Days Black People Not Re-Enslaved By Trump

Monday, September 24, 2007

The Wager


It's the bullshit they're full with...


Worshipping the very same satan that they created


-Talaam Acey


On Thursday Sept. 20. Michael Fisher posted a piece on his blog (that is also shared with others), Assault on Black Folks Sanity entitled: Proof That The System Of Global Racism/White Supremacy Exists



At the beginning of the post he quoted a Nazi which I'll repost here:


“The individual races can be distinguished by differences which they have in respect to the uniqueness of their hereditary, intellectual-psychological and physical features, tendencies and characteristics. Each race has certain characteristics and features which are unique to it. These racial features are passed on to the offspring. Race is hence a group of life forms which distinguishes itself by the common possession of certain hereditary features. It always produces only its own kind. Race is a characterized community of hereditary factors.” Mamet/Nazi SS


While I'm no fan of Nazi's, the above paragraph is accurate as far as it goes with the possible exception of the "intellectual-psychological" features as it relates to humans since there has been no proof of inherent intellectual differences in humans that has not been explained by environment or disease. We understand that Nazi's had a need to place the so called "Aryan" race above that of others and therefore need to address "intellectual" features. Unlike some other people, I don't let peoples titles and such distract me from the information they are presenting. Even the most virulently "racist" person can give valid information. Only a fool passes on information simply because they don't like the source. But that's not the point of the post.


Michael Fisher in his analysis of that statement went on to explain:


Clearly, on the face of it, the concept of “race” as a biological construct is completely illogical and arbitrary. The concept has nothing to do with reality. There is no such thing as a 1 ½ -inch-left-pinky-toe-having “race”. It just doesn’t exist. And that is despite the fact that there are probably millions of people who actually do have a left pinky toe of 1 ½ inches in length walking around.



Even if a biological "race" existed, to attribute pinky toe size as a racial feature is completely and utterly arbitrary. And so is any other attribute.


Hence came The Wager. I didn't even bother to read the rest of the post, and still have not, because Mr. Fisher clearly has an extremely loose grip on genetics. I told him so in the comments section:


sondjata said...



Dude, your grip on genetics and inheritance is pretty weak which is completely undermining your argument. that opening quote is absolutely accurate regardless of it's source.



You continue to confuse social construct with genetics.


Now I'm not one to pick on people about grammar and punctuation because we all make mistakes and bad punctuation doesn't necessarily mean the overall idea is invalid. However; when an individual shows a complete mis-understanding of the subject at hand, it is difficult to take them very seriously. Michaelm insisting on believing himself to be correct continued to go on and on so I decided to put money on the table:


sondjata said...



I've already done so on my blog, which I've linked to in a previous post, to which you hung out your "pinky toe" false argument.



but since you two are so "informed" you let me know the next time a Chinese woman and man pops out a near black skinned, "nappy headed", thick lipped" child and I'll personally sign you a $1,000 check AND take down my entire blog.


I added..


sondjata said...



I'll write you another $1,000 cheque should you find a German Shephard[sic] that gives birth to a poodle[sic] through natural means of conception.



In fact lets up the ante. Should you be unable to find either of the above, you take down the entire blog entry and paypal me 10 bucks. I'm putting 2 grand and my entire blog against your single entry and 10 bucks.



How about it?





In fact I'll up it even more. I'll offer the challenge to ANYONE reading this blog entry. 1,000 bucks. to show what I asked above.



Provide verifiable photos and reference material and I'll cut you a $1,000 cheque.


He wanted to play dumb in regards to what a "chinese" person was and what "near black skinned" and "thick lipped" meant so I made a more specific post:


sondjata said...


All I see is a bunch of Whoo haa and No documented evidence to the challenge I posed.


So let's cut to the chase: Proof as of Monday 9AM Eastern time or 10 bucks in my paypal account.


And in case anyone is confused:


1) SHow[sic] two German Shephards [sic]that concieve by natural means a Poodle.


2) show a case of two Chinese persons as typified by the image found here:


http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:lpG2APKA7KM9sM:http://www.senah.com/images/ziyueyu.jpg


giving birth o a child with features Seen here:

http://www.pictures-of-nigeria.com/images/CW61D-0439.jpg


I got this idea from John Grubur of the Daring Fireball website. When a hacker claimed to have hacked a MacBook,and Gruber said he was , in effect, full of shit, Gruber put his money where his mouth was and publicly stated that he would meet said hacker at the 5th Ave. Apple Store in NYC. Said hacker would merely have to show Gruber the hack and gruber would give up a brand spanking new MacBook and retract his critique. I had to respect Mr. Gruber on his willingness to put his money where his mouth was. So often on the internet, people will say and post all kinds of stuff, they really haven't thought out or really believe in. So I simply decided to put Michael to the test. I put my $1,000 to his 10 bucks. With 1,000 bucks to gain, I would think that he would have been able to produce what was asked for. Instead we got junk like this:


""Most of the population of modern China--one fifth of all people living today--owes it genetic origins to Africa."



--Los Angeles Times, Sep 29, 1998



sondjata, I think you might want to check out some of Bro. Runoko Rashidi's work.



http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/china.html


The posted material was not even relevant to The Wager. The Wager was not about the origins of Chinese people (or German Shepherds) it was to show a chinese person, as pictured, procreating via natural means a child that as also pictured. The above comment deals with evolutionary history from African to Chinesem, a point that was never in dispute. That was not The Wager.


Equally another individual posted:


Temple3 said...



Since the term "Chinese" was used, I knew this was a wrap from Jump Street! The Rashidi files are far too deep for someone to actually something so silly. In any event, I better get a good look at this cat's blog because the whole thing should be gone by Monday night...then I can watch the game.



Nice job.



"African Presence in Early Asia takes down Eurocentric Scholars and Non-white Blogger - Story at 11."


I'm not sure what "Temple3" was referring to. I can only hope that "Temple3" is not a student of Molefe Asante at Temple university, as the above statement is the epitomy of arrogance and stupidity that unfortunately abounds among our so called "vanguard" of "black consciousness" and would reflect badly on the African studies department there.


In any event lets get to the crux of the matter. It's a particularly boring topic for me at this point because I've dealt with it extensively at least twice on this blog, but for the sake of The Wager, I'll deal with it once again.


A good many people in "black consciousness" circles, think that because they read a book, they understand what it is they read. Many times, their discussions of racism, etc, are verbatum repeats of that which they read. Sad but true. In any case, the newest thing on the block is the "There is no such thing as race" concept. It's a cute social notion that attempts to erase racism, by erasing race itself. The logic here is if race does not exist then racism is stupid. This is kind of Jr High logic. It's kind of like the "see no evil" concept. If I willfully ignore what's in front of me, then it doesn't exist (and the world is all good).


The recent basis for this claim is the product of the Human Genome project. In which it was found that people are 99.9% the same in genetic make up. The logic also goes that since we are so alike, we can't be different. Since the average American has not gotten past High School biology class ( only 25% of adults in the US currently have a college degree) and the few that have, have taken general biology in college they really are not in a position to really understand and dissect the information that these news reports in popular news prints actually mean. However; Somehow they see themselves as experts in the field (For the sake of disclosure my degree is in biology). So since most people have really no clue as to what these human genome project data means, I'll repeat my analysis of one of the latest reports on the subject. I wrote:


Well according to Francis Collins a new analysis of of the human genome reveals that there are between 20,000 and 25,000 genes in humans. .1 % of whic [sic] would be 2000 genes. That's a whole lot of genes given that a mutation in just one of them could result in something like sickle cell.



if [sic] we took the lower number of genes (20,000) the "difference" between "races" would be the equivalent to the genetic difference between humans and C. elegans, a worm or a mustard plant. So clearly the fact that humans are so genetically close does not absolve the fact that even such closelness can contain massive differences. And if that number doesn't tickle you, consider that there are 3 Billion + Chemicals that make up DNA and .1% of that is 3 million. That's a whole lot of difference.


Anyway let me get to the meat of the subject here. Instead of using the term "race" lets toss it as if it never existed. Also, instead of discussing humans, lets talk about dogs. Now when people are dealing with dogs, they have no problem talking about different breeds of dog. We see the film 101 Dalmations and no one says: "But they're all dogs!!". We see white dogs with black spots and we know we've seen a Dalmation. If we take a trip to the American Kennel Club (AKC): We find numerous pages on "breeds" of dog. Since I mentioned the German Shepherd here's the page for it:


http://www.akc.org/breeds/german_shepherd_dog/


Since I mentioned a Poodle, here's the page for it:


http://www.akc.org/breeds/poodle/


Both the German Shepherd and the Poodle have the same scientiic taxonomy:


Kingdom: Animalia

Phylum: Chordata

Class: Mammalia

Order: Carnivora

Family: Canidae

Genus: Canis

Species: familiaris


So if they are of the same species (just like humans), why is it they can be classified by their looks?After all there all the same species right? Who cares if they can reproduce themselves, they are all dogs. Stop the dog racism! Let me point the reader to an article entitled: Genomic Differences Between Dog Breeds. It's a nice article which, if one is scientifically challenged, may be confusing so I'll point out the "plain english" portions for the reader:


This work demonstrates a significant amount of variation that you can see between individual dogs at the genomic level," says Kirkness, lead investigator of the project, funded by TIGR...



The dog is a unique genomics model. Through selective breeding of dogs, humans have created the highest degree of physical and behavioral differences seen within a species. Roughly 400 dog breeds exist, with specific breeds predisposed to heart disease, cancer, blindness, deafness and other common disorders. Identifying genes responsible for diseases or physical traits may be easier to do in dogs that have been genetically selected.


So these same scientists, who want to tell you and I that there are "no races" of humans will tell us about 400 "specific" breeds of dog even though all these dogs are of the same species. Shocking! How contradictory!


So getting back to The Wager, we have determined, with our dog example that animals of the same species can,in fact have physical properties that are determined by differing genes. So now why is it different with humans? Well it's not. Here is the lower end of the Taxonomy of humans:


Hominidae (great apes and human)


Pongo


Pongo pygmaeus (orangutan)

Pongo pygmaeus abelii (Sumatran orangutan)

Pongo pygmaeus pygmaeus (Bornean orangutan)


Gorilla


Gorilla gorilla (gorilla)

Gorilla gorilla beringei (mountain gorilla)

Gorilla gorilla gorilla (lowland gorilla)

Gorilla gorilla graueri


Pan (chimpanzee)


Pan paniscus (pygmy chimpanzee)

Pan troglodytes (chimpanzee; common chimpanzee)

Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii

Pan troglodytes troglodytes

Pan troglodytes verus


Homo


Homo sapiens (human)


We are Homo sapiens sapiens.


Being animals with genes like all other animals we are subject to the same rules as any other animal. Of particular interest to The Wager is that we have certain traits that are observable and can be passed on to our progeny if that trait is determined by our genes. There are "obvious" traits like skin color, hair texture, eye shape and nose shape. If each of these traits were simply random occurences then we'd see the same exact population diversity everywhere.Nigeria would be full of blond headed people with straight, slightly curly, really curly and tight (N*@$! naps) hair. There would be red heads all over Nigeria too. Not only that, but Nigeria would be full of people with varied skin tones from the whitest to the "blackest". All the populations would be represented equally because any trait would equal and have an equal chance of showing up in offspring. In fact All over the world there would be equal populations of all types of people. Kind of like a NYC subway. But it's not.


No, instead we see that there are people in Africa that have the same general characteristics that is, very dark skin, wholly hair and general thick lips. There are currently areas in Africa where this generality does not hold. the reason for this is due to the history of invasion of North Africa and East Africa and the consequent interbreeding. Now how do we know that this is a particular race? Well let's go back to the dogs. Even though they are all of the same species, they are identifiable as a distinct sub group. This subgroup, no different than Poodles and German Shepherds will breed and reproduce themselves with progeny that have the same general physical characteristics just like two Poodles and two German Shepherds. Similarly in Europe you have light skinned people (light?). with straight hair and an interesting extreme: the blonde. The blonde is a known genetic recessive. blond hair and blue eyed people are genetic recessives that only show up when two people carrying these genetic traits (not necessarily blonde themselves) give both recessive traits to their offspring. Again, what is important here is that you don't have Europeans (AKA: white people) producing children that are typical of say, Nigeria. Not by a long shot. Oh, yes there is great variation within that group but there are clear limits on what they can produce on their own. In fact it is entirely possible that within these group variations are other sub species of humans that can reproduce themselves reliably.


Over on the other side of the Eurasian continent (just how do we justify calling a peninsula a continent?) we find people with characteristics of "bone straight" hair, light skin and "odd" shaped eyes. Again, we find that these traits are inheritable. Again we find that there are limits to what they can produce on their own. None will produce a child that looks like an average Yoruba.


You can basically do the same thing across the globe. What usually get's people confused are hybrids. This particular confusion is especially acute in places like the US where there is a social definition of "race" that is contradictory to genetics. So example in the US. anyone with "one drop" of African blood is "black" unless that African blood is sourced from North Africa. Got that? And "white" is anyone without any African blood, or "African blood" sourced from North Africa. Had that logic been applied to our German Shepherd example then had we bred a Poodle with a German Shepherd, the result would be a German Shepherd. Now the AKC wouldn't have it, but the social contruct of race as played out in the US if applied would make it so.


Now for me, I'm all for the dismantling of the social concept of race as is practiced in the US. In fact the scientific concept of race utterly destroys the social concept of race.


So in summary Michael Fisher, to be lauded for his desire to end the system of White Supremacy (as defined by Neely Fuller Jr. and expounded upon by the likes of Dr. Frances Cress Welsing), simply does a disservice to his comrads and the cause itself by putting out patently false information based on his complete lack of understanding of genetics and confusing the social concept of race with the genetic definition.


It is now 9:15 AM on Monday morning. No paypal deposit has reached my inbox so I'll have to assume then that Michael Fisher was unwilling to put his money where his mouth was. That really reflects badly on him.

45 comments:

Cynthia said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cynthia said...

Take a look at this article. Now evidence is coming in that says human DNA is not quite so similar as once thought? Instead of 99.9% similar, we are 99%. This means that there are at least 30 million ways a person can be different.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-09-03-dna-differences_N.htm


It clear to some that Michael started with the wrong premise. It appears most of them believe because of the out of Africa theory that humans couldn't have changed do to their isolation from one another. Therefore, race does not exist!

One minute Michael is saying there is no such thing as race and he proceeds to dismiss phenotypes as some type of arbitrary thing independent of biology. He dismisses the fact that phenotypes are an expression of our genes. This is biology! You can't have it both ways. If we are made up of three types of molecules (DNA, RNA, proteins), then it stands to reason that when DNA is transcribed into RNA and then RNA is then translated into proteins - it is this phenomenon that gives rise to phenotypes (the Races). It is illogical to say that there is no biological basis for race, when race is based upon phenotypes.

It is fair to say that a political construct was created and maintained based upon biological phenotypes but to say that race is not biological is absurd at best.

If race didn’t exist, why are companies scurrying around to make race based drugs. Surely, someone (scientists) knows that there is a difference and this difference is based upon genetics.

I was disappointed and embarrassed by the whole exchange. The world was watching…

I will never comment on another post where the fundamental premise is this wrong. I could kick myself for even engaging at this level.

Just so you know, I have a PhD in biology.

sondjata said...

Thanks.

I originally wrote 99% but changed it because I needed to be consistent with my source. I've had the opinion that 99.9% was too high and 99% between chimps and humans was also too high.

unfortunately Mr. Fisher is not the only person making the mistake. I also sent a note to Joy Leary of "post Traumatic Slave Syndrome" fame, after sitting in one of her lectures where she made the same mistake Michael made. She never got back to me though. Wasn't entirely surprised by that since people get so invested in their ideologies (and have books to sell) that they can't admit to being wrong on some portion of their stuff. Sad part about Dr. Leary is that aside from that issue, her stuff is pretty tight.

Cynthia said...

When you asked the initial questions, I thought you were talking about genes exchanges between the various breeds of dogs.

About Joy Leary - since her degree isn't in biology, she may be incapable of putting her head around this issue. After learning biology, I discovered that some of theories put forth by folks that make up the Black conscious movement are founded upon inaccuracies. Since we respect these people and in the absence of knowledge, we take what is being said as the absolute truth.

sondjata said...

When you asked the initial questions, I thought you were talking about genes exchanges between the various breeds of dogs.

kinda lost here. :-)


I have to agree with you on the comment on certain theories. I wouldn't say that Dr. Leary is incapable of understanding the subject matter. I honestly think that some people have such a vested interest in what they want to be the case (for a wide variety of reasons), that they willingly suspend critical thought on that particular subject. Also, and I need to make a blog entry on it, some people are so used to be right on so many issues that they cannot wrap their heads around actually being wrong.

I'll always remember seing Melvin Van Peebles being interviewed and the interviewer asked him a question about racism, I don't recall the question, but Peebles said that he would defer the answer to those better qualified than himself to deal with the subject. It takes a great deal of maturity to acknowledge that other people are better at certain things or know more about some things than we do. Many of our people are not there yet.

Cynthia said...

When you asked the initial questions, I thought you were talking about genes exchanges between the various breeds of dogs.

I was talking about hybrids and you were talking about pure breeds. You can have gene flow between intermediate species to create a poodle and Shepard called a Shepadoodle. But two Shepards can never produce a Poodle like you said. The only reason I brought this up is I made this comparison before and this is not what you were talking about.


http://www.bigpawsonly.com/shepadoodle-breed.htm

sondjata said...

Oh OK. yeah, I meant purebreeds since I thought it most relevant to the discussion at Assault.

Cynthia said...

Now, the questions remain, if people don't accept the biology as the way we explained it, is it still the truth?

sondjata said...

well that statement would suppose ego is involved in the equation. I'm not looking for people to accept my way of seeing things, rather I want people to see the issue in a manner that conforms to the facts on the ground. Should someone come up with an explanation that accounts for everything known and it is different from what I currently understand, I'd be more than happy to change my position.

Truth is unchangeable, otherwise it's not truth right? So the actual problem is not with 'truth" but what we decide to proclaim to be true.

Michael Fisher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael Fisher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael Fisher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael Fisher said...

Cynthia...

"he proceeds to dismiss phenotypes as some type of arbitrary thing independent of biology. He dismisses the fact that phenotypes are an expression of our genes."

Cynthia, I never did that. I said genotypes determine phenotypes, but that phenotypes do not a "race" make. The various phenotypes characterized as "black" are just too divergent. You can not reduce Africans both in Africa and in the Diaspora to one phenotype. If one did, based on what? What makes a particular Nigerian phenotype, let's say an Ibo, more authentically "black" than a Xhosa, or a Kikuyu? Which particular phenotype is the "template" for "blackness"?

There are phenotypes that originated in Africa (recently), but they are many and they are highly divergent.

Now I don't have a PhD in biology, but I can read and reason.

The divergent and many African phenotypes just don't make up a "race". There are no phenotypes in the world that make up "race". Nowhere.

As to you Sondjata. Define "race".

sondjata said...

All I have to say is:

Where's my 10 bucks?

Cynthia said...

Michael: You are changing what you said. You are adding an additional element into your equation.

Michael Fisher said...

and what additional element would that be?

Michael Fisher said...

sondjata...

ten bucks is not a race. Define "race"

sondjata said...

Please, continue to play Imhotep over on your blog. This is a waste of ATP.

Michael Fisher said...

Define "race"

Cynthia said...

Michael said: genotypes determine phenotypes, but that phenotypes do not a "race" make. The various phenotypes characterized as "black" are just too divergent. You can not reduce Africans both in Africa and in the Diaspora to one phenotype. If one did, based on what? What makes a particular Nigerian phenotype, let's say an Ibo, more authentically "black" than a Xhosa, or a Kikuyu? Which particular phenotype is the "template" for "blackness"?

This is just silliness. I think you just want attention. It doesn't matter if it is negative or positive.

Michael Fisher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael Fisher said...

"This is just silliness."

It is not silly at all.

Then you tell me. Which phenotype is the "template" for the "black race"?

"I think you just want attention."

Maybe, maybe not. But that still does not answer the question.

(1) Define "race"

(2) Which phenotype is the "template" for the "black race"?

Cynthia said...

Michael: You should know Black people don't subscribe to this: Which phenotype is the "template" for the "black race.

This is a White Supremacist myopic view of people!

You say you are trying to dismantle White Supremacy, but you constantly use their terminology to wage an assault against Black people.

Race has already been defined by all of us. There is no need to do this again!

sondjata said...

I can't believe this is still going on.

Race = breed

since that has been established, race has been defined at least 3 times in the piece. In fact the very question I posed had the definition in it.

And Cynthia is quite correct in pointing out that by asking for a "template" of "the" black race you have fallen for the WS OkeyDoke.

Michael Fisher said...

If race=breed,

what do do

black

"pure breeds" (y'alls term)

look like?

Michael Fisher said...

Cynthia...

"You say you are trying to dismantle White Supremacy, but you constantly use their terminology to wage an assault against Black people."

I'm not entirely clear here...

Are you saying

(a) that I am using White Supremacist terminology so that I, (Michael Fisher) can wage an assault on Black people.

or

(b) that I am using White Supremacist terminology which is used by White Supremacists to wage an assault on Black people?

Michael Fisher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael Fisher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael Fisher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael Fisher said...

Sondjata...

"race has been defined at least 3 times"

No it has not. Not until you have done the following:

(a) Explained on what objective scientific (not based on "its' obvious") basis you have selected the following three attributes as "racial attributes" "wooly hair", "thick lips", and "dark skin" that supposedly separate a biological "black race" from any other biological "race".

(b) Define the terms:

"very dark skin" (note that this usage differs from your original "near black")

(c) Define "wooly hair". (I guarantee you that you are going to need Mandelbrotian fractals for
that one...)

(d) Define "general thick lips."

You can use either inches or the metric system. In terms of defining color, that is "dark skin" or "near black", please use values assigned by physics as to the the color spectrum.

Lastly, if there is such a thing as "biological race", please explain why the notion that members of this biological black race appear to be stupid, lazy, savage, promiscuous, and generally backward in comparison to other "biological races", should not hold?

In other words, why would you argue (as I assume you would) that Herrnstein and Glazer and all of their ilk are incorrect when they posit that "blacks" in general are of limited intelligence and why their statistical analysis should not be considered compelling?

Cynthia said...

Michael: In the beginning, Sondjata told you that you are confusing the biological definition of race with the political construct of race.

You should really sit back and think about what you are saying and doing. The questions you are asking are questions that can be answered by you and ones that I have already answered.

Pure breed is irrelevant when it comes to Black people. This is not our term. We accept anyone who accepts their Blackness regardless of how White Supremacists define themselves. Scientists have shown that those who classify themselves as Black people are susceptible to the same types of diseases, etc., which means they are genetically similar or related to one another. Because of intermarriages between races, there are many types of hybrids that don’t fit neatly into one category, however, that don’t mean that the parents cease to exist because Michael Fisher said so. The one-drop rule is a political construct created by White people to subjugate non-whites. These people fall into the hybrid category. If they identify themselves as Black, then they are Black (period).

Just so you know, this will be my last time responding to you on this issue! It is fruitless to continue a subject such as this when it is wrong on so many levels! You are not a biologist, therefore, you should not have embarked upon this subject with the arrogance that you did.

Michael Fisher said...

"You should really sit back and think about what you are saying and doing."

I know exactly what I am doing and why.

What is the problem with defining "pure breed" when it comes to "black" people?

This is terminology which YOU two are using. Not I. If it were of no significance to you then you would not have used the terminology. Correct?

Cynthia said...

Show me where I used pure breed!

Cynthia said...

What is the point of going through all of this? What productive outcome is this supposes to achieve?

Michael Fisher said...

Cynthia...

"Show me where I used pure breed!"

Sondjata, in a most curious fashion had used the term "breed" as the equivalent of "race". Something which he confirmed later in the thread where he stated "race=breed".

In any case, when agreeing with Sondjata on a point, you said:

"I was talking about hybrids and you were talking about pure breeds."

To which Sondjata replied:

"Oh OK. yeah, I meant purebreeds since I thought it most relevant to the discussion at Assault."

You at no time objected to this terminology and indeed confirmed to Sondjata that the usage of this terminology was proper in your response:

"Now, the questions remain, if people don't accept the biology as the way we [my emphasis] explained it, is it still the truth?"

The usage here of "we" clearly indicates that you are in agreement with Sondjata in the usage of the terms used to "explain the biology"

To compare the breeding of a dog (instructive choice of an example, by the way)with the breeding of African people (which indeed was done on special breeding farms) is not only unscientific, but abhorrent to my personal sensitivities.

Where are we here? In Jimmy "The Greek's" parlor?

If Bro. Sondjata did not claim that he was African and if I did not know that you are African, I would have to sincerely doubt where either one of you was coming from.

I still would like to have an answer as to your statement about my? waging an assault on black people. Or did I misunderstand?

Michael Fisher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael Fisher said...

Cynthia...

"What is the point of going through all of this? What productive outcome is this supposes to achieve?"

Confusing the people who they define as "black" and "non-white" is central to continuance and refinement the oppressive system the people who defined themselves a "white" have set up.

Moreover, the logically the notion of "white race" carries within itself the seed of the destruction of the SR/WS. I'm going to do separate post on this s well as on the confusion that is engendered by the employment of non-nonsensical terminology like "race".

Now Sondjata did make an important point when he posted the picture of Nigerians (though why he selected that particular picture I have no idea), but not the point he sought to make. Just as he is making an important point when he says that "Similarly in Europe you have light skinned people (light?). with straight hair and an interesting extreme:..." though again not the point that he sought to make.

Again, I'll go into this in another post on the Assault.

To which you, by the way, should return as a contributor.

Cynthia said...

Michael: There’s a lot you don't understand and I’m tired of explaining it to you! If you believe that White people defined us as being Black, you are hopeless.

It is way too difficult to interact with you. I don't like it...

Michael Fisher said...

Cynthia...

"If you believe that White people defined us as being Black, you are hopeless."

That is not even the issue here. The issue is your definition of "black" (which have yet to define), not white people's definition, whether they defined us as black or not.

"It is way too difficult to interact with you. I don't like it..."

I can imagine you'd feel that way. So what are you gonna do? Run away?

Cynthia. This is not about you making me understand or me making you understand. This is about you making the thousands of Africans who visit the Assault on a monthly basis understand what the truth is.

If I am spreading falsehoods, you need to show how I am doing so. Whether I agree with you at the end or not is inconsequential. If I am truly spreading falsehoods what is of the sole importance is that you have shown me to be wrong and demonstrated the truth to all of these people.

That is who you have a responsibility to. Exercise it.

Or run away because Michael is too difficult to deal with. Remember how a certain person ran off because you were to difficult to deal with?

sondjata said...

Like I said in the piece and pieces before: Race = Breed. Same thing. A german Shepherd that breeds with another German Shepherd will give birth too more German Shepherds. Not Pooodles, Not Great Danes. Why German Shepherds, defined by a certain set of phenotypes that are genetically determined , well if breed together produce the same thing over and over again. There will be slight variations in height, weight, length of claws, etc. but you will always get a recognizable German Shepherd.

Similarly with humans Black skinned , "nappy headed" and "thick lipped" persons will,if they breed together always produce the same. There will be slight variations but the general phenotype will be recognizable. Thus we have the definition of race; no different than that of breed and entirely in line with the quotation you posted from the Nazi. This is why I haven't had to define "race" because you provided the definition in your piece already. It's been looking you in the face the entire time.

You and Mandhisa were called on the "there is no race" statement by both Cynthia and I, who are, by my observations on the site, the only persons with specific training in the field that you ventured to comment on. At the very least since, both Cynthia and I are "in your corner" in respects to the existence of White Supremacy, you'd at least respect our expertise. Perhaps you need to check yourself in relation to Carter G Woodson's analysis that black folk won't be told "what to do" by other black folk because we don't respect black folk in authority.

On this blog, many positions that I take on subject matter outside of my expertise is actually passed by persons with expertise in the field. For example on the issue of education, since I work in a University, I'll go by some of the relatively "pro black" faculty members and ask them their opinion on the subject and they often will point me to studies which I'll then refer to in my pieces.

Anyway, I know full well you won't respect either Cynthia or my position on the matter because you've already invested yourself in your pinky toe theory.

Just a suggestion though. Should you go forward with the speakers bureau thing. Do not go to a university and repeat that Pinky toe thing. Seriously.

Michael Fisher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael Fisher said...

Sondjata...

"Like I said in the piece and pieces before: Race = Breed. Same thing. A german Shepherd that breeds with another German Shepherd will give birth too more German Shepherds. Not Pooodles, Not Great Danes. Why German Shepherds, defined by a certain set of phenotypes that are genetically determined , well if breed together produce the same thing over and over again. There will be slight variations in height, weight, length of claws, etc. but you will always get a recognizable German Shepherd."

Ok. Let's use your "breed" analogy then.

A Xhosa has a recognizably different penology than an Ibo who has a recognizably different penology from a Dogon, who has a who has a recognizably different penology from a Malinke, who has a recognizably different penology from a Wolof, who has who has a recognizably different penology from a Haussa, who has a recognizably different penology from a Khoisan, who has a recognizably different penology from an Oromo, who has a recognizably different penology from a Kikuyu, who has a recognizably different penology from a Hereo, who has a recognizably different penology from a Shona, who has a recognizably different penology from a Nuba, who has a recognizably different penology from a Fulani, who has a recognizably different penology from a Yoruba.

A Xhosa "breeding" with a Xhosa will certainly not produce a Dohon, Wolof, or Akan. Ergo, the Xhosa are a different breed than Dogons, Wolof, or Akan and since race=breed, each of different biological races.

Again. According to your reasoning, those would be all different breeds, and thus all different races.

In fact, what "breed" would my good friend, the late Kwame Olatunji fall under? His skin certainly was not "near black"? Neither is that of the average Nguni (Xhosa, Zulu, Matabele, Tswana, Mpondo etc.). What breed and "race" are they?

Why did you limit your selection of "racial attributes" only hair woolliness, lip thickness, and skin coloration as determining racial features? Why did you not include nose size? Nose shape? Eye color? What is the objective scientific reason why you only chose these three features?

What about the different peoples of Papua New Guinea? Are their skins "near black" enough? Doea the hair at least fit?

sondjata said...

a) Breed is not an analogy it is a direct equivalent.

b) Within "races" you have quite a bit of variety. That has always been the case. Regardless to how different your Igbo and Dogon are, they both share dark skin, "Nappy hair" and thick lips. Are there Dogon without thick lips or have narrow noses, probably not a problem. Similarly the Kikuyu and Samburu are similarly situated.

None of the above are regularly giving birth to pale skinned, straight haired, narrow nosed, green eyed babies. That is how we know they are of a separate "breed"

I didn't pick the features nature did. You can't use blood type because blood type varies equally along groups. Similarly so does finger length, foot length, etc. That is why they are excluded from the defined characteristics.

Kwame Olatunji? Not familiar.

Zulu have many phenotypical characteristics in common with Igbo and Tutsi's for that matter.

And all of them have more in common with each other than with Arabs, American Indians (Technically Asians) and Europeans. A fact that simply cannot be denied.

Michael Fisher said...

Sondjata...

"You can't use blood type because blood type varies equally along groups."

Already the first tautology. There is nothing that says that you can not construct racial groups along bloodtype lines. Fact is, that would be much more objective. Thus you'd have an O race, an A race, a B race, and an AB race.

Once you constructed these racial groups you then cabn make a statement about hair features occuring or not occuring across either of these races.

In any case, that wasn't even the point. The point is that the different "breeds" I cited according to your vague definition (skin coloration, lip thickness, hair wooliness) are different enough to constitute different breeds just as there are different breeds of horses (Mustang, Lippizaner, Arabian, Westphalian, etc.)

However you consruct it, Sondjata, you will never be able to construct a "race" out of the myriad features of the human body nature provides without being subjective in your choice of the features you construct a "race" with.

Now, a phenotype is just another way of saying this is how an individual looks ("pheno" = to show). And that is quite enough.

"White people" have the same problem as you do when defining their "race" and the Nazis has a REAL big problem. Moreover, when you define race you gotta select a particlar phenotype as representative of the "pure race" or "purebreed" as you put it. In the case of the Nazis that would be the fairskinned, blond, "thin-lipped", Germanic phenotype.

Which phenotype did you select as the "purebreed" black?

"Kwame Olatunji? Not familiar."

You run an Olatunji Foundation and you are not familiar with the late Baba Olatunji and his deceased son Kwame?

I guess it was just a coincidence of names. Sorry for my assumption.

Cynthia said...

Michael: There is no scientific basis for what you are saying and yet you persist.

All we have are our names and our reputation, how could I continue communicating with someone who is willingly spreading misinformation? If I did this, I would be as guilty as you. I would also lose credibility. In my personal life, once I hear people talking on this level, I would simply leave them alone!

With Malik, I gave scientific evidence (published articles), but he refused to look at the evidence because it contradicted what he believed. Now, doesn’t this sound familiar?