neither hunger nor thirst, no more suffering, no more pain, no more tears, rather a place of joy everlasting.

    The Marxists seek after such an order, but have no ambition to achieve it but in a material sense, not believing nor trusting in the Scriptural promise. When applied to the Negro, it means the limited aim of achieving “equality” with the oppressor the heathen, and perhaps thereafter seeking for a more perfect union with the parasitic heathen.

    That cannot work. In any case it is not what is prophesied, as we see at Psalms 2:7 quoted earlier. Rather, the judgment on the heathen — those that come as an invading species and subjugate the host people — is prophesied to be destruction … except for those who repent and opt to cleave unto Jacob.

    Obadiah 1:15-18. “For the day of the LORD is near upon all the heathen: as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head.
    16 For as ye have drunk upon my holy mountain, so shall all the heathen drink continually, yea, they shall drink, and they shall swallow down, and they shall be as though they had not been.
    17 But upon mount Zion shall be deliverance, and there shall be holiness; and the house of Jacob shall possess their possessions.
    18 And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; and there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau; for the LORD hath spoken it.”

    We see here (verse 17) the interesting angle of reparations, but in a form far different from that envisaged by the Emancipation Committee. We see (at verse 18) that the heathen will be swept off the land (none shall remain). However we know also from other Scripture that there will be the possibility for them, as individuals, to repent and be forgiven their sins, but place will be
    found in Zion for such as cleave unto Jacob.

    Isaiah 14:1-2. “For the LORD will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob.
    2And the people shall take them, and bring them to their place: and the house of Israel shall possess them in the land of the LORD for servants and handmaids: and they shall take them captives, whose captives they were; and they shall rule over their oppressors.

    The Negro shall rule. This is righteous recompense under the lights of the most High. As they did to us, or sought to do to us, the same shall fall upon their head. DOUBLE. Their time will be 1,000 years in such servitude. However proud, however arrogant, they shall surely drink from that cup.

    That is a struggle I can accept and undertake. But what must we as a people DO? We must return to, do and keep the commandments of the most High, and keep the faith of our Saviour, Not however as taught by the Edomite Christians, nor the Edomite Jews, nor the Ishmaelite Muslims. For the purveyors of ALL these Gentile religions went to great lengths to keep us ignorant as to who we the Negro were, as the Chosen of the Chosen. ALL these religions will be and are being consigned to the dustbin, except perhaps the Orthodox churches that did not white out the true image of the Chosen people.


  7. Theodore Lewis and Dumb Indians who say or do nothing

    This is how the “aryans” talk to one another and behave, in order to “whip” each other into the “right” psychological frame of mind.

    Whenever indian and “Hindu” racism is challenged, “non-racists” swoop in, foaming at the mouth, and aggressively trying to take charge of the conversation…Why?

    1. Yes. Thank you for your diligence in following the fulminations of these miscreants.

      I note he has not addressed the substantive charge of indo CHEATING. Disparate racial outcomes in SEA results and placements are a statistical improbability otherwise… to the point of impossibility, absent CHEATING.

      Certainly opportunity and motive are proven. The only question is how they do it (means). That calls for forensic investigation.

      Not having a basis to challenge the basic charge of CHEATING, he attacks on the basis of: (1) of ad hominem attack on Prof Lewis. This is of course unavailing in logic ; (2) community failure affecting the Negro. This cannot explain the statistical improbability inherent in the figures we see stretching back over decades; there is, still, a vibrant Negro middle class; and (3) a racist call to arms, as you point out, calculated to cow the PM and the Minister.

      To all of that I say enough is enough!!!

      May the most High stiffen the backbone of the PM and the Minister in this matter, and gird up their loins as necessary to undertake the bruising battle that may be necessary. And may He expose the means by which this CHEATING has been accomplished.


      1. Yoruba,
        Please peruse that site and see how the “aryans” think and organize against their designated “chamars” (untouchable)
        This is where mamoo, tman, mitra etc get their “alternative facts” from; observe their gladiato hero foam at the mouth, while still trying to posture as an unbiased, objective “just telling it like it is”, ethnically neutral critic:
        PNM consolidating votes in Tobago when UNC supports Self-Government Bill: Tobagonians do not want UNC (Indians) in Tobago

        1. Quoting Ramcharitar:

          That’s the thing – “UNC” is now an epithet in Tobago. To admit to being a UNC in Tobago is burning votes. This did not happen by accident, and it’s a flimsy code: UNC = Indian, and now in Tobago, Indian = politically dead. Any UNC campaign in Tobago shovels votes into the PNM, and anyone who is seen as associated is a traitor or some such thing. In the last election, the PDP was continually linked to the PDP by the PNM. This is what tribalism looks like up close, in real time.

          This is UNC complaining about “tribalism” in Tobago, when we may read from the “Indian Policy”:

          Item #10: “We must take Tobago, buy their properties and make them renters, we know the value of land, and this investment will insure (sic) our political control of the island”.


          Item #11: “we are superior to them and they must know it”.

          Now, who really is being “tribal”?

          In any case, there is nothing per se wrong with being “tribal”? That is not the issue. The thing is that tribalism is both sword and shield.

          There is nothing wrong with it used as shield. Under Israelite tribal law, tribalism was the shield used to protect the tribal patrimony. No one, not of the tribe, was permitted ownership of tribal land. Not even a fellow Israelite of another tribe. In addition, every Jubilee — every fifty years — all land reverted to their original owners. By this simple device, a permanent class of overlords could not emerge; neither a permanent class of landless and dispossessed. And a class of foreign overlords could not emerge through a device such as proposed at Item #10 of the “Indian Policy”.

          This is tribalism used as shield and prophylactic. Who can object to that? Every modern “nation-state” has restrictions on the movement of foreign nationals into the country, and to greater or lesser degree on foreign ownership of the national patrimony.

          The heathen tribes — by definition those with a penchant to invade lands that don’t belong to them, and to colonize and subjugate the indigenes — are tribal also. But, as we see at Item #10 of the “Indian Policy”, their tribalism is used as sword — they seek to “take Tobago”. They make distinction between “we” (the hostile invading heathen tribe) and “them” (the host tribe castigated for being “tribal”).

          Let me see, are Tobagonians seeking similarly to “take over” anywhere? Debe? Penal? Even Toco?

          As usual, the wisdom of Scripture is easily upheld.

          It is interesting that such simple tribal prophylactic to prevent the emergence of permanent overlords is not contemplated within Marxist thought and doctrine. The heathen tribes will of course object to it.

          It is for the same reason that they object to measures calculated to stop their sectarian tribal “taking advantage” by CHEATING at the SEA exams and placements.

          We must be wise as serpents when dealing with the heathen races, yet harmless as doves otherwise. Scripture lets us know how that matter ultimately is resolved. It is a matter of sheep and goat, wheat and tares…

          May the most High look down upon us, have mercy upon us, and put a hand, as He has promised.


    Age of Earth and Man — and the History of the Negro

    This is responsive to Nantambu’s recent piece on Africentrist history, but bears relevance also to Cudjoe’s present article on the “struggle” of the Negro.

    Any such struggle must be premised on a clear understanding of the race and identity question, which in turn cannot be disentangled from the long historical view. That long historical view is to be found in Scripture, not in speculative Big-Bang and Evolution theories of Science, taken for granted by Nantambu and the Aricentrist scholars. The Marxist idea of (revolutionary) struggle in which the Negro is admonished to engage pays little or no mind to Scripture as having something to say on this matter. Likewise, the Africentrist view of history does not at all credit Scripture. A serious failure of understanding follows in these two views of the matter. I continue to address this in this Addendum, which takes the long historical view going back to Creation.

    Speculative Science does not know, cannot know, and does not claim to know, the age of the earth, nor the age of Man.

    Scripture gives the definitive answer. It is not a speculation. It is not a hypothesis in the manner of Science that one proceeds to test. No. It is the FACT testimony of the Doer of the deed, the “God” of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with whom He later enters into Covenant relationship. This is not to say that fact testimony cannot be subject to empirical test, as is speculative hypothesis. But in the absence of contradicting evidence, we are well entitled under REASON, to accept the fact testimony as a claim of fact.

    Note carefully: we may not under REASON discount fact testimony on the basis of an allegedly more compelling HYPOTHESIS. The contradicting evidence must be evidence of fact, not of an asserted speculative hypothesis. What is the point? It is that on the basis of the Scriptural account and associated chronicles, we know, exactly how old is the earth, and of man. There is no factual basis on which the Scriptural account may be discredited. There is much pooh-pooing of that account, and the asserting of allegedly more believable speculations, but actual factual evidence simply does not exist.

    On the Scriptural account, we are now in the Year 6007 since Year 1 of this present world when the earth, and man, were created. Speculative Science is certainly entitled to doubt this fact assertion. But it cannot in REASON be doubted on the basis of mere hypothesis.

    The Scriptural claim throws up various bases on which to fact-check the Creation account. One is that the history as told speaks of a Great Flood that covered all the earth, and all except the fish in the waters died off. That flood took place in Year 1666 of Creation, about 4,300 years before present. Therefore, if we can find and verify anything older than that — a desert, a tree, a reef, etc. — we might have reason, based in evidence, to doubt. That has not been found nor yet asserted. If anything, the estimated age of the Sahara desert conforms to the Scriptural account, as being about 4,000 years. Ditto for the Great Barrier Reef.

    Also, if we can find any artifact older than 6,007 years, we again may have reason to doubt. Science claims to be able to date fossil remains to tens of thousands, even millions of years. These are NOT factual claims, rather speculative claims based ultimately on a chain of assumptions that cannot be empirically established as fact. Dating methods based on radio-active decay rates, or based on speculative claims as to the hypothesized “geologic column”, etc., are not claims of fact, rather of speculative hypothesis. There simply is nothing … there is no artifact — statue, pyramid, stela, building — that dates itself back prior to 6,007 years before present. The logical status of the Big-Bang idea that the world was created in a Big Bang about 20 billion years ago, with the earth emerging -about 4-5 billion years ago, is mere speculative hypothesis. As a hypothetical speculation, — unproven and unprovable under the methods of Science, moreover unfalsifiable because incapable of experimentation repeatable or otherwise — it cannot be asserted to disprove fact testimony. It is the Creation account that in reason ought better to stand. The Doer of the deed went to great trouble to prove Himself.

    Isaiah 43:10. “Ye are my witnesses, saith IYEHAWAH, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me…”

    The Creation account, and the prophetic riders to it, give us reason to believe, and strengthens faith thereby, as follows: The Year 6007 is the 7th year of the 7th Millennium since Creation. We are therefore already into that Millennium when prophecy speaks to the end of Esau’s dominion on the earth, and when Iyeshuah is to return in great glory, with fire and sword, and with the trump of angels, to raise up that one of the line of NEGA DEOD, who then would bring in an earthly Zion. As we look about us, there is indeed every sign that that prophecy is being fulfilled, though far from complete. Certainly, Esau’s rule appears to be weakening. And certainly conversely, Jacob’s star appears to be on the rise. Certainly the four hundred years — some say 1619-2019 — of our prophesied servitude (Genesis 15:13) are now behind us.

    Genesis 15:13-14. “And he said unto Abram, Know of asurety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land [that is] not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; 14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge : and afterward shall they come out with great substance.”

    Accordingly, we have now moved into the era (Genesis 15:14) of the judgement of “that nation” that afflicted us. The recognition of Emancipation and Juneteenth are merely emblematic. The Covid plague is part of that judgement. Winds, flood, hail, earthquake, scorching heat, freezing cold, volcanic activity, building collapse, sinkholes, mudslides, fiery conflagrations, burning of gentile churches, mosques, retc. etc. are unleashed upon the earth.

    The Africentrist (and Science-istic) speculation has no comparable specificity as to the age of the earth and of man. On the Scriptural account, man began multiplying on the earth 6,007 years ago. That process came to a halt 4,300 years or so ago with the flood, and started again with eight survivors — Noah and his three sons Japheth, Shem, and Ham, and their respective wives. That second start occurred where they came off the Ark — somewhere in the Ararat mountains in what is now Turkey. NOT Africa. They made their way down into that great plain between the two rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates, and there, in Mesopotamia, is where mankind got its second start, and from there, spread out.

    Nimrod, — one of the line of Ham, — the mighty hunter (of men) was the first to establish empire, and to subjugate his brethren. This was the first Babylon. Later, as we learn from Jubilees (chap. 8) the land was divided up. Japheth went north to the cold lands, Ham went south to the hot lands, and Shem got the temperate middle. All were SWA-SHACHOR, — the original melanated man — to varying degrees. Noah was albino — SA-SHACHOR or pale-skinned. We also learn — from the Book of Enoch (chap 106)– that fallen angels again come down to earth, as they had done before the flood, and chose for themselves wives, and that the offspring are SA-SHACHOR. Color variation re-entered. as before the flood. The sons of Japheth — the original gentiles of Genesis 10, turn SA-SHACHOR under this influence. Canaan the Hamite took land that was not his to take, rather belonged to Shem. He too became polluted with the seed of fallen angels, leading to giantism and pygmy-ism among the children of Canaan, along with some degree of drift to SA-SHACHOR (pale) skin, but not to the same degree as Japheth, all of whose sons became entirely pale of skin under nephilim influence.

    The stage was set for modern history with its Babylonish tendencies, the anti-thesis of the sought-for Zion, and with a color dynamic that came to associate SA-SHACHOR with the dominant (and nephilim-polluted) seedlines. Shem became polluted also, albeit with exceptions. However, that line of Shem coming through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were more or less preserved as a sort of heirloom seed kept safe from the heathenic influence of fallen-angel seed. Esau, Jacob’s twin, mixed unrestrained, ending up to large degree SA-SHACHOR. This was prefigured in his name (Esau is ISAshah in the original Hebrew, and he came out SA-SHACHOR like Noah). Jacob remained SWA-SHACHOR in significant part, albeit with SA-SHACHOR elements thrown in, due to Noah’s albinism being passed on, but also undoubtedly also due to some incursion as well of the nephilim influence.

    When Jacob was scattered down into Africa after the 2nd Temple was destroyed, Jacob became the proverbial heir-loom seed, well cut off from nephilim pollution which continued unabated in the northern climes and eastern climes –Asia north, central, east, south and west. Also, before and after the 1st Temple was destroyed (Assyrian and Babylonian captivities), Jacob was scattered far west to the Americas, long before Columbus, also to western Europe and north-western Europe, where the original indigenous people (e.g. the Celts) were known to be a SWA-SHACHOR people. They were also scattered to the far south Pacific, eventually making it across to the Americas (California).

    2 Esdras 13:40-45. “Those are the ten tribes, which were carried away prisoners out of their own land in the time of Osea the king, whom Salmanasar the king of Assyria led away captive, and he carried them over the waters, and so came they into another land. 41 But they took this counsel among themselves, that they would leave the multitude of the heathen, and go forth into a further country, where never mankind dwelt, 42 That they might there keep their statutes, which they never kept in their own land. 43 And they entered into Euphrates by the narrow places of the river. 44 For the most High then shewed signs for them, and held still the flood, till they were passed over. 45 For through that country there was a great way to go, namely, of a year and a half: and the same region is called Arsareth.”

    When the Mongolian empire (Genghis Khan and his line, ca. 13th century) came up, they also made it across the Pacific (in Chinese treasure vessels far superior to what Columbus later had; see John Ranking’s 17/18th century book on the Mongolian invasion of the Americas) and vectored in to the indigenous Israelite population of the Americas a Mongolian and Chinese seedline. Thus, when Columbus later came, he would have encountered a range of phenotypes among the then indigenou people, from heavily negroid and SWA-SHACHOR to heavily mongoloid, and UD-SHACHOR (red-skinned) with a range in-between.

    That is true history, as written, not science-istic speculative hypothesis involving for example speculation (unprovable and unfalsifiable) about ice-age and land-bridge.

    So man did not come up “out of Africa”. After the flood, we came down from Mt. Ararat out of Noah’s Ark. Jacob ended up scattered down into Africa, as well as across the Atlantic, down into the South Seas, and even up into Western and north-western Europe. He became “indigenous” seemingly everywhere, except for north and east Asia (Japheth), and west, middle and south Asia (Shem). That is why Runoko Rashidi and Ivan van Sertima could write all these books talking about “African presence” here, there, and seemingly every where. It is all consistent with Scripture, albeit well hidden some of it. Some of that Scripture is to be found now in the golden plates given to Joseph Smith to decode as the Book of Mormon.

    Scripture, Scripture, Scripture! There lies the story of man, and the central role of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the Negro sons of Jacob. We remain the nearest to an heir-loom seed on the planet, with the original seedline back to Adam, relatvely unpolluted by nephilim (the original invasive heathen) seedline.

    It is regrettable that our Negro Africentrist scholars have been bamboozled by speculative “Science” into embracing an “out of Africa” speculative hypothesis for the origin of Man, when chronicled history written by our own Negro ancestors lets us know the fact of the matter. We were formed out of the dust of the ground by a Creator. We did not evolve as some purely energy-matter phenomenon at the beginning of which was a Big Bang, in which nothing exploded, for no reason, giving rise to everything, for no purpose, at the pinnacle of which is the white-supremacist white man, who is further evolved from the original black man out of Africa. That is unproven and unprovable speculation that cannot in all reason, upset the story as written by the Doer.


    Revelation 18:4. “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins and receive not of her plagues.”

    1. Thanks. Interesting.

      That article links to


      where the famous “Lucy” fossil discovery is discussed. They claim that fossil was 3.2 million years old:

      “It was immediately obvious that the skeleton was a momentous find, because the sediments at the site were known to be 3.2 million years old. “I realised this was part of a skeleton that was older than three million years,” says Johanson.

      This is the kind of bold-faced NONSENSE that passes for Evolution so-called “Science”. How could they “know” that the sedimentary layer was 3.2 million years old? The answer is they can’t. The assumption being made is that the observed geologic column with its identified sedimentary layers came into existence over millions of years of a sedimentary process of accumulation. That is hypothesis, not fact. Even granting the hypothesis, it is still further to be established what is the time frame associated with such a process.

      As it happens, the great flood chronicled by Noah and his sons may well account for such a process. The flood accounted for a great die-off of everything living on the land in the space of a year. That accounts for the fossil record. Denser material sank lower than lighter material, accounting for the “geologic column”, or “sedimentary layers”. Over time, mud hardened to rock, with the hardest and densest typically at the bottom, and the lightest and most friable toward the top. Such a process was actually observed emerging out of the Mt. St Helen’s eruption a few decades ago. One of the observed effects of the “geologic column” that arose within a few short years was that of petrified trees standing vertical, cutting across sedimentary layers. Obviously these layers were not formed through a gradual process requiring millions of years, rather at one fell swoop in a single catastrophic event.

      Lucy was not 3.2 million years old.

      Neither could carbon dating (or other radio-active decay methods) conclusively establish such an age. Any estimate obtained by such methods would merely amount logically to the end-product of a series of assumptions regarding unknown and unknowable rates of radio-active decay presumed stretching back millions of years.

      Logically, the date claim would amount to the fallacy of begging the question — ultimately, assuming that which rather must be proven.


Comments are closed.