Monday, April 26, 2010
The picture above is very sad.
The Second Bill of Rights was a proposal made by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt during his State of the Union Address on January 11, 1944 to suggest that the nation had come to recognize, and should now implement, a second bill of rights. Roosevelt did not argue for any change to the United States Constitution; he argued that the second bill of rights was to be implemented politically, not by federal judges. Roosevelt's stated justification was that the "political rights" guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights had "proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness." Roosevelt's remedy was to create an "economic bill of rights" which would guarantee:
It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.
This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.
As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.
What Does Plutonomy Mean?
Economic growth that is powered and consumed by the wealthiest upper class of society. Plutonomy refers to a society where the majority of the wealth is controlled by an ever-shrinking minority; as such, the economic growth of that society becomes dependent on the fortunes of that same wealthy minority.
Posted by Sawaad Amen Ra at 3:37 PM
"Two hundred and twenty-seven years ago the first of our injured race were brought to the shores of America. They came not with glad spirits to select their homes in the New World. They came not with their own consent, to find unmolested enjoyment of the blessings of this fruitful soil .... They came with broken hearts, from their beloved native land, and were doomed to unrequited toil and deep degradation."
Henry Highland Garnet (1815–1882) was an African American abolitionist and orator.
Shem Hotep ("I go in peace").
The picture above is funny, and sad at the sametime.
Read a Book. Lies my Teacher told me. By James W. Loewen
Read a Book. Egypt Child of Africa. By Ivan Van Sertima
Read a Book. The Golden Age of the Moor. By Ivan Van Sertima.
"Beware the beast Man, for he is the Devil's pawn. Alone among God's primates, he kills for sport or lust or greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him; drive him back into his jungle lair, for he is the harbinger of death." Dr. Cornelius
Dr. Cornelius is a chimpanzee archaeologist and historian, appearing in the original novel of Planet of the Apes.
"Where there is fire, there is smoke. And in that smoke, from this day forward, my people will crouch, and conspire, and plot, and plan for the inevitable day of Man's downfall. The day when he finally and self-destructively turns his weapons against his own kind. The day of the writing in the sky, when your cities lie buried under radioactive rubble!
When the sea is a dead sea, and the land is a wasteland out of which I will lead my people from their captivity! And we will build our own cities, in which there will be no place for humans except to serve our ends! And we shall found our own armies, our own religion, our own dynasty!
And that day is upon you NOW!" Caesar
Caesar is the son of Dr. Cornelius, appearing in the original novel of Conquest of the Planet of the Apes.
In Conquest of the Planet of the Apes, primates are used as servants and slaves for human beings. Eventually, Caesar, the chimpanzee protagonist of the movie leads a primate revolution against human beings. Caesar tells a black assistant to the oppressive governor “You, of all people should understand that to be free, we need power,” making the slavery allegory all the more clear.
Link to Conquest of the Planet of the Apes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZ7FH4vO8gY&feature=related
The best of the four sequels to Planet of the Apes -- and a great science fiction film even as a stand-alone venture -- director J. Lee Thompsons' film suggests -- in unblinking, brutal terms -- that in the case of subjugation, oppression, slavery and injustice, violent revolution is the only solution to rectify the problem. In the words of the film, despotic masters won't be kind until they are "forced" to be kind. To force kindness, your people have to be free. To have freedom...you must possess power.
This notion of violent revolution as panacea to matters of social inequality didn't just arise from the ether. Like all great works of art, Conquest of the Planet of the Apes, released in 1972, strongly reflects the time period during which it was produced. And from 1965 through the early 1970s, the United States suffered a number of debilitating, disturbing and violent race riots in many of its most populous urban areas. Angry African-Americans took up arms, looted merchants, and destroyed property in an attempt to express their grievances with the social injustice they witnessed and endured.
The Watts Riots occurred in Los Angeles in the year 1965, and 4,000 rioters were arrested by the police. 34 rioters were killed, and over 1,000 were injured. A political commission convened after the riot judged that the outbreak of violence had been caused by the following conditions: racial inequality in Los Angeles, a high jobless rate, bad schools, heavy-handed police tactics, and pervasive job and housing discrimination.
The LAPD chief at the time of the lawlessness didn't exactly help calm things down either. He referred to the rioters as "monkeys in the zoo," according to Social Problems, 1968, pages 322-341. As silly as that may sound, that very description -- of rioters as monkeys -- is literally translated in Conquest of the Planet of the Apes.
The Watts Riots did not represent an isolated incident, either. There was also the Washington D.C. Riot of 1968, the Baltimore Riot of the same year, and the Chicago Riot too. And -- perhaps most dramatically -- there was the so-called "Detroit Rebellion" of 1967 which lasted for five days (during a hot July) and saw 7,200 arrests, 40 million dollars worth of property damage, and over 2,000 buildings burned to the ground. The root causes of this violent spree were -- again after the fact -- deemed the same as those that had been observed in Watts. Unemployment by blacks doubled that of whites (15.9% to 8%) in Detroit; the community had little access to adequate medical facilities; there was distinct "spatial segregation" in the city; and 134,000 jobs had been lost over the previous decade-and-a-half.
In toto, half-a-million African-Americans were involved in the various race riots of the late 1960s. To contextualize that sum total, this number is equivalent to the number of American soldiers serving in the War in Vietnam. (Planet of the Apes as American Myth, Eric Greene, 1998, page 79). This huge figure alone should put truth to the lie that the riots were but isolated incidents, or somehow just involved career criminals. Clearly, this was a social movement, not a crime spree.
From this turbulent era of violence, riot and protest was formulated Conquest of the Planet of the Apes, a sci-fi film which projects an ape slave uprising in technological North America in the far-flung future year of 1991. As also suggested by author Greene, the film's text is actually "key for re-reading the Watts Riots as a justifiable reaction to intolerable oppression, rather than just an outbreak of lawless abandon." (Planet of the Apes as American Myth, Eric Greene, 1998, page 16). In Dehn's script, the rebelling apes are even specifically referred to as "rioters."
Shot entirely on the futuristic-looking campus of the University of California at Irvine, Conquest of the Planet of the Apes is set in "the future," in an America that has transformed itself into a rigid, fascist state. Nightly curfews are enforced rigorously. Heavily-armed police officers patrol the streets. American citizens are subjected to torture by the State (via a device called an authenticator) without any respect to due process of law. Announcements to citizens by the "Watch Commander" play regularly in the background on the heaivily-guarded city streets...the ubiquitous voice of Big Brother. Labor demonstrations and gatherings are ruthlessly put down by military police.
Because all dogs and cats have died (killed by a space plague in 1985), apes have replaced these beloved animals. First as beloved pets but now as slaves.
These slave apes are "conditioned" to obey human masters, and are punished via "conditioning" when they fail in their tasks or simply don't perform fast enough.
A populist human movement resists the enslavement of apes...because the simians are (involuntarily) taking away their jobs. GO HUMAN, NOT APE, reads one placard. SLAVES ARE SCABS reads another. UNFAIR TO WAITERS screams one more We saw signs and isceral protests like this in District 9 (2009) this summer too: a nativist fear that ethnic "newcomers" are here to steal jobs, depress wages and tax our already overburdened system.
In Conquest of the Planet of the Ape's dynamite, extended opening sequence -- shot entirely in the shadow of 1970s "futurism" architecture -- the viewer is introduced to the rules and locales of this cold, fascist world. Apes are trained en mass in the public square, running a gauntlet of tasks at the bidding of armed, uniformed masters. They are constantly instructed and disciplined in cruel terms. "Go!" "No!" "Do!" It is the ape's job to serve, but not to question. The slaves are also forced to breed, but not allowed to maintain families.
In keeping with the overarching metaphor of the race riots in America, Conquest of the Planet of the Apes further contextualizes the apes' 1991 slavery in terms of the historical African-American experience in our country.
We see, for instance, a racially-charged image of prejudice: a slave ape obediently shining his master's shoes (a shoeshine boy!). We also see apes transported from their native habitats (Borneo) against their will to serve in the United States, via ships. Again, this is an echo of Ghana's "Gate of No Return," and the involuntary journey of many slaves from Africa to our shores...as prisoners.
Conquest of the Planet of the Apes even depicts slave apes in neck shackles, and auctioned off in a public square to the highest human bidder. If you've ever toured the Old Slave Mart in Charleston, SC, you'll recall that such auctions are not fiction; and that Conquest of the Planet of the Apes does not exaggerate the plight or treatment of slaves in our history.
Conquest of the Planet of the Ape's screenplay draws specific parallels to the African-American experience, not merely with these resonant images, but also in the presentation of an African-American character named MacDonald (Hari Rhodes) who serves as the aide to Governor Breck.
McDonald is sympathetic to the ape cause and the ape leader, Caesar (Roddy McDowall) notes that McDonald "above all people," should understand him. "Above all people" is an explicit verbal reminder of MacDonald's racial identity and status as the descendant of a black slave.
Later, one of the oppressive aides in Governor Breck's dictatorial regime notes that the compassionate McDonald must be an "ape lover." Not to be excessive, but this is a variation of the ugly epithet "nigger lover." Another aide replies caustically (about McDonald), "Don't it figure?" Again, these are veiled, bigoted references to McDonald's skin color and his heritage as a black man. Governor Breck even terms MacDonald a "bleeding heart," equating him with the position of civil-rights-fighting "liberal" in this battle.
The villain of the piece, Governor Breck (Don Murray) finally informs ape leader Caesar why he hates apes, and his detailed explanation is one built on the backbone of racial hatred; a belief that the "other" (black man or ape...) is inferior to him. Breck calls Caesar "the savage who must be shackled in chains...You poison our guts. When we hate you, we're hating the dark side of ourselves."
Our question becomes: is Breck referring to the "dark side" of human nature (which certainly doesn't seem to fit the kindly, innocent apes; especially those like Lisa...), or is the governor actually making another coded statement about skin color. "The dark side" might actually be interpreted to mean dark-skinned.
What remains rather audacious about Conquest of the Planet of the Apes is that most audiences -- white, black, what-have-you -- register the subjugated apes (and Caesar) as the unambiguous heroes of the piece; as the wronged party -- even though it is the entire human race that stands to lose in any violent revolution.
Perhaps such reflexive identification with the underdog, with the exploited, speaks to the inherent goodness and fairness of the American people. Intellectually, we immediately reject racism and oppression, and so therefore easily sympathize with the put-upon, subjugated apes. Yet, ironically, that's not at all what happened regarding the real life riots of the 1960s. Nixon's "silent majority" found it easier to disregard the rioters as lawbreakers and opportunists than acknowledge them as fighters against injustice; fighters for equal rights in American cities of consdierable social disparity. Of course, a movie allows us to experience things that we don't see or understand in real life. As viewers, we saw in Conquest torture, degradation, inequality and other moral sins. But how many of us went to Watts to live? Or Detroit?
At 88 minutes, Conquest of the Planet of the Apes is a short, fast and brutal film, but it is also one of the most effective and direct science-fiction movies of the era. Many of the visuals reinforce the pervasive theme of governmental subjugation.
I'm particularly fond of an artful shot that visually "entraps" Caesar and his kindly master, Armando (Ricardo Montalban) within the parted, uniformed legs of an armed soldier. The images tells us how the State surrounds and dominates the characters.
I also appreciate the manner in which the inspirational Caesar wordlessly transmits his message of total resistance (and then rebellion...) to his kindred ape slaves. Caesar simply appears on the scene (sometimes in close-up; sometimes in medium shot), and then there's quick pand and zoom to a slave ape...and then the slave ape very actively rebels; dumping garbage, dropping books, even starting a fire. This brand of cause-and-effect shot is repeated again and again in the latter half of the movie, and it's a perfect visual signifier for the notion that you can't kill a powerful idea. Now, Caesar can't literally be everywhere at once; but his message of freedom and liberty transmits at light speed across the slave population. The visual approach reveals how powerful, and widespread the idea of liberty can be in a population that lacks it.
The final sequence of Conquest of the Planet of the Apes depicts the specifics of the ape uprising. It is a clash between riot police (with shields, guns, and helmets) and armed, screeching, enraged apes. This extended, and very violent sequence diagrams "the slave's right to punish his persecutor." The sequence ends with mankind fallen, and Caesar assuming command, ironically, from the pulpit of the human civic center. Behind him -- in the background of the frame -- skyscrapers burn out of control. Again, given the context of the Detroit Rebellion or the Watts Riots, this image is meaningful. People watching the nightly news during those real-life conflagrations had also witnessed "the night of the fires" as Caesar called it, and wondered: would order be restored? Or was this the dawn of a new order? The order of the oppressed...
20th Century Fox apparently grew concerned that Conquest of the Planet of the Apes was too overtly a political film., and took steps to de-fang the social commentary it offered.
In the original, scripted ending, Caesar announced, basically, that Apes would now rule the world just as cruelly as man had ruled it. But a last minute bit of post-production editing changed the tenor of Caesar's pronouncement. After his anger is released Caesar relents and notes that even the inhuman (the apes...) can prove "humane" in their domination over mankind. It's a quick philosophical turnaround and doesn't entirely work. In fact, your head may spin from the shift. But still, you can understand the compromise. The studio didn't want Conquest of The Planet of the Apes -- in the environment of race riots -- to be interpreted as an incitement to real-life violence.
Still, Conquest of the Planet of the Apes ends on a haunting, unforgettable note. Flames consume the the futuristic city, and the planet of the apes is born. And as the end credits roll, the screeching of the victorious apes continues unabated. No closing music softens this shrill sound. The night of the fires continues into an unknown future...
So, is Conquest of the Planet of the Apes really pro-violence? Or is it simply pro-slave? In an interesting sense, the answer is undeniably affirmative: it is pro-violence. Thomas Jefferson once explained that "experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”
We see that tyranny clearly depicted here: the America of Conquest of the Planet of the Apes exists for the glorification for the rich and powerful at the expense of liberty and freedom for all. Breck's administration is positively despotic (and he's running for President!) And Thomas Jefferson's prescribed cure for tyranny was not unlike Caesar's in the film; the steadfast belief that "every generation needs a new revolution."
So Conquest of the Planet of the Apes re-interprets the Watts Riots and other race violence of the 1960s as one possible and even legitimate response to entrenched racial inequality in America. Caesar tells Mr. McDonald that the only means left to him and his people (the apes) is, indeed, revolution. "We cannot be free until we have power. How else can we achieve it?"
MacDonald then insists that Caesar's attempt at revolution is doomed to failure. "Perhaps, this time," Caesar replies, indicating that this initial riot will not be the last attempt. This response further contextualizes the race riots in America: they exist not as separate, individual, isolated incidents of rampant lawlessness...but as organized, necessary steps along the pathway from slavery to freedom, to total equality.
I realize it is controversial to equate a science-fiction film about "apes" to the Black experience in American history, yet that's precisely the comparison Conquest of the Planet of the Apes forges, as I hope the images in this post, and my contextual examples, reveal. The result is an incendiary, subversive and endlessly intelligent film; one that asks us to gaze at what Caesar calls a myth: "the ideas that human beings are kind."
Like District 9 (2009), Conquest of The Planet of the Apes judges man by the way he treats those populations he controls or dominates. Namely the slaves, the minorities, the immigrants, or the ethnic "others."
In both films, there's an implied warning to entrenched power (one made much more overt in Conquest of the Planet of the Apes):
The tables can be turned. Or worse, over-turned...
Posted by Sawaad Amen Ra at 2:48 PM
Saturday, April 17, 2010
"If we treated everyone we meet with the same affection we bestow upon our favorite cat, they, too, would purr.”
Martin Robison Delany (1812–1885) was an African-American abolitionist and arguably the first proponent of American black nationalism.
Shem Hotep ("I go in peace").
The picture above is funny.
Read a Book. African Presence in Early Europe (Journal of African Civilizations) by Ivan Van Sertima
Read a Book. Black Man of the Nile. By Dr. Yosef ben-Jochannan.
Read a Book. Destruction of Black Civilization : Great Issues of a Race from 4500 B.C to 2000 A.D. by Chancellor Williams.
Elizabeth “Bessie” Coleman (1892–1926) was an American civil aviator. She was the first African American female pilot and the first person of African American descent to hold an international pilot license.
ANDREW JACKSON WAS AN INDIAN KILLER.
As a general and politician, ANDREW JACKSON took actions that resulted in the mass killing of Native Americans. He is, nonetheless, commemorated on US currency, and specifically, on the banknote that people regularly take from their ATMs.
Rather than advocating the elimination of the Jackson twenty-dollar bill, however, let's advocates a re-design of the bill so that it would bear the text, "ANDREW JACKSON WAS AN INDIAN KILLER," next to Jackson's image.
In other words, it advocates remembering Jackson's horrendous actions, rather than the removal of what is disturbing from the public sphere and our historical consciousness.
On the suppression of the Native American holocaust:
I learned a lot in school. I We learned about the great American Presidents such as Andrew Jackson (the guy on the $20 bill), I learned about Teddy Roosevelt, I learned about Howard Taft, and all the great American Legends. There are 2 things all these "Great American Legends" have in common.
Andrew Jackson (1767–1845) was the seventh President of the United States.
Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt (1858–1919 was the 26th President of the United States.
William Howard Taft (1857–1930) was the 27th President of the United States.
1.They all believed in Manifest Destiny
2.They all were "Great Indian Killers."
The American Society makes all these people great, and all these people were great because they were "Indian Killers".
Don't you think it is morally wrong to commit the crime of Genocide?
Don't you think it is morally wrong to consider Indian Killer a complement?
No, it is not wrong, because The American Society makes it right. The
American Propogandist make it right. We think what the want us to think. We believe what they want us to believe.
Well, if all this stuff is morally right in the American Society, then Why
isn't "Jew Killer" a complement? Because Genocide is morally wrong and is a crime thats why Hitler is considered wrong. Hey but Andrew Jackson, and all the American Legends did the same thing, Genocide the Indians. But Hitler Genocided the Jews but he is a given curse in the Soceity today. If Andrew Jackson is considered as a hero, then why isn't Hitler considered as a hero? Instead Hitler is a better Jew Killer than Andrew Jackson was Indian Killer.
Adolf Hitler 1889–? was an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party.
But the American Society which is mainly controlled by "Jew Loving
Politicians" make it wrong for us to consider Jew killer as a complement and make it right for us to consider Indian Killer as a complement.
Ques.How many People died in the Holocaust?
Ans. 6 million
Ques.How many days are spent in High School learing about the Holocaust?
Ans. All four years.
Ques.How many people were killed by the Americans? (Indian and Slaves)
Ans. Over 25 million.
Ques.How many days are spent in High School learning abou the
killing of Indian and about the Slaves?
We spend four fucking years learning about the Holocaust which only
killed 6 million Jews but not one fucking day learning about the
25 million Indians and Slaves killed by the Americans. Why?
No one knows about the 25 million Indians and Slaves being killed
by the Americans but it is not as significant as the 6 million Jews
killed in the Holocaust.
Posted by Sawaad Amen Ra at 5:25 PM
Monday, April 12, 2010
"We have as much right biblically and otherwise to believe that God is a Negroe, as you buckra or white people have to believe that God is a fine looking, symmetrical and ornamented white man. For the bulk of you and all the fool Negroes of the country believe that God is white-skinned, blue eyed, straight-haired, projected nosed, compressed lipped and finely robed white gentleman, sitting upon a throne somewhere in the heavens. Every race of people who have attempted to describe their God by words, or by paintings, or by carvings, or any other form or figure, have conveyed the idea that the God who made them and shaped their destinies was symbolized in themselves, and why should not the Negroe believe that he resembles God."
Bishop Henry McNeal Turner (1833–1915) was a bishop of the African Methodist Episcopal Church.
Shem Hotep ("I go in peace").
The picture above is funny.
Read a Book. Ancient Future. By Wayne B. Chandler.
Read a Book. African Presence in Early America by Ivan Van Sertima
Read a Book. African Presence in Early Asia by Runoko Rashidi and Ivan Van Sertima
Having A Butt Won’t Change Your Life.
Black Market Booty Injections Hospitalize Six Women.
Six New Jersey women who received what they thought were butt-enhancing injections found themselves hospitalized. According to reports, instead of being administered medical grade silicone to enhance their derrieres, the compound injected into their buttocks was closer to the silicone found in bathtub caulking.
Needless to say, introducing said materials into the human body cannot be healthy. The six women -- whose identities have not been released -- were operated on and received antibiotics. Safe to say their dreams (just guessing) of appearing on a King Magazine cover are over. Next time they should consider cosmetic surgery with a reputable physician, or booty pop panties.
“Just because I have large bosoms, and I have a big ass [laughter], I swear, my waist is 30 inches — 29 to 30 inches, it’s really small! I have the smallest waist, but just because I have those two assets, it looks like I’m not fit. Just in the locker room staring at my body, I’m like, ‘Am I not fit, really not fit? Or is it just that I have all these extra assets?’ You know, it just looks like I’m not fit. I don’t care if I didn’t eat for two years, I still wouldn’t be a size two. No matter how slim I am, I always have this and that. I’m just not that way, I’m bootylicious.” Serena Williams
I hear a lot of people complaining about Serena’s physique, but those people are crazy or they just don’t know anything about “body”. Serena got it going on.
"Everybody wanna be a nigga, but don't nobody wanna be a nigga." Paul Mooney
Fashion that makes me sad: Booty Pop panties.
I'm kind of late to the party on this one, but a few days ago a bunch of bloggers discovered that Paula Abdul's stylist (what a job that must be, seriously), Jennifer Rosenblatt, is endorsing a new brand of padded underwear called Booty Pop—"The Panties That Make Your Booty Pop."
Now, I personally can't fathom a woman who would want extra butt padding, but Rosenblatt can: many of her celeb clients tragically do not have enough behind to fill out their designer jeans. Hence, Booty Pop. It comes in three sizes (Sweet, Sweeter, Sweetest) and seven colors (including Cotton Candy and Gum Drops) and feels weirdly—even though its giving you a more womanly shape—totally infantilizing.
Please go the following link to order your Booty Pop Panties, if you need a little something extra, for your woman or man.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUz51FjnlB0
I can never understand how is it that now they want big butts when it was a time they hated and even talked bad about the African American women who has plumped butts (and lips), all of a sudden now it's sexy..........hmmm. You want to be black..but you dont' wanna be black when it comes to the daily shit that blacks gotta go thru....I can't stand white women want asses like our women....and melanin and tan like us, but really dont' wanna go to the discrimination and the shit we go thru.
Take a look below at the real deal. (No Booty Pop Panties needed)
Posted by Sawaad Amen Ra at 6:44 PM
Sunday, April 11, 2010
““Where you will sit when you are old shows where you stood in youth” African Proverb
Shem Hotep ("I go in peace").
Read a Book. Cultural Genocide in the Black & African Studies Curriculum by Yosef Ben-Jochannan.
Read a Book. They Came Before Columbus: The African Presence in Ancient America. by Sertima Ivan Van, Ivan Van Sertima.
Read a Book. A Book of the Beginnings, Vol.1 by Professor Gerald Massey.
Read a Book. Ancient Egypt: The Light of the World by Professor Gerald Massey.
Don’t look at me, I didn’t write it.
WHAT IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL?
In conversation with some colleagues, an interesting question came up that left me slightly perplexed, and that hardly ever happens. Keep in mind we were discussing evil in general. Not just Eve biting into a fruit, but more like the seeded evil thought that made Lucifer oppose God in a perfect heaven? Ok, this was the question.
If God is the maker of all that is righteous and good, then where does evil come from?
A FLAWED BOOK?
The best selling book of all times is noted to be the Bible. It is also deemed the most controversial book ever written. Fabricated as a guideline for better living, yet from it some find truth and happiness, while others are fueled to hate. It has been a source of inspiration, enlightenment, confusion and even slaughter for two millennia (that’s two thousand years). How can a document that is declared celestially inspired by an omniscient holy being be so unclear? The apostle Paul wrote in I Corinthians 14:33, “God is not the author of confusion,” yet the bible emerges as the most confusing book ever produced. Hundreds of denominations and cults alike all support their conflicting doctrines using the same scriptures from the holy book as inspiration.
Why such a widely spread dissimilarity? Is it because it was poorly written? Are the incidents stated in its contents facts? Were the listed authors truly divine instruments used by God? Those have been some of the mind boggling questions that have rendered some of its more critical readers and theologians bewildered. But what of the average reader and some of its more faithful cohorts, what has got them so blindly reading with their heart, not with their eyes. The eyes can be deceiving, but the heart will never lead you wrong. What do we really know? Who really knows? Those are the more important question one should decipher when attempting to read the bible. It has to be approached free of theological bias and everything you were taught in Sunday school. It has to be approached like any other piece of literature you would pick up to read.
IS THERE AN ANSWER IN THE FAITH OF OTHER CULTURES?
I don’t want to be perceived as a “Bible basher” but there are tons of unclear discrepancies throughout the Holy Bible; from the inconceivable concept that we all originate from Adam and Eve to the immaculate conception of a living saint. Why have people so willingly accept these stories and never question them? I was on a hunt for answers, and then it dawned on me to take a real close look at other cultures and their faiths and beliefs. Then I asked myself, “Are all denominations outside of Christianity doomed to hell?” Does that even sound coherent? Everybody seems to be stuck in an “I’m right, you’re wrong” mentality. So who is right? Who is wrong? I haven’t quite figured out the answers to that, but in investigating I popped opened a whole new “can of worms” with timelines. Some of these other religions date back before Christ; actually, some runs parallel with the time of Abraham and Moses. So why were they never mentioned in the bible. I won’t be the Judge; I’ll illustrate the picture and let you decide for yourself.
COULD IT BE THAT THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD IS NOT SO ORIGINAL?
The scary fact about these god-men is that they all preceded Jesus Christ and Christianity on the world religion timeline; so they are not copycats. I’m only highlighting three on here, but there seems to be a long list of others influencing different cultures and faiths. So what do we really know?
Zoroaster/Zarathustra of Persia
–Zoroaster was born of a virgin and “immaculate conception by a ray of divine reason.”
–He was baptized in a river.
–In his youth he astounded wise men with his wisdom.
–He was tempted in the wilderness by the devil.
–He began his ministry at age 30.
–Zoroaster baptized with water, fire and “holy wind.”
–He cast out demons and restored the sight to a blind man.
–He taught about heaven and hell, and revealed mysteries, including resurrection, judgment, salvation and the apocalypse.
–He had a sacred cup or grail.
–He was slain.
–His religion had a eucharist.
–He was the “Word made flesh.”
–Zoroaster’s followers expected a “second coming” in the virgin-born Saoshynt or Savior, who is to come in 2341 CE and begin his ministry at age 30, ushering in a golden age.
Horus/Osiris of Egypt
Now the story of Horus is even more peculiar to me because the Egyptians were actually mentioned in the bible, as an enemy who captured and enslaved the Hebrews who were designated as God’s chosen bunch. Only thing is the bible never mentioned what the Egyptians believed and worshiped. All that was ever mentioned was a golden calf. The proximity of Horus to Jesus is almost uncanny.
–Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Merion December 25 in a cave/manger with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.
–His earthly father was named “Seb” (“Joseph”).
–He was of royal descent.
–At age 12, he was a child teacher in the Temple, and at 30, he was baptized having disappeared for 18 years.
–Horus was baptized in the river Eridanus or Iarutana (Jordan) by “Anup the Baptizer” (“John the Baptist”), who was decapitated.
–He had 12 disciples, two of who were his “witnesses” and were named “Anup” and “Aan” (the two “Johns”).
–He performed miracles, exorcised demons and raised El-Azarus (“El-Osiris”), from the dead.
–Horus walked on water.
–His personal epithet was “Iusa,” the “ever-becoming son” of “Ptah,” the “Father.” He was thus called “Holy Child.”
–He delivered a “Sermon on the Mount” and his followers recounted the “Sayings of Iusa.”
–Horus was transfigured on the Mount.
–He was crucified between two thieves, buried for three days in a tomb, and resurrected.
–He was also the “Way, the Truth, the Light,” “Messiah,” “God’s Anointed Son,” “the “Son of Man.”
Attis of Phrygia
–Attis was born on December 25 of the Virgin Nana.
–He was considered the savior who was slain for the salvation of mankind.
–His body as bread was eaten by his worshippers
–His priests were “eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven.”
–He was both the Divine Son and the Father.
–On “Black Friday,” he was crucified on a tree, from which his holy blood ran down to redeem the earth.
–He descended into the underworld.
–After three days, Attis was resurrected on March 25 (as tradition held of Jesus) as the “Most High God.
Christianity originated with Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish prophet and teacher who was acknowledged to be the Son of God and certainly was regarded as such by his 12 disciples. Jesus is said to have been born sometime around 4 BC and died 30 AD. He preached in Israel during the time of Augustus, urging a purification of the Jewish religion that would free Israel and establish the kingdom of God on earth. He urged a moral code based on love, charity, and humility and he asked the faithful to follow his lessons, abandoning worldly concern. Many disciples believed that a Final Judgment day was near at hand, on which God would reward the righteous with immortality and condemn sinners to everlasting hell.
Initially, Christian converts were Jewish by birth and followed the basic Jewish law. Their belief that Christ was divine as well as human, roused hostility among other Jews who awaited a Messiah foretold in the Old Testament.
Jesus won many followers among the poor. He also roused suspicion among the upper classes and the leaders of the Jewish religion. These helped persuade the Roman governor, already concerned about unrest among the Jews, that Jesus was a dangerous agitator claiming to be the pending Christ. Jesus was put to death as a result, crucified like a common criminal, about 30 A.D. His followers believed that he was resurrected on the third day after his death, a proof that he was the Son of God. This belief helped the religion spread farther among Jewish communities in the Middle East, both within the Roman Empire and beyond. As they realized that the Messiah was not immediately returning to earth to set up the Kingdom of God, the disciples of Jesus began to fan out, particularly around the eastern Mediterranean, to spread the new Christian message.
The Apostle Paul’s conversion to Christianity proved vital. Paul was Jewish, but he had been born in a Greek city and was familiar with Greco-Roman culture. He helped explain basic Christian beliefs in terms other adherents of this culture could grasp, and he preached in Greece and Italy as well as the Middle East. Paul essentially created Christian theology, as a set of intellectual principles that followed from, but generalized, the message of Jesus. Paul also modified certain initial Christian impulses. Jesus himself had drawn a large number of women followers, but Paul emphasized women’s subordination to men and the dangers of sexuality. It was Paul’s stress on Christianity as a universal religion, requiring abandonment of other religious beliefs, and his related use of Greek – the dominant language of the day throughout the eastern Mediterranean – that particularly transformed the new faith.
TRACING THE TRAILS OF JUDAISM.
Judaism is perhaps the oldest religion on the earth tracing its beginnings back to Abram, whose name was later changed to Abraham. The roots of Judaism dates back to around 1800 B.C., when Abraham refused to worship the idols which were common during that period. He is considered by most Jews to be the first to believe and worship one God (monotheism). From him the Jews draw a line of descent that begins with his son Isaac and his grandson Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel. Israel had 12 sons, who became the founders of 12 tribes. One of those was Judah, from which name the word Jew was eventually derived. in its more organized form, Judaism begun with Moses, who is believed to have received the Ten Commandments from God on Mt. Sinai after the Israelites’ Exodus from Egypt, around 1500 B.C. and credited with writing the first 5 books of the Bible – the Pentateuch or Torah – which largely define Judaism.
HINDUSIM, THE ETERNAL RELIGION.
Hinduism has been categorized simply as the eternal religion (having no beginning and no end). According to historians, it origins back to 5,000 or more years (that is over 3,000 years before Jesus roamed the earth), making it the world’s oldest extant religion. The word “Hindu” is derived from the name of the River Indus, which flows through northern India. In ancient times the river was called the Sindhu, but the Persians who migrated to India called the river Hindu, the land Hindustan and its inhabitants Hindus. Thus the religion followed by the Hindus came to be known as Hinduism.
Hinduism is a collection of religious, philosophical, and cultural ideas and practices that originated in India, characterized by the belief in reincarnation, one absolute being of multiple manifestations, the law of cause and effect, following the path of righteousness, and the desire for liberation from the cycle of births and deaths.
Hinduism cannot be neatly slotted into any particular belief system. Unlike other religions, Hinduism is a way of life (Dharma), the law that governs all action. The religious tradition of Hinduism is solely responsible for the creation of such original concepts and practices as Yoga, Ayurveda, Tantra, Vedanta, Karma, etc.
Hinduism believes that there is only one supreme Absolute called “Brahman.” However, it does not advocate the worship of any one particular deity. The gods and goddesses of Hinduism amount to thousands or even millions, all representing the many aspects of Brahman. Therefore, this faith is characterized by the multiplicity of deities. The most fundamental of Hindu deities is the Trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva – creator, preserver and destroyer respectively. Hindus also worship spirits, trees, animals and even planets.
Hinduism is believed to have grown out of the religion described in the Vedas, the binding spiritual laws and the earliest piece of written Hindu work; written by several progressive beings over a long period of time making the origin of religion even more complex. Vedas are the most sacred Hindu texts believed to have been transmitted orally for several millennia.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF ISLAM.
The name Islam, is derived from the Arabic word “salam,” which is often interpreted as meaning “peace” or “submission.” The religion claimed to be the revelation of God (Allah) through the angel Jibril a.k.a. Gabriel to a man named Muhammad (pbuh). Muhammad was born in approximately 570-571 AD. He was born to the powerful tribe of the Quraish in Mekkah (Mecca), what we now call Saudi Arabia. His father’s name was Abdullah. His mother’s name was Aminah.
Abdullah was a merchant who made caravan trips. He died on a trading trip soon after his marriage to Aminah, leaving Muhammad fatherless at birth. Aminah, his mother, died when he was only six years old. Muhammad was taken in by his grandfather, only to have him die when Muhammad was eight years old. At this time, his uncle, Abu Talib, one of the leaders of the Quraish tribe took him in and raised him
Having married the wealthy Khadijah, Muhammad became a gentleman of leisure and somewhat of a philosopher. He would retreat from society; take trips into the desert and mountains. He would spend his hours in meditation, greatly concerned about the condition of the civilization he saw around himself. He had a personal mission to find “truth.” One of his frequent places of seclusion was a cave on Mount Nur. It was while in this cave, during the month of the Ramadan, a pagan festival, that he received his first visitation from the angel Gabriel.
At first, Muhammad shared his new revelations with only his family and close friends. During the next three years the message of Muhammad quietly spread among the people of Mekkah, especially among the youth. Then Muhammad is believed to have received instructions from Allah to go public with his message and openly condemn the paganism and idolatry of Mekkah.
Muhammad continued to proclaim his message, and his following slowly grew. At one point, in 621, a group of delegates from Madinah (Medina) responded to his call and made a covenant with Muhammad and declared themselves to be Muslims. Eventually, the Muslims collected Mohammad’s messages and gathered them into a book known as the Quran. The Quran is the holy book of Islam. It has been translated into many languages, but many Muslims believe that the only true version of the Quran is written in Arabic.
THE ORIGIN OF BUDDHISM.
The title Buddha means “Enlightened One” or “Awakened One.”
Buddha was born Siddhattha Gautama around 565 B.C. in Lumbini (a town situated in modern Nepal, near the Indian border). His name means descendant of Gotama whose aims are achieved/who is efficacious in achieving aims. He later became the Buddha (Enlightened One or Awakened One). He is also commonly known as ‘Shakyamuni’ or ‘Sakyamuni’ (The sage of the Shakya clan) and as the Tathagata (thus come or thus gone).
Few of the details of the Buddha’s life can be independently verified, and it is difficult to determine what is history and what is myth.
According to most Buddhist traditions, Siddhattha Gautama, the future Buddha lived many lives before coming to our present world era. In his many existences during the long, long period of time and in the one hundred thousand worlds, the future Buddha had fulfilled the Ten Paramitas, and, in order to save this world, he was to be born in our era and to become a fully enlightened Buddha.
BUDDHISM IN CHINA.
Buddhism was introduced from India into China in 6th Century AD. One of the Hen Emperors sent a mission to the west of China and brought back the scriptures, Indian monks and the images of Buddha. Since then Chinese translation was made available and the further exchange of scholars among China, India and other Asian countries brought about the rapid development of Buddhism in China. Buddhist monasteries and temples were built to promote the Buddhism and some of the Emperors were also the followers of Buddhism. Buddhism, just like Confucianism and Taoism, guides people to behave, to be honest and responsible. It promotes harmony and peaceful mind, sharing and compassion. Buddhists never force people into their belief. Buddhism emphasizes in “awakening of mind”. Through learning, one will develop intellectual capacity to the fullest so as to understand, to love and be kind to other beings.
Buddhism does not believe in God. It believes in People. In Buddhist teaching, there is no aggressive promotion of Buddhism or strong rejection of other religions. All these make Buddhism fall into the same scope of Confucianism and Taoist. Its ability to co-exist with any other religions makes it being developed into one of the largest religions in China.
IS THERE A RIGHT OR WRONG?
Jesus of Nazareth and Krishna of India could they be one of the same? People like to put a recognizable face on unfamiliar things so that they can relate to it. African Americans are now giving Jesus a black face. Does that make it wrong if the praises are all being directed to the same place regardless? It could be a classic case of the, “You call it Tomato, I call it Tomaato.
Posted by Sawaad Amen Ra at 12:57 PM