Talk:Black supremacy/Archive 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


 * This is getting stupid. Can you even read? From your quote it says black supremacy is an idelogical tool in framing somekind of liberation theology. It should be black nationalism/separatism, NOT supremacy. And from you pretty long post on the NOI anyone can see that you're contradicting yourself. From the activities of NOI you posted it should be separatism, as some sort of economic independence from white people, so can you tell me what's supremacist about it?   Wareware 06:41, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No. It is correct as I wrote it. Black supremacy frames and informs the ideological construct in which the religion functions as liberation theology. Does that [make it] any clearer to you? I am reinserting the paragraph, because it is important and accurate. Further, in the above paragraphs, I do not address black supremacy. My objective was to explain to you why and how NOI dogma/religion has functioned as liberation theology. It's already been established that NOI dogma is black supremacist, so I saw no point in repeating it -- particularly since your questions dealt with the phenomenon of liberation theology and its applicability to the NOI, which I believe I adequately have explained. And change your tone. deeceevoice 08:24, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You people all disgust me. I was hoping to find some insightful commentary on this page, but instead I find a bunch of pretentious, egotistical, spiteful, petty, over-educated children with sub-average intelligence, arguing about important issues to heighten their inflated sense of faulty intellectualism. Write a book. Do something with your time other than act like you have social consciousness with people who have no goal but to boost their ego. Black supremacy is bad, just like white supremacy and any other institution that glorifies one race above another. I have friends who have been beaten by skinheads and I have friends who have been shot by gangsters for no other reason than they were white guys in the wrong neighborhood. Next time I read this discussion page, I hope to hear something constructive and thought-provoking. (user: a man fed up with political correctness and pop psychobabble) 12:09 26 March 2005

Just what sort of "commentary" were you seeking? The purpose of the article itself is not so much to comment on anything, but to provide information -- hopefully presented in as objective a manner as possible. You should expect to find information here (on Wikipedia) of the type that can be gotten in, hopefully, any well-written encyclopedia -- nothing more. If were looking for some sort of treatise offering support for, or condemnation of, black supremacy, I'm afraid you've come to the wrong place. If, in your search, you find some additional information, hopefully, you will return to Wikipedia and offer here it for others. deeceevoice 10:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Just dropped in to check the melanin page, and followed a link over here. I've got no special enthusiasm for Deeceevoice: I think she's got strong social convictions and prejudices and uses her intelligence to clumsily plumb the natural sciences for data to adduce in support of her ideas/fantasies. The results are usually predictably amateurish and ill-informed. But having said that, Deeceevoice is dead right in saying that Wareware's transparent race-baiting and 19th century insults about primates and jungles were wildly unacceptable, and it's outrageous that sysops haven't stepped in. Shame on everyone else for not coming to Deecee's support in their exchanges. She's certainly got a strong committment to Wikipedia if she's willing to truck on through that kind of ugly garbage. Babajobu

Hello, Baba. Well, thanks for your support -- kind of. You will note that a lot of the information regarding the research into melanin and its properties which I have brought to this discussion page is, indeed, accurate -- contrary to the earlier assertions of some participants. So, don't be so quick to dismiss (or to make certain assumptions about what I do or do not believe.) Check your e-mail. deeceevoice 13:22, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I pumped in black liberation theology after reading WareWare's failed attempts to connect the 2, and got 210,000 results here, all the initial one's being directly relevant, --SqueakBox 23:30, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC) Historically, however, black supremacy has manifested itself among various religions or cults as an ideological tool in framing a kind of liberation theology for the societally marginalized and oppressed is not true according to WareWare. I think it fits Rastafari perfectly,--SqueakBox 23:46, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Please provide citations
I have removed this paragraph, as it has no citations.
 * Scientific evidence strongly indicates that the first early human beings evolved in Africa. In the context of comparative religious study, the "Doctrine of Yakub" has been viewed as simply an allegory for the evolution of whites from blacks as a result of climatic differences as humanity migrated out of Africa and populated other areas of the globe. Such colorful storytelling, argue some NOI adherents, is little different from the Bible's account of God creating Eve from Adam's rib, or the creation of heaven and earth in six days.

Please provide evidence that some significant percentage of NOI adherents explicitly rejects the literal teachings of Louis Farrakhan and Elijah Muhahmmed, and have reinterpreted them in this allegorical fashion. RK 03:05, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * With regard to the opinion of writers on comparative religion that the Doctrine of Yakub is an allegory similar in nature to the two cited in the Bible, I've searched online and cannot find documentation. I read this years ago -- where I cannot recall.  I can do a check of my personal library to see if I can find something, but I don't think the specific reference(s) I'm recalling were in my possession at the time.


 * With regard to the second matter, those who have followed the NOI in its various permutations over the years and who know and have spoken with NOI adherents are well-acquainted with this fact. Whether there is readily available documentation of it, however, I cannot say.  Over the years, there has been a demographic shift in black religious denominations in this nation as blacks have become more upwardly mobile educationally and economically.  This phenomenon is apparent in not only such denominations as the Church of God in Christ (COGIC) and other pentecostal/fundamentalist denominations, but also in the Nation.  Generations who were, say, marginally literate domestics and menial laborers have now raised college-educated physicians, attorneys, educators, etc.  They are more sophisticated, better educated, more worldly than their parents and grandparents and may no longer believe precisely as their parents believe.


 * In the case of the NOI, many no longer strictly adhere to some of the more controversial tenets of the NOI as enunciated by Elijah Muhammad, and some have explored more mainstream Islamic religious tenets beyond simply keeping the Five Pillars of the Faith. Much like some "lapsed Catholics" who disagree with the Church's stand on women clergy, abortion, homosexuality, or birth control, they still identify with the faith in which they have been raised, though they may reject even key religious tenets.  They attend NOI mosques because they are comfortable there; they are black nationalists by tradition and in their fundamental orientation.  My knowledge, though accurate, is entirely anecdotal; I have no statistics.  Such is often the case with matters treating African-American life and culture; this is not the sort of thing that is generally studied by the white majority society.  There is a tendency among whites to see the NOI as outsiders often tend to view cultures, governments, religions, etc., that are foreign to them:  monolitically.  But in this regard, NOI adherents are certainly no different from&mdash; and, perhaps, no less diverse in their beliefs regarding specific precepts than&mdash; believers of other religious traditions with which you and others may be more familiar.  Not every NOI adherent is a black supremacist or even a black separatist.  And, for that matter, black supremacists can be found in every walk of life, in virtually every religious tradition -- just as can white supremacists.


 * And, yes, I know this is an encyclopedia where references are required. You've deleted the relevant passage(s?).  Fine 'n' dandy.  Be that as it may, that does not change the objective reality of the situation. deeceevoice 08:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your response. I have no doubt that there are individuals with such beliefs. But I am asking for references because we need to find out if their beliefs are representative of any significant fraction of NOI adherents, or are representative of what any significant fraction of NOI ministers or leaders teach. When asking for references, I do not mean to place a high bar in your (or anyone's) way. But having never come across some views, and finding them in contradiction to what I have read thus far, I hope you understand why I am asking for some sort of sources. In fact, over the next few months you or I may find some, especially if you get a chance to visit a university library and do some article searches in their journals on sociology and religion. (I have spent some time in libraries searching for academic references on articles for science and religion topics.) RK 21:25, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

I for my part dispute "Scientific evidence strongly indicates that the first early human beings evolved in Africa.". See single-origin hypothesis and multiregional hypothesis, neither are particularly conclusive at this point. I think we've discussed this before, havn't we DC? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:43, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * That's a very good point. Given the difficulty of finding hominid remains, and the rate at which we are making new discoveries, I (and many scientists) think that it would be foolish to assume that we can make a firm conclusion on this issue at the present. We hominids have so many recent branches on our family tree, and our ancestors were so adept at moving around, that this won't be a quick and easy question to answer. Frankly, it might take another century's worth of fossil finding to accurately flesh out the origin of modern humans. RK 16:02, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, it is foolish to try taking a firm stand on such a substantive issue when the evidence is currently so very thin and the opinions of experts are so diverse. Best to leave out that portion. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Black supremacy vs. white supremacy
1. Restored as a critical, defining factor of such groups: "Historically, black supremacy has manifested itself among various religions or cults as an ideological tool in framing a kind of liberation theology for the societally marginalized and oppressed." This is a critical point. Both Rastafari and the NOI, as well as Marcus Garvey's UNIA, took root among the poorest, least educated, most marginalized blacks. Mainstream, successful, upper- and middle-class black folks were not, and generally have not been, attracted to such movements.

2. Restored: "In neither its intellectual nor its political context, however, is black supremacy -- as many nonblacks are inclined to believe -- mere sophistry; it is a strongly held notion." Important to state that black supremacists actually believe in black supremacy. Yes, as the ideologies of these organizations is formulated, black supremacy is, indeed, a tool for their upliftment. But for the believers, the notion of black superiority is not an artifice or a deception; they strongly believe that blacks are inherently superior to whites; it's not just rhetoric. The same can be said for black supremacists who, like a lot of white supremacists, don't belong to any official organization or group. It's simply part of what the believe.

Further, the comment that it "is little more than an intellectual construct" leads into/speaks to bell hooks' comment about the lack of institutional infrastructure of black supremacy; it has little impact beyond the confines of its believer community. If I understand the objection raised about "documentation," this fact is readily apparent. There is no network of black supremacist institutions capable of denying significant numbers of whites: access to equal education, employment, housing, healthcare; capable of segregating or otherwise oppressing whites.

3. White supremacy is and has been, indeed, far more widespread. And the fact that it "historically has been reinforced and sustained worldwide by instruments of Western economic, political and military power" is not debatable. It is not an opinion of black supremacists as the rather clumsy rewrite suggests; it is simple historical fact: the conquest of the New World and the subjugation of Native Americans in North and South America by European powers, the trans-Atlantic slave trade & slavery, Manifest Destiny, European colonialism and neocolonialism around the world -- in Africa, Asia, India,  Australia, the Americas (including the Caribbean), etc. These were not simply military conquests with economic motives; there was an assumption of white superiority and a systematic disenfranchisement and oppression of subject peoples amplified and in many cases justified by the notion of white supremacy and enforced by European/neo-European political, economic and military might.

4. The lower casing of bell hooks' name is not an oversight; it's the way she writes it. deeceevoice 19:50, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Deeceevoice. She seems to be talking sense to me, --SqueakBox 21:44, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * I see some subtle issues w point 3, but she is overall correct. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Black Panthers and other purportedly black supremacist groups
I've deleted the New Black Panther Party from the list of black supremacist organizations. I may be mistaken, but despite my earlier request, there has been no documentation provided to justify its inclusion. Did I miss something? deeceevoice 23:46, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To the unnamed contributor who reinserted the NBPP on the list of black supremacist organizations: please provide proof that the NBPP belongs on the list. For the umpteenth time, being a "hate group" is not the same as being a black supremacist organization. It has been deleted -- again -- until someone provides evidence. deeceevoice 06:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In light of this business about the NBPP, I've googled a few of the other organizations on the list. Based on what I've found, I've temporarily removed the following organizations from the list of black supremacist organizations:


 * New Black Panther Party
 * Black African Holocaust Council
 * Black Hebrew Israelites
 * United Nuwaubian Nation of Moors
 * Yahweh ben Yahweh
 * KMWR Scientific Consortium

So far as I have been able to determine, these groups do not fit the profile of a black supremacist organization. They are separatist, some may be classified as hate groups; but so far, I've seen no concrete documentation that any of them are black supremacist in nature. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, please present it here before moving them back to the list. The last name on the list is curious. The only real mention of it on the web I've been able to turn up is the CSIOP article, which somewhat misrepresents Melanin Theory. According to the article, the "consortium" is a group of "melanin scholars" who come together for melanin conferences to present information which bolsters "afrocentrism." It doesn't sound like much of an organization. There's no web presence. There's no mention of it as an organization elsewhere. Can anyone provide further information? And lest there be any misunderstanding of my motives, this is an invitation -- not a challenge. deeceevoice 07:07, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted the Panther Party. Again. It was reinserted with no justification provided. deeceevoice 19:20, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Huh? You deleted them in light of some random web search, with no references? That's nonsense, and it violates our verifiability policy. In any case, some of these groups, openly preach that black people are superior to white people. End of story. Our goal hereon Wikipedia is to describe groups. We may not lie about their beliefs in order to make black America feel comfortbale that no blacks are racist, and that only "White people" have such racist groups. In fact, your apologetics for black supremacist hatespeech are now reaching the level of racism towards non-Black people. Your modus operandi seems to be based on the idea that if a white group preaches that whites are superior to blacks, then they are racist, but if a black group preaches the same thing, they somehow are not racist.  That's irrational and false. RK 12:14, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yes -- which is precisely what Pharlap did! They were included with, IMO, insufficient evidence and reinserted on the same basis. Besides, it's my approach that one must satisfactorily prove something belongs on the list, rather than that it doesn't. I removed the NBPP because there was no hard evidence -- and I still haven't seen any -- that the NBPP is itself a supremacist organization. Muhammad, who is deceased, who founded the party, was a fruitcake full of hatred. Shabazz, who is his heir, has been classified as a "black supremacist," but I've seen no hard evidence of that fact -- not in any literature, not in statements, not in the group's activities here locally (though they've kept a rather low profile in the last several months; are they still around?) What I've seen of Muhammad is that he is highly intelligent, concerned at least nominally about the plight of African-Americans -- and that he's got serious ego issues that have impeded the success of the organization and driven people away locally. While reading up on the NBPP, I could find no succinct statement of its purpose and no overtly supremacist statements attributed to Shabazz. (Perhaps someone has something to contribute in that regard. It was what I had hoped for from Pharlap or other contributors.  Not even the sites that refer to the organization as supremacist have offered any proof/evidence that I saw -- simply that he is outspoken, black nationalist in orientation and a successor to Muhammad.  Still, no doctrinal evidence, no quotes.

Of course, some possibly could rightly classify Muhammad as a supremacist; he was certainly a hatemonger. But it does not necessarily follow that the organization which he headed had/has a supremacist agenda. After all, someone can be a rabid neocon, but still establish a broader-based organization to accomplish broader societal goals; to coalition build for purely strategic purposes. Again, the group is purported to be headquartered here in D.C., and I've seen absolutely no evidence to support the supremacist assessment -- and I am speaking here, again, of the organization, its guiding philosophy and goals -- not the personal philosophy of those who are its figural heads.

As in removing the NBPP from the list and in my related arguments herein -- as with the earlier discussion re: the NOI -- I have been pressing for something definitive and substantive in this regard. So far, I've seen little that is truly convincing for me. Frankly, as someone whose friends and associates (and I, myself) were targets of the COINTELPRO efforts back in the day, I know how off-the-wall internal FBI documents can be. So, I look for strong corroboration elsewhere -- especially when, in this case, the single document referred to appears to have internal contradictions and broad generalizations which leave important questions unanswered. J. Edgar Hoover was, after all, convinced that Martin Luther King was a communist and that certain leaders of the Civil Rights Movement were part of a broader communist conspiracy.

My approach to such information, therefore -- and I daresay the approach of many of my generation and general political bent -- is to approach such "information" with a healthy skepticism and an inquiring mind. Further, given this nation's recent experience with government "intelligence" and the blatant disinformation campaign with regard to the present military conflict in Iraq and the circumstances surrounding the president's ill-advised decision to go to war, it is an approach, I believe, that has considerable merit and which has growing favor among the American public. It is also, incidentally, the general approach taken by many educated and well-informed African Americans in this nation because of our historical experience in this country. While, I think, nonblacks are generally inclined to trust authority -- the police and the government -- we (blacks) are considerably less inclined to do so. It does not surprise me, therefore, that my reaction to the "information" presented herein would be generally more skeptical and, perhaps, even more analytical (yes, my opinion) than, say, that of others in this discussion.

So, no, my goal is not "lying" (a rather rude presumption on your part, RK) about the true intent/philosophical bent of such groups. But neither is it to fall prey to the over generalizations of those whose ignorance of and biases regarding such matters may lead to unsubstantiated, if not wholly incorrect, conclusions -- in effect, federal agencies and adversarial religious organizations which incorrectly may have placed a bunch of "niggers in a black supremacist woodpile" either out of ignorance, vested interests or historical institutional bias. deeceevoice 12:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 *  Apologetics Research Resources on Religious Cults, Sects, Religions, Doctrines 




 *  Racism Web Intelligence 










 *  University of Mississippi 




 *  Pravda 




 *  Southern Poverty Law Center 


 * (leader of the New Black Panther Party),


 *  MensNewsDaily 




 *  U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation 




 *  Southern Poverty Law Center 


 * 


 * 


 *  Washington Times 




 * Associated Press via The Daily Kent Stater


 *  Meta-religion 




 * Institute for the study of destructive cults




 *  National Black United Front 


 * Pharlap 16:14, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, but the majority of them lead to inactive links where no information is available. I doubt that you even tried to follow the information trail and just read a reference to these groups as being "black supremacist" in nature and copied the links. I've googled these groups, as well as followed a number of the links you've provided; yet I've found nothing authoritative. Before deleting organizations from the article's black supremacist list, I visited the websites of the applicable "organizations" (those that had them), and read the information they presented. When I could find a group website, there was nothing in their stated beliefs or principles that indicated a black supremacist doctrine. In one particular case, I recall finding information that seemed antithetical a black supremacist agenda. So, rather than going by secondhand information, for the purposes of this article, I think it best that we find -- as was done in the instance of the NOI -- concrete examples of black supremacist tenets of these groups. Statements made without documentation mean nothing, and inactive web links are not helpful. We need concrete documentation of doctrinal/ideological precepts that state that these groups are, indeed, black supremacist in nature. And, once again, please note that a hate group is not the same as a supremacist group. ''The same names have been deleted from the list again -- pending appropriate documentation. I invite you to try again, this time with something useful, on-point and authoritative.'' deeceevoice 16:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Black Hebrew Israelites Missed the FBI link:. Here's what I found -- a catchall document related to "millennialist groups," among them the Black Hebrew Israelites. Of them, the document says: "Violent BHI followers can generally be described as proponents of an extreme form of black supremacy. Read critically, such language raises a couple of questions.  Violent BHI followers -- is that a qualifier of certain group members, or is it a general adjective?  Frankly, the language reads to me like a qualifier of certain members of the group.  And if that is the case, to what percentage of BHI adherents does that statement apply?  Are they a lunatic fringe?

Further reading reveals my initial impression to be correct. The article addresses the BHI in the U.S. and says of them, "While the overwhelming majority of BHI followers are unlikely to engage in violence, there are elements of this movement with both the motivation and the capability to engage in millennial violence." It goes on to say, "BHI in Israel are generally peaceful, if somewhat controversial."

These violent members "...can generally be described as a supremacist group." The question is how "generally"? It seems to me the author of this report is taking unusual license with such a "general" characterization. As evidence of the group's "supremacist" doctrine, the report cites the group's claim that blacks/brown people are the true and original Semites and that Ashkenazi Jews are more recent converts to Judaism. [Actually, there is some truth to this statement; but be that as it may, their contention that, as a result, blacks are "God's (true) chosen people" makes the BHI no more black supremacist than, say, the identical claim of Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews makes them a Jewish supremacist cabal.]

""Such beliefs bear a striking resemblance to the Christian Identity theology practiced by many white supremacists," says the report. The BHI is apparently hostile toward these two groups, calling them "evil" and usurpers of their rightful heritage. But hostility, even possibly hatred, does not a supremacist organization make.  Further, it raises the question:  how does the report's  assessment square with a group some whose members live alongside Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews in Israel?  The answer is:  it doesn't.  Parallel responses to Jewish claims of being "God's chosen" clearly do not mean parallel ideologies.  The evidence for the BHI as a supremacist group appears flimsy, at best.

Of this small minority of violent adherents, this lunatic fringe, the document does state, "...militant BHI followers tend to see themselves as divinely endowed by God with superior status." Yet, there is no evidence of such a contention on the group website, further indicating this is not the, if you will, "party line." As if to bolster this fact, the report continues, again attesting to the group's peaceful nature: "In reality, the origins of the BHI movement are non-violent...." So, the BHI is a religious group with peaceful origins, the "vast majority" of whose members are nonviolent -- which also means the "vast majority" do not belong to the "militant," violence-prone group the FBI report tenuously, and rather speciously, IMO, compares to white supremacist groups.

Keep in mind, the purpose of this report was to gauge the threat of millennialist violence by a variety of groups -- a report which mentions "White Supremacy" as a separate category, but does not mention "Black Supremacy" as a separate category. Instead, it lists the BHI as a separate group, rather than placing it firmly under that nonexistent (in the report) category. Apparently "generally describ[ing]" the BHI as supremacist didn't rise to the level of official classification of the group as such for the purposes of the FBI's own report.

So, again, unless there is clear doctrinal evidence of supremacist doctrine of the BHI, I'd have to say it doesn't fit the classification. The clearest statement that I could find of what the BHI believes is found here:

Yahweh ben Yahweh

Now, this organization is an offshoot of the BHI. Labeled the most extreme of the BHI splinter organizations, the FBI's characterization of it as violent and presuming some sort of privilege based on a belief in black supremacy may be correct. I don't have time at the moment to investigate; but, perhaps, someone else will. I've found a few links for those with an interest to follow up and report what they find.


 * 1) The peace-and-love website of the organization. From what I read, there's a lot of stuff about who they believe themselves to be and love and love and more love of the righteous:
 * 2) This is the html for the results of a search on the Southern Poverty Law Center's website:

At least these links are active. Let's see what we come up with. Peace. deeceevoice 06:42, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 Yahweh ben Yahweh 

As we have already documented, the only name of God is Yahweh. Therefore, the Father's name is Yahweh, subsequently, the Son's name is Yahweh ben Yahweh, which means Yahweh, the Son of Yahweh. (Page 5) Yahweh ben Yahweh is the son of Yahwehm and his name is not jesus! Yahweh ben Yahweh is the true christ. (Page 5) From these facts, Yahweh ben Yahweh is the son of Yahweh, is the christ, the messiah, who is the expected or awaited king and deliverer of the tribe of Judah (Page 6) We, The Nation of Yahweh, own just title, as sons and daughters of Yaweh to inherit, through Yahweh ben Yahweh, the land wherein we are strangers, as well as all the land of Canaan, and the whole earth for an everlasting possession (Page 11) Given that we are the family of Yahweh, we are qualified to lay just claim or title to our inheritance as the children of Yahweh becuse it is our "legal" right by law. (Page 11) 

Preparing For Rulership

As always, our nightly classes on “Preparing for Rulership” were bursting with the knowledge we need to make us independent and self-sufficient rulers of the planet earth--the land that belongs to us.

THE FINAL BATTLE: A SUMMATION OF JUDGMENT SHALL SIT

We were taken on a “literary” journey through the summation of Daniel 7:7-8. On our exploratory venture, we found out that the “ten horns” described in this Scripture are actually ten rulers of extraordinary power and authority, and the “little” horn that came up among them is the President of the United States, George W. Bush. It was determined that his official purpose is to defeat three leaders in war, remove them from office, take them from their usual surroundings, even compelling them to leave their countries and, subsequently, supplant a totally different government in their place. Substantive information was presented to show that he used the guise of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction to go to war with Iraq that he might seize control of their oil resources and to fulfill a vow he made, which was to return oil resources to the men who “appointed” him to office. A flashing red light signaled that his end shall come when he stands up against the Prince of princes, Yawhweh ben Yahweh, who shall destroy him without any active participation or cooperation of any outside sources, forces, or individuals.

THE APOCALYPSE: FROM THE FIRST HORSEMAN TO THE GREAT EARTHQUAKE

We had to put on our seat belts for the breaking open of these seals. When the “first seal” was broken, it revealed the white horse to be the United States of America, and he that sat upon this horse was none other than President George W. Bush who was given the charge to attend the ministration of the Pope and to spy on Yahweh ben Yahweh -- the Messiah, who has come to expose all the false teachings of Jesus as Christ. The red horse discloses that the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church is the guiding force behind the universal overthrow of the existing social and political order. The black horse makes it known that the U.S. government shall launch a full-scale media campaign to stop us from publishing the word of Yahweh, saying that our Bible interpretations are a threat to national security. The pale horse foretells of a mole that has infiltrated and assimilated himself into our Nation. His purpose is to level “false” allegations against The Nation of Yahweh. The fifth seal revealed some souls under the altar that were slain for publishing the word of Yahweh. However, those who shall be slain will be given “white” robes, signifying victory and superiority.

Yahweh ben Yahweh Bookstore

Preparing For Rulership, Pt. 1- 99 $ 5.00 / Each (type in rulership)

The Ingathering

Nevertheless, Yahweh has sent His Son,  Yahweh ben Yawhweh, to gather and to reunite us all. Study how Yahweh will gather Israel and make us a holy, righteous, upright, and honest people--thus, a great nation. Learn how Yahweh will gather us and establish a brand new world. The ingathering of Israel points to the end of 6,000 years of wicked rulership. $27.95

 United Nuwaubian Nation of Moors 

We call ourself Moors because of the historical records worldwide where you find the latin word morena, which means "black". But in the sense of Supreme Balancement, not to be mistaken with "negra" which is stricly the color black. 

THE DEROS

This group of insane cave dwellers, were called sumuwnean, meaning "the Obese Ones" or saamiym and ABANDONDEROS or as they are called today, "DEROS" which is a combination of the word "DETRIMENTAL" and "ROBOTS". These Sumuwneans or deros really exist.

The Dero who live in the caves are degenerated so mutch That they dont have mutch intelligence.

There eyes are Silver grey and they glow in the dark. They have blond eyebrows and Pinkish Grey Color Skin mutch like the corpse of a Caucasion, And a pig having not being exposed to the inner or outer sun. Other than their eyebrows, they have no hair on their bodies because of a disease called Trichotillomania, and are responsible for the disease Trichinosis and Trichiniasis. they have no teeth. their mouth appears to be full of a gummy ,slimy substance. they are Nocturnal and hear extermely well. they are not very peaceful and have a long dislike for human beings.


 * And the point of this is? deeceevoice 15:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

THE TEROS

The Teros, which is short from integrative or constructive, are a subface race that usually keep the dero's in check.

The teros chromosome structure is so different from earthlings, that when mixed with certain humans, caused a defect of 47 chromosomes which toady is called "down's syndrome". Down's syndrome can be foudn in all races of the planet earth, for every eight hundred children out of a thousand children are being born on earth has this trait.

The teros that have an abundance of pigmentation in the skin are descendants of the shuyukh. Those whoo are of lacking in pigmentation are descendants of the halaabeans, flugelrods or hulub.


 * Ditto. deeceevoice 15:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

THE ANUNNAQI ELOHEEM

The ANUNNAQI ELOHEEM are those beings who were sent down to the planet QI (EARTH ) known to you as angles the word ANUNNAQI means "those who are ANU sent from heaven to earth " they are called NETERU, meaning " guardians" by the Egyptians. The ANUNNAQI ELOHEEM ' the mighty ones in a ashuric/syriac (Arabic) the "mighty one " are referred as JABBARYANS in aramic (Hebrew ) "mighty one " are referred to as GIBBOREEM. The very elite among the ANUNNAQI are called the DINNEER, or the DINGIR, meaning "the righteous, or divine one of the rocket ship", or ILU, meaning "the lofty one " in Akkadian.

The ANUNNAQI'S descriptions are dark-greenish brown skinned olive toned beings, with supreme 9 ether hair texture of what you'd call "kinky" or "kingly" hair. They look like humans with a few exceptions, such as their eyes, Some of the ANUNNAQI'S eyes are exceptionally larger than that of humans. They are such an advanced state that if you confronted one to them with a weapon they would let you shoot them rather than hurts you.


 * Yes, more nonsense -- but what does it say about black supremacy? deeceevoice 15:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who is Dr. Malachi Z. York?

He tells us he is here to break the evil hypnotic spell of ignorance and elevate us to our once supreme state of being.

From a book entitled "Man From Planet Rizq" Study Book One: Supreme Mathematics Class A For The Students Of The Holy Tabernacle Page 23(in part):

Ques: You have been teaching undisputable facts for over 25 years how did you manage to learn and teach so much information for the amount of years you have?

Ans: "I am a being from the 19th galaxy called ILLYUWN. We have been coming to this planet before it had your life form on it. I manifest into this body to speak through this body. I am a Entity an Etheric being.

Then in 1970 A.D., was my time to come in the flesh to start my work of breaking the spell of sleep also called the SPELL OF LEVIATHAN or KINGU, the moon spell or lunatic state of mind with the power as the "Sun Of Righteousness" (Malachi 4:2 ).

I, YAANUWN am an ANUNNAQI or what you would called an Extra-Terrestrial; Extra Terra-Astral ; look at this EXTRA -meaning in addition to; TERRA - Of the Earth; ASTRAL - Of or from the stars. I am what you call an angelic being, An Eloheem from the 8th planet called RIZQ which has 1 moon SHESHQI of it’s own. This galaxy, the nineteenth galaxy called "ILLYUWN" originally referred to as heaven known as Elysium in Greek, has 3 suns 1) SHAMASH 2) UTU 3) APSU which means a tri-solar system with 38 moons and 19 planets. Each with it’s own number of moons. I have incarnated here in this form to act as a human being for the sole purpose of saving The Children Of The ELOHEEM (ANNUNAQI), The Banaat , which is the same word as Bennett , the chosen 144,000. Just as Mary of 2,000 years ago was chosen by the MOST HIGH ,ANU, called an ALIEN which is ‘ALI’ and ‘EN’ (AN), both of which are names for ANU to breed the holy thing called Yashu’a or Jesus, Real Name Tammuz called Horus. So too The Banaat will breed the Savior of this day and time


 * Just another lunatic cult leader claiming to be God incarnate, but it's not supremacist. deeceevoice 15:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 Black Hebrew Yisraelites  (NOT Ben Ammi's African Hebrew Israelites)

There are many to dispute the fact that GOD has a "special People" and prefer to believe that all the people of the World are GOD's Chosen People. This couldn't be further from the truth, and these people obviously know nothing about the Scriptures of the "Old Testament" and don't want to know, either. The Most High GOD of Hosts not only has a Chosen People, but HE says HE will dwell in the midst of Israel forever (Ezekiel 43:9) if this Nation will put away their whoredom (false gods and worship only HIM). Israel's GOD also prepared very unique Laws, Statutes, Judgments, Precepts, and Ordinances especially for them to do and to observe in Righteousness. And HE gave them HIS Prophets to lead and guide them in HIS Paths of Righteousness.

Although many Nations adopt certain parts of the "Old Testament," people choose not to accept GOD's Laws, Statutes, and Judgments as they are written. They use the Bible as a base, but change GOD's Ordinances to suit the theologies that they prefer and that appeal to them, and all because they, too, want to feel "special." Therefore, they have established a "New Testament" Book that puts the spotlight on Gentiles and exalts their own personal and invented "Saviour of the World.."

So, did GOD change HIS Ordinances or even HIS Chosen People and give HIS Glory to another? And can mere man take the place of GOD? Can Christianity and the "New Testament" be a substitute for GOD's Book of the Law? And did GOD really give HIS Glory to another? The answer to all of these questions is an emphatic NO! GOD's Laws and HIS Covenant with Israel, HIS Chosen People, will last forever! And this Great, All-Mighty GOD will reign in Jerusalem where all Nations will go to see HIS Glory. 


 * This speaks simply to the notion of a "chosen people" -- not to "supremacist" notions. deeceevoice 15:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The wise will realize that the Most High GOD of Israel focuses on HIMSELF, HIS Everlasting LAW, HIS Chosen People, HIS Covenant that HE made with them, and the Land of Israel!!! And no one but no one can change this – not in a million years. Even though the Nation of Israel has sinned against this Merciful GOD, HE yet remembers HIS Promises to HIS Chosen People and that HE is our GOD regardless of our many, many evil doings against HIM. 


 * Ditto. deeceevoice 15:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that after the Holy ONE gave the Nation of Israel HIS Laws, Statutes, and Judgments, HE sent HIS angels, prophets, and other servants to promote this very same Law which had been given in the Wilderness as indicated throughout the “Old Testament.” The Holy ONE changed nothing and advised the Nation of Israel not to add to or diminish ought from this Master Plan. We must follow this Law and not add spiritualites to GOD’s Word no matter how sweet the sound. The Law of our GOD is “Perfect” and was designed to make us a Perfect and a Holy People, if we keep it - as it is written. 


 * Ditto. deeceevoice 15:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But what most Whites do not know and realize is that some of GOD's Chosen People are finally awakening to HIS Truth, i.e., to serve and worship HIM and Keep HIS Law in Righteousness. They don't know that their time is up, and that GOD is in the process of turning the tide against those who have made the Nation of Israel to tremble because of their fury. 


 * Ditto. This is the usual notion of God avenging His people/the "righteous."  deeceevoice 15:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, this doesn't speak to the notion of supremacy. deeceevoice 08:12, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For hundreds and better than 2,000 years, GOD’s Chosen People have been in the hands of cruel, barbaric, and merciless rulers since the days of the Babylonian Empire. And the rulers of this present World system have proven themselves to be worse than the ancient powers that held the Nation of Israel under their control. These Gentile Nations, today, have had no desire to acknowledge the True GOD and HIS Ways, but rather they choose to serve gods that they either molded from clay and/or fabricated from the imaginations of their corrupt and malicious hearts.


 * This is so much extraneous stuff to wade through and still does not attest to supremacist dogma beyond the usual religious stuff. Turn this rhetoric around, and Christians claim that Judgment Day will bring justice, and the 'unrighteous shall be laid low.'  Jews also believe that their enemies will be made to suffer.  deeceevoice 15:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Be aware: unless the Gentile Nations, including European so-called Jews, are using GOD’s “Perfect Law” without adding to it or taking from it, their doctrine is built on deception, dishonesty, and falsehood, and “Judaism,” the most deceptive of all, is the epitome of fraud. And from this deception we all know stems “Christianity.” White Europeans, at the time of the Roman era, also saw fit to fabricate a religion and theology - a “virgin birth” - that would bring about a White-blue-eyed Saviour – one that would be accepted by all the World, and one that needed to especially be embraced by the Children of Israel who were scattered throughout the four corners of the Earth. These Children of GOD, above all Peoples, had to be encouraged to accept this religion if the White World was to maintain power and their superiority over all others in particular GOD’s cursed, albeit, Chosen People Israel.

But what we are not told is that these people were not the Covenant People but rather Jacob/Israel’s twin brother, Esau/Edomites, posing as GOD’s Chosen People!

That which is very important to realize is that those Europeans who now falsely hold the identity of “Israel” are doing everything possible to hold on to what they’ve got – and by any means necessary! And that which is so alarming is that European, so-called Jews have even resorted to encouraging Blacks to embrace the Late Dr. Martin L. King’s “Baptist religion” in an effort to keep the true descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in darkness. What the European “Jews” are saying is, “To hell with Civil Rights; focus on King’s spirituality!” Their hope is that the increasing numbers of Blacks returning to the GOD of Israel will decrease, and will thus enable them to keep control of the land of Israel and maintain their scam a little longer if not forever. True descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who fear the Holy ONE of Israel are going to encourage people to Worship and Exalt The GOD of Abraham and Moses and do and live HIS Law and denounce all other forms of religious doctrines


 * Anti-Zionist rhetoric is just that; it's not supremacist. Also, note that they refer to "those Europeans" -- not "all" Europeans.  This is a waste of time to wade through.  deeceevoice 15:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Most High GOD of Israel is calling HIS Chosen People home and taking back HIS Holy Land. And no manner of conversion process or your Talmudic theology can disannul GOD’s Law and/or HIS Covenant and Promises to HIS Chosen People! 


 * Ditto. deeceevoice 15:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 Five Percenters 

The Five Percent began as an offshoot of the NOI (Nation of Islam) back in 1964 by Clarence 13X who was a minister in Mosque no. 7 under the tutelege of Malcolm X. The movement was started because Clarence 13X rejected the notion that Wallace Fard was God Incarnate. He began teaching that the black man himself was god.

They do refer to "knowledging 120" (120 refers to their lessons which are virtually identical to the Supreme Wisdom originated by Elijah Muhammed and W.D. Fard). 


 * "Virtually identical" in what way, and on what authority is this statement made? deeceevoice 15:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What We Teach

That the blackman is god and his proper name is ALLAH. Arm, Leg, Leg, Arm, Head. 

Pharlap 13:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds like screwy theology, no doubt. What is the context of this?  From what I've read, they don't seem to believe that every black man is God.  Otherwise, why all the rhetoric about how the black man has been oppressed throughout the millennia?  Clearly, something isn't explained here.  Got any context that would help us connect this statement contextually to their belief system?  In reading the other infomration you have provided, it seems to me that they believe that black men are Gods in the same sense that Christians believe that Christ is humanity perfected; that God/Christ consciousness is what individuals should strive toward.  When the BHI speak of the "destiny" of the black man, it reads to me that they are speaking of the destiny of a people to be "righteous" (whatever that means to them) and, as Christians say, "godly."  In that way, they are, indeed, supreme.  All the language seems to be couched in this kind of Old Testament, "chosen people" language, which is, at root, quite similar to the Jewish notion -- though, granted, twinned with some very screwy stuff and in a "liberation theology" kind of context.  But so far, I see nothing overtly black supremacist about any of this.


 * I'm dealing with some deadlines at the moment, but will check into the above website when I have some time. Thanks.  deeceevoice 15:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you believe in another definition of black supremacy, please post it here.

All organizations mentioned here believe in the racial superiority of blacks. The United Nuwaubian Nation of Moors who substitute "white" with "DERO", "mixed and/or other races" with "TERO", and "black" with "ANUNNAQI", the Five Percenters and Yahweh's who see themselves as "black Gods" and rulers of planet earth, the Black Hebrew Yisraelites who claim that only blacks, and blacks only, are "special People" the "Chosen People", appointed by God to subjugate and rule over the "cruel, barbaric, and merciless" "fraudulent" "White World", as well as the National Melanin Consortium, who claim that whites are less human because they don't have an Essential Melanic System.

That supremacist organizations in general use contradictory, illogical, irrational and fabricated arguments doesn't negate their existence, but explains why less educated and less intelligent individuals are most receptive to supremacist ideologies and why supremacist organizations recruit largely from ill-educated sections of the population. Pharlap 07:10, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay. I'm reading your last post, which seems rife with unsubstantiated generalities.  First, I read the stuff about the "Dero":


 * The Dero who live in the caves are degenerated so mutch That they dont have mutch intelligence. There eyes are Silver grey and they glow in the dark. They have blond eyebrows and Pinkish Grey Color Skin mutch like the corpse of a Caucasion, And a pig having not being exposed to the inner or outer sun. Other than their eyebrows, they have no hair on their bodies."


 * My deletion of the so-called "National Melanin Consortium" was because I could find no evidence of it as an official organization. Further, the one or two articles I could find were from the same source and read very generally.  It referred to a group of "melanin scholars" who held conferences, but failed to distinguish between such pop "scientists" as Welsing, who make outrageous claims, and those who may be involved in legitimate research.  Or, is every, single one of them off-the-wall?  Exactly who comprises this "organization"?  Who founded it?  Does it meet regularly?  Does it have a structure?  Who are its officers?  What are its stated organizational goals?  Is there a web presence?  (I couldn't find any.)  Is there at least a P.O. Box for them?  Other contact info?  No such information was presented in the information I saw.  In fact, I couldn't find anything that identified the "National Melanin Consortium" as an organization at all.  If you have information in this regard, please present it.  deeceevoice 08:12, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Further, your assumptions about "less intelligent individuals" being most receptive to supremacist ideologies is flawed. Gee, I haven't heard anyone suggest that Hitler was a mental cretin.  Have you? :p  deeceevoice 08:12, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * About the business of "black Gods" -- I don't buy that as evidence in and of itself of a supremacist agenda. Such over-the-top rhetoric doesn't seem to be meant to be taken literally -- any more than black people calling one another "kings" and "queens."  You write that the BHI and its spin-off believe that blacks have been "appointed by God to subjugate and rule over the 'cruel, barbaric, and merciless' 'fraudulent' 'White World'.  Please cite specific references -- in context -- in the organizations' own literature.   deeceevoice 08:12, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * About the so-called "Dero": it doesn't read that to me that they're describing white people.  They're describing some outlandish myth of prehistoric, hominid, cave-dwelling creatures with:


 * "pinkish grey color skin mutch like the corpse of a Caucasion ... no hair on their bodies. ...they have no teeth. their mouth appears to be full of a gummy ,slimy substance. they are Nocturnal and hear extermely well. they are not very peaceful and have a long dislike for human beings."


 * If they were describing "Caucasians," why would they use such terminology? The description certainly doesn't fit any white people with whom I've come into contact.  Besides, Caucasians are, overall, the hairiest of all three racial groups -- a fact emphasized in a lot of anti-white language, with the conclusion drawn that whites are the closest to apes/animals of any human subgroup.  So, it seems odd here if the intention was to equate whites with the Dero.  So the term "Dero," it seems to me, are not represented as being synonymous with white people -- or any actual human.  Do you have additional information that would clear this up?  deeceevoice 08:12, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since we obviously cannot reach consensus, I listed this article on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Pharlap 09:23, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gee, so quick to give up! I couldn't find anything convincing on the Net, but I was hoping you would. It appears you couldn't come up with sources that definitively would show these groups to be supremacist in nature. Remember, hate groups are not the same thing as supremacist groups -- a fact which a few of your sources appear to have been unaware of, forgotten, or simply disregarded. And successive posts of this or that screwyball idea about Daros, aliens, etc., adds nothing to this discussion. deeceevoice 14:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * "Hate Group" is a generic term. It includes supremacist groups. The Aryan Nations, the Ku Klux Klan, the White Aryan Resistance, the National Association for the Advancement of White People, the National Socialist Skinheads, etc etc, are ALL called "hate groups", all "hate groups" have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people and nobody in his/her right mind would ever deny their beliefs in supremacist doctrines.


 * By the by: My wkipedia membership serves only one purpose: to contribute valid informations. If you see wikipedia as a power game (shout one down, one gives up, one wins) then you have to look for someone else to battle with. I rather ask for comment right away (and welcome any comments even if they might prove me wrong) than to engage in one of your edit wars. Sorry. Pharlap 00:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Saw the request for comment, thought I'd swing by and take a look. Without wading through all of the links, I have a few suggestions:
 * Reading groups' websites and deciding on our own if they qualify as "black supremacist groups" constitutes original research, and is therefore not appropriate on Wikipedia (see no original research);
 * In light of that, I would only list groups reported by a secondary source (newspaper, book, FBI documents, etc) as black supremacy groups -- inspecific language such as "some sections of X group are black supremacists" can be noted on the list so as to not mislead readers one way or another;
 * Groups that have not been reported on by any secondary source are probably non-notable anyway and liable for exclusion form the list on those grounds;
 * Careful referencing matching each list item to at least one source is crucial;
 * I would recommend adding a note to the list saying something to the effect of, "Some black supremacist groups are by their nature secretive and conceal their existence or true purpose from the public; therefore, this list must be considered to be incomplete." to keep people from thinking the list is definitive one way or the other.
 * Good luck with the article! - Bantman 17:37, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. And, as my comments from 16:14, 7 Apr 2005 show, all mentioned organizations are defined as "black supremacist" organizations by several sources. Pharlap 00:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed -- generally. On the Apologetics Index and objectivity
I was hoping Pharlap would be able to produce something more authoritative -- as was done with the NOI -- than what was presented earlier, and something more persuasive than what I was able to find on my own. (What I've read just isn't convincing.) I am in general agreement. I'd been thinking about how to insert qualified information about groups with a range of ideological bents or splinter groups, and to mention the considerable grey areas in this matter, and it seems to me that an annotated list is the answer. A good deal of the information Pharlap has provided speaks to the quirkiness/outright (to borrow a phrase from someone else) "bat-shit insaneness" of the theology of one or two of these groups, but, IMO, has no bearing on whether the group is or is not supremacist in nature. But it is useful insofar as it can be the start of new articles on these various groups, with links back to Black supremacy, where applicable.

I must say I think there are profound problems with the objectivity of the Apologetics website, which is a source Pharlap quotes. I was immediately suspicious of the objectivity of the information it provided and checked into it. It is a hardline, doctrinaire, Evangelical Christian website which is profoundly judgmental about certain religious persuasions. It also provides little or no justification for some judgments.

Apologetics Index website on Islam

On Mainstream Islam:

"Do Muslims and Christians worship the same God? The Quran states that Muslims, Jews and Christians worship the same God (Sura 29:46)...."

"When compared with the Jewish and Christian scriptures, the teachings of Quran show that Allah is not the same God worshipped by Jews and Christians."

"In November, 2003, evangelical Christian leaders took George Bush - who indentifies himself as a Christian - to task for his assertion that 'Muslims worship the same Almighty' that he does...."

The entry then goes on to list a number of references for articles where Evangelicals excoriate Bush for having the temerity to suggest that the god of Islam, one of the three Abrahamic religions (alongside Judaism and Christianity) is the same god recognized by its sister faiths.

On the Bahai faith:

"According to the critics, the National Spiritual Assembly (NSA), which oversees the American Baha'i movement, is dominated by a tight-knit group of authoritarian officials who keep the lid on free expression by threatening dissidents with excommunication and by manipulating the process by which NSA members are elected."

On Roman Catholicism:

"Again, if we were to examine each of the above doctrines in detail, examining what the Bible teaches about them on the one hand and what Catholic tradition/doctrine teaching about them on the other, we would discover that Roman Catholicism has denied, altered, or confused all but one or two. ....Again, this is not to deny that many Catholics, individually speaking, are saved individuals because they have placed true faith in Jesus Christ and trust in Him alone for salvation.... The problem arises when we say that all those committed to the traditional orthodox doctrines of the Catholic Church are saved individuals just as much as the simple believer in Jesus Christ.  ...the Catholic approach to biblical doctrine is characteristically colored in a nonbiblical fashion."

The source for such judgments on Catholicism is a book co-authored by John Ankerberg, of the Ankerberg Theological Institute. A visit to the website reveals Ankerberg to be a classic, right-wing Christian evangelist. The site features such things as "HOW DO POPULAR ANGELS SUPPORT THE WORLD OF THE OCCULT?" a segment on the John Ankerberg Radio Show titled "Former Muslims Testify about Islam; a link titled "Would you consider making a gift to the ministry at this time?" and a link to the ATRI, the Ankerberg Theological Research Center, which, among other things, features a book questioning evolution and advancing Creationism. This is hardly an objective source of information.  Of the book, Apologetics says:  "Apologetics Index highly recommends this book. It can be purchased at Amazon.com," and provides a direct link for those wishing to purchase the book.

Yes, research is critical when seeking to provide authoritative information; but it is also important to consider the source and that source's motivations, inherent biases. A web presence does not automatically confer credibility. And speaking of inherent biases, keep in mind the explicit and implicit qualifications in the information provided in the single FBI report cited. It was a threat assessment of possible violence by millennialist groups as 2000 approached. Again, it did not formally classify BHI as a "black supremacist" organization, but spoke of it as being "generally" supremacist in nature -- possibly, again, because of the apparently difficulty in pinning down just who believes precisely what. But such vagueness is an important thing to note -- as well, the repeated claim in the FBI document that the "violent" fringe that it believes to be "generally" supremacist in nature is not the "vast majority" of BHI adherents.

For anyone wishing to do research into Yahweh ben Yahweh and other black religious cults, here's a promising-looking title: "Bring Me The Head," subtitled "Bloodsucking, headhunting, and other racial myths about New York's reputed black separatist cults," Village Voice (Feb. 3, 1999). It may provide a more objective perspective, or at least a counterbalancing view, on the subject under discussion. deeceevoice 09:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Hate group" does not equal "supremacist group"
Pharlap writes: "'Hate Group' is a generic term. It includes supremacist groups. The Aryan Nations, the Ku Klux Klan, the White Aryan Resistance, the National Association for the Advancement of White People, the National Socialist Skinheads, etc etc, are ALL called 'hate groups', all 'hate groups' have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people and nobody in his/her right mind would ever deny their beliefs in supremacist doctrines."

If this is the basis upon which he has contributed the names of the organizations, then I must again dissent. "Hate group" and "supremacist group" are not synonymous terms. I've tried repeatedly to explain this simple concept repeatedly. Would someone else care to try? deeceevoice 16:14, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Your reminding me of the guy on Talk:White supremacist who won't allow stormfront or national vanguard to be among the external links. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 21:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Deeceevoice, there are millions of African Americans who are not black supremacists. In fact, they represent the overwhelming majority of African Americans. I thus find it unfathomable as to why you spend hour after hour trying to prove that these particular black supremacist groups are somehow not black supremacists, despite their teachings that black people are superior to non-black people. (They often use much harsher langauge!) You write as if these small supremacist groups are in some way representative of black people in general, and that an open admission that these groups happen to be black supremacists is somehow an attack on the black community. That is just not so. Nor, for that matter, is their any implication that most blacks agree with such groups. I suspect, in fact, that most African Americans don't know about most of these groups! In a similar fashion, we have many detailed articles on white supremacist groups, yet this is not being interpreted as a critique of white people. RK


 * In any case, in accord with our NPOV policy we should say something like "these groups are considered by organizations A, B and C to be black supremacist groups." RK

RK, you assume/presume too much and are attributing motives I do not have. I'm simply seeking accurate information. And I've already said the list should be carefully annotated, which would satisfy my concerns about the entries. However, I would not cite the Apologetics website as a source. I think it's way too subjective. The problem, however, is that Spade has added the names without any such accompanying information. That is unacceptable and contrary to the consensus so far (Bantman, Pharlap and I) reached in this discussion. Accuracy of information is important, so any qualifying information and identification of credible sources is important. deeceevoice 09:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I cited not one, but 13 different sources, out of countless links found on the web, and all of them define the mentioned organizations as black supremacist organizations.


 * Furthermore, I think a website which offers oppositional comments and links (e.g. a link to the "Bring Me The Head" article in Village Voice you yourself described as "promising" "a more objective perspective, or at least a counterbalancing view" ), and cites its sources, is more balanced and less "subjective" than someone who states - after reading, for instance, the Yahweh website and citations copied from their official webpage - that this organization just talks about "love and love and more love".


 * The website buried that bit of information at the end of the piece among several other references that support the stated view. There certainly was no countervailing viewpoint presented in the text -- and still absolutely nothing concrete about the group's purportedly supremacist doctrine.  deeceevoice 14:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * About the NBPP, you obviously equate the NBPP with the original Black Panther Party. Here is what the Huey Newton Foundation has to say about that.


 * "I would only list groups reported by a secondary source (newspaper, book, FBI documents, etc) as black supremacy groups" and "Careful referencing matching each list item to at least one source is crucial" (Bantman 17:37, Apr 9, 2005) According to this consensus, it's perfectly okay to reinsert the names. If you are missing accompanying informations, add them, but don't remove the list.Pharlap 22:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Black supremacy vs. white supremacy
4 different people NPOV-edited your version 7 times, everytime you reverted the edits. Please point out who agreed (and when) with your version. Pharlap 14:22, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A response

I want to repeat that the list should be annotated. Each entry should be followed by a short paragraph about the group and its specific supremacist views. This is a grey enough area that more information should be provided, particularly with regard to groups with splinter organizations such as the BHI (as the FBI memo makes clear). Further, the listing of single individuals is absolutely meaningless, unless there is some kind of accompanying information.

Bantman, apparently drawn here by the RfC, suggested that the entries be accompanied by an explanatory note, to which Pharlap agreed -- but so far I've seen nothing but a simple reinstatement of the list. I agreed in principle, stating I thought the note should be a fully annotated one. Rather than inserting some general sentence that automatically assumes any absence of explicitly supremacist rhetoric means obfuscation or secrecy, the more objective approach would be to state briefly what "evidence" does exist -- who considers them to be supremacist and why. I think there should be a clear distinction made between hate groups and supremacist groups. Clearly, there is ignorance on this particular matter, Pharlap wrong-headedly has asserted that there is no difference between the two, when there most assuredly is! Such a fundamental misapprehension regarding the nature of the subject underdiscussion should be dealt with analytically and dispassionately. This has not been done in this case -- not (apparently) by the sources cited (though at least the FBI report makes an effort to discern among certain factions of the BHI), which is certainly neither scholarly nor encyclopedic. The insertion of names of relatively little-known individuals, such as Dwight York or Robert Brock also makes no sense without some sort of accompanying information. Someone could just as easily include "Joe Schmoe" and leave it at that. deeceevoice 14:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the NBPP, I'm aware of what the BPP for Self-Defense says about the NBPP. Still, I've not seen any information whatsoever on the organization that speaks of black supremacy. Even the sites I've visited that charge the NBPP is black supremacist speak only about individuals (Muhammad and Shabazz). So far, I still haven't seen anything about the organizations as institutions that is supremacist. deeceevoice 17:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As it stands now
The whole "it's not as bad as white supremacy because it's a liberation viewpoint" doesn't really take into account that actual white supremacy, as it stands, is basically lunatic-fringe. Yeah, the people in power are still generally whites, but they're not in power AS whites. No white politician in the US or in Canada could have any sort of real success on a platform of white supremacy. They'd be destroyed. They might get a sizeable minority of the votes in Butt Crack County though, but they'd get nowhere.

I mean, it's quite easy to explain why black supremacy exists: Claiming a right to power is hardly uncommon among those without it. But what evidence, exactly, does any of it stand on? The whole "Black Egypt" thing is full of wholes, melanin theory is basically groundless and relies on appealing emotionally to people who want to believe it, and all of this sort of thing actually holds people back, by spending time and money and effort talking about how great things used to be, or how great things should be, instead of making an effort to change how things are now. --Edward Wakelin 23:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

And the whole "it's only supremacy/racism/hate if there's power behind it" thing is a cop-out. They're weasel words, trying to redefine the English language to fit a certain viewpoint. Hate is hate, it doesn't matter how much power it has: The KKK is pathetically weak, does this mean that it is less of a hate group than it was back when they could lynch any black they wanted, pretty much (and some sources say that occasionally whites were killd by the Klan) does it make them less of a hate group? --Edward Wakelin 23:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

A response

I disagree completely. In my own personal experience, white supremacy is the rule, rather than the exception. There is a common presumption of black inferiority among whites. The bias toward white supremacy and black inferiority is often so deep-seated, it goes unnoticed by those who hold it. A case in point. I go into an art framing shop, and the owner and I, as is our habit, become engaged in casual conversation. He's about 40, "liberal" -- and white. I, of course, am African-American and a collector of African-American art. We talk about his children, his mother-in-law coming to visit, him getting a video camera to start keeping a family videographic archive, etc., etc.

He: I'm thinking of making some additions to the store. Thinking about maybe getting some black, but good, art in -- just to (blah, blah, blah; I don't recall much past this point).

I: Well, I would hope the art you would carry would be "black, but good art." After all, you're carrying white, but good" art. Are you listening to yourself?  Do you realize how racist'' what you just said is?

(He stares at me, embarrassed and kind of blank.)

I: You said "black, but good" -- as though "black" needed a qualifying phrase to differentiate it from other "black" stuff which, by implication, is "bad" or of inferior quality. You wouldn't think of speaking about "white, but good, art" -- would you? You'd better check yourself, G***. Don't pass that racism on to your children.

White supremacy is pervasive. One needn't have a sheet and hood in one's closet to be one.

Ancient dynastic Egypt was a black civilization, as is recognized by many white scholars -- and that fact has absolutely nothing to do with this article. Further, you mischaracterize what the article actually says. There is no black corollary of white supremacy in terms of its power and pervasiveness/destructiveness in the real world. It is in predominant part an intellectual construct. And that's a fact. deeceevoice 12:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, white countries have generally dominated in the economic/military realm, because they had better factors of production. However, let's say that the tables turned, and blacks were in charge.  Would you, DCV, denounce black supremacy as harshly as you denounce white supremacy today?--Urthogie 21:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The Diffrence
The diffrence between black supremacy and white supremacy is a real diffrence,not just the color of the people,its a fact that the white culture and its succeses historically is through the oppression and minipulation of people of color,the entire culture of whites worldwide is to raise themselves above others in their minds and then consequestially socioeconomically,it is the basic core of and behind all european endevors,supposedly bringing "civilization" to "savages". However there is no people on earth more violent or savage and with more of a track record of violence than the european culture,And actually most innovations of european culture is a result of the desire to oppress and do violence to other people,i.e.world war 1 world war 2 and the internal european strife predating euopean colonialism.Of course their is more to european culture than this and many advances are attributed to many brilliant european descents,the general population however of whites falsly assume that the accomplishments of the few are a result of their skin color as opposed to the reality that all cultures produce genius and innovation.Now all peoples possess the capacity for violence however europeans culture  generally associates the color of their skin as a pass to export their penchant for violence to people that dont look like them,this is the heritage of the european.Black supremacy is actually a defensive tactic developed to protect its population from european exploitation an actual and nescessary posture adopted to protect oneself against a dedicated and belligerent group of people,The crimes against europeans from africans pales in comparison to the crimes perportrated by the european against all other cultures beginning with the  greek and roman empires and peaking with the nazi party in the middle of the 20th century,where european culture was forced to face its darkest enemy, ironically it was its own virulent tactic of organized rascism in its purest form that threatend the modern western cultures very existance,Black supremacy is a tactic designed not to oppress the european but to rebuke the false claims of white supremacy ,it is essentially a tool of protection a way to fight the lies of a cultural machine designed to devour other cultures.Black supremacy is tantamount to throwing a wrench in the works. (unsigned post)


 * Yeah. Like I said.  I pretty much agree with that.  African Luddites unite! :p deeceevoice 13:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "Black supremacy is a tactic." So basically, you give up on rational thought because you're so angry at white supremacists.  Basically, you fight lies with more lies.  Great idea.  If you actually wanted to through a wrench into the logic of white supremacy, you might try doing it through actual thinking, instead of imitating whiteys racism.--Urthogie 21:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

fresh eyes opinion
Hello. Just looked over the article and talk pages and thought I'd chime in with my two cents:

This paragraph is way POV: "In neither its intellectual nor its political context, however, is black supremacy—as many are inclined to believe—mere sophistry; it is a strongly held notion. Even so, black supremacy is little more than an intellectual construct; black supremacy, per se, as a corollary of white supremacy, does not exist. In Killing Rage: Ending Racism, noted author and social commentator bell hooks writes however"

I think this, and the hooks quote that follows, is very good if it is presented as an opinion. I don't think it can be stated that ALL black supremacy is not "mere sophistry." Nor can you state as a bald fact the idea that black supremacy "per se" does not exist. You can present the argument (as the hooks quote does very well), but surely there is an opposing view, and that should be presented in the next paragraph.

In general, there is a lack of refutation or opposing views in the theories section. A lack of opposing views can only mean two things to me: either the arguments are so weak that refutation isn't needed, or the opinions are so weak that people are afraid to even state the other side. (I'm not saying that it is true, but that's my assumption if both sides are not presented).

My other critique, a little more broad-based, is that while the top of the article says that black supremacy places the black race above all other races, the article is very focused on the relationship between blacks and whites. I know that this is the main issue, but I would imagine that there must be race issues between Asians and blacks, Latinos and blacks. There's also the anti-semitism angle.

Anyway, good luck hammering out the controversy. I'll watch with eager eyes. Jordoh 16:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Nation of Yahweh
I read up on them and although there are some things in the 60-80's that sugeest black supriecye they as a group have seem to renounce black supremcy and there leaders have denounced racsim. I don't think it is appropriate to further contniue to classify them as a black suprmist group if there leaders and adherants don't agree with it. I'm sure there are some instances recently but none that would suggest these are the mainstreams views of this group.

I also removed the New Black Panther Party. Although they did make comments which were inappropriate this is not black suprmist. The groups that say black are better than whites or whites are the devil should be classified as that. Groups or leaders of parties who make one inaapropriate not even necessarily racist comment should not be consider black suprmist. You would call the whole usa senate racist for that time when that senator said we would be better off with segraegation. The New Black Panther Party said that jews never showed up to work and that israel was behind the wtc bombing. Well a cnn poll said 95% of the arab world believes that israel and not osama was behind the wtc bombings but we don't call them all racist. It would also ignore that there are black jews. If they said all christians or muslims didn't show up to work it wouldn't be considered racist. They maybe not be love to jews but they have not said anything that shows they believe black are better than whites.


 * I asked repeatedly for definitive info about those individuals/entities included in the list, because I thought it inaccurate. I also wrote that I thought the list should be annotated.  I had no luck.  I agree with the removal of both groups from the list.  Also, note that the article has been vandalized with deliberate mis/disinformation inserted into the paragraph which contrasts black supremacy and white supremacy.  I cannot edit the piece to correct it because of a(nother) collateral-damage block.  The paragraph should read:  "In its simplest form, black supremacy is the racist belief in the inherent superiority of the 'black race.' Unlike many white supremacists, black supremacists generally do not regard their belief in black superiority as equivalent to white supremacy. Historically, white supremacy has been reinforced and sustained worldwide by instruments of Western economic, political, and military power. During the last several centuries, white supremacy has been a motive force in the oppression, subjugation and commission of atrocities against non-whites worldwide; however, what is described as black supremacist ideology has not had a similar impact."  deeceevoice 12:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, so basically they're talking out of their asses, and if they ever did come to power (which they wouldn't, because they're crazies) they'd be just as bad as the Klan. Being weak because of an oppressive system is no excuse to be a fool.--Urthogie 20:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Nation of Islam
Someone explain to me how exactly they are racist. I know there things from way back, but I'm talkig about recent evidence withing say the last 5 years that supports they believe black are superior to whites. (Please refrain from use of involving things such as white devil, demons etc. because the NOI has used this towards blacks as well)
 * Allow me to simplify this for you. Pros: They make things better for black people in several ways. Cons: They're a crazy cult.--Urthogie 21:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure they're anti-semitic, even recently, which is normally considered a form of racism!

Edit warring
Please do not block revert edits. I have made the following changes:

From: "In its simplest form, black supremacy is the belief in the inherent superiority of the 'black race', and is viewed by human rights organisations as equivalent to the white supremacy movement. Even though black supremacists espouse racist ideologies and bigotry towards non-black people, black supremacy has not been seen to be reinforced and sustained by instruments of Western economic, political, and military power."

To: "Historically, white supremacy has been reinforced and sustained worldwide by instruments of Western economic, political, and military power and, as a result, it has been a central ideology in the shaping of world history. Black supremacist ideology, however, has not had a similar impact because of a lack of institutional power."

Rationale:


 * I deleted the first sentence. It is virtually a verbatim restatement of the article's opening sentence just one paragraph above:  "Black supremacy is the racist ("racist" which I inserted and you deleted) belief that blacks are superior to members of other races."


 * I deleted "is viewed by human righs organisations as equivalent to the white supremacy movement." First, it is not cited.  It is vague and misleading.  "Equivalent in what way(s)?"  (Certainly, not in its impacts.)


 * I deleted "has not been seen to be," because it's terribly awkward grammatically. Secondly, it is passive voice.  Most importantly, this is an objective fact of history and does not need to be stated in a mealy-mouthed fashion.  It is succinct and combines more economically and connects this fact directly to a thought expressed later in this section in an earlier draft, the fact that it "has not had a similar impact because of a lack of institutional power."


 * I have deleted the "intellectual construct" and "sophistry" text (language which I wrote, but which has been vandalized over time to say the opposite of what it was originally intended), because it is superfluous, and moved up the quote by bell hooks -- which used to appear after the quote by West, because it directly supports the preceding text regarding lack of an institutional structure.

The previous version incorporated this thought after the West quote and read: "Some black supremacists claim that black supremacy is little more than an intellectual construct and that black supremacy, as a corollary of white supremacy, does not exist due to a lack of institutional power."

Rationale:


 * It is not "black supremacists" who make this claim. Again, the lack of an effective, pervasive institutional framework to support black supremacy (e.g., military and economic might) is an objective fact.  To use the quote by bell hooks after such a statement as written implies -- absurdly -- that hooks is a black supremacist.

I have reverted the following paragraph to something close to its original wording. Was: "In modern history, black supremacy has been a reactionary phenomenon most evident among various religions or cults and is seen by proponents as an ideological tool in framing a kind of racist liberation theology for the societally marginalized and oppressed. Scholar and philosopher Cornel West comments in his essay Malcolm X and Black Rage:"

My changes: "In modern history, black supremacy has been a reactionary phenomenon most evident among various religions or cults. In this context, it has been used as an ideological tool in framing a kind of liberation theology for the societally marginalized and oppressed. Scholar and philosopher Cornel West comments in his essay Malcolm X and Black Rage:"

Rationale:


 * Again, there is the use of the passive in an attempt to avoid the need for citation: "... is seen by proponents as an ideological tool...." The definition of liberation theology -- theology in the service of ideology,  uplifting the poor and dispossessed and a challenging of the status quo -- very clearly fits here.  The appropriateness of the term to both black supremacist movements is legitimate -- and not because one may or may not be a "proponent" of any one organization or movement.  deeceevoice 06:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed already. See talk archives 1+2. CoYep 15:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

CoYep -- again, please provide specifics (diffs) or explain your edits here, as I have done. The text is reverted. If you will take the time to actually read the edits, instead of simply doing a blanket revert to an earlier version, you will find this version to be more succinct, clearer and economical -- not to mention more accurate. deeceevoice 16:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Edits
I have made substantial edits to the article. There is a lot of information about the Rastafarian movement adn NOI which does not qoute its sources and as such should not be included, especially since they are so extensive. It should be remembered that this is a information database and not a place for people to intergrate their political opinions. Until such time as this editors can substantiate their points they should not be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.250.155 (talk • contribs)


 * As the one who added the no-sources tags, I agree with your edits to the article. Thanks for making them.  You also deleted a lot of discussion from the talk page, though, which might have been an accident.  I restored it.  --Allen 01:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the "substantial edits" referred to above actually consisted of a blanket deletion of the text related to the Rastafari and Nation of Islam (text which I did not write). I've upheld User:CoYep's restoration the deleted text, while reverting his edit warring in other areas (see "Edit warring" above) as a temporary measure. If the concerns are about citation, then it is better that the passages of concern be marked with "" -- least until the contributor(s) of that information has/have an opportunity to provide citations. If no citations are provided (over, say, a period of a couple of weeks?), then the text in question should be removed. If the information is disputed outright, then editors are invited to provide alternative, accurate, sourced information and/or discussion their concerns here. But, IMO, precipitously gutting the article without discussion is not the best route here. deeceevoice 12:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right; it probably had not been long enough between my addition of the "sources" tags and the deletion of the sections. But I do think outright deletion of these sections will eventually be reasonable unless sources are found.  I don't know enough about the topics to say for sure, but to me the Rastafari and Nation of Islam sections (especially in the context of the title of this article) read like attacks on these groups, rather than genuine attempts at NPOV coverage.  I'll re-add the sources tags for now.  (P.S.: Re-reading the two sections, the Rastafari text doesn't look so bad.  It's mainly the NOI text that seems POV.)  --Allen 15:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Restored sources. Why do you delete the sources and then add a "source tag"? CoYep 15:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't. When I added the source tag, there were no sources.  Thank you for adding some, although I haven't had time to look at them yet.  --Allen 15:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Zebra killings exaggerated?
I'm not an expert on this subject, but out of curiousity I followed the link on the Zebra killings, and the wikipedia entry says that only 14 killings were confirmed, and that the figure of 71 was only hypothetical. Also, the phrase "men, women and children" has emotional overtones, is it necessary? Could someone please look into it. Maronz 14:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Since no-one has replied to this I have edited the general black supremacy article to reconcile with the specific Zebra killings article. I have entered the official figure of 14, and left the figure of 71 as a possibility, copy and pasting the text from the specific article. Maronz 03:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Marcus Garvey - No Proof That He Was Supremacist
I have deleted the slanderous comments on Marcus Garvey. The link provided as a reference leads nowhere. There is no documentation provided that can prove a claim of Supremacism. The information included is not conclusive and appears only to have been included for malicious and anecdotal purposes. Furthermore, at best it amounts to hearsay, since the mere fact that someone is supposedly reported to have called Garvey dangerous does not mean that he was a Supremacist. What I have concluded is that Garvey appeared to have a great love and compassion for his people. This is not a crime. I have seen as much in Irish people. On St. Patrick Day, for instance, no one accuses the Irish of being Supremacist for loving themselves and celebrating their ethnic, linguistic and national roots. No one has faulted the Jewish people for founding a nation for themselves in which no other person can hold citizenship. M. Garvey, who constantly witnessed his people being oppressed, excluded, killed and defeated was moved by compassion to help them better themselves. There should be a clear distinction between the positive ideas of self-love or self-preservation and the negative idea of Racial Supremacism.

I would like to add that due to the number of accomplishment achieved by Garvey during his lifetime, he is greatly respected by Black people throughout the world. Gratuitous slandering of his name is an extremely painful assault on Africans and the African Diasporic community. Please consider carefully before brutalizing an international hero with no valid supporting documentation. I also noticed the information was extremely unbalanced. There was no mention made of the enormous good which Garvey accomplished, or the reverence and esteem that his people cherish for him. Think twice before inflicting gratuitous pain.

Marcus Garvey was a segregationist. He did believe that Blacks were better off living separately from Whites. Yet this alone does not make him a Supremacist. He held very pragmatic views about social exclusion and racist practices of white society. He knew that Blacks were freely discriminated against housing, education, employment, were lynched and raped despite the fact that some whites claimed to be their friends. He concluded that friendly Whites were hypocritical, since their good wishes were meaningless. He preferred the Klansmen's honesty about the hatred and ill-intentions they had towards Blacks. He made the following comment in Negro World (September, 1923):

"'I regard the Klan, the Anglo-Saxon clubs and White American societies, as far as the Negro is concerned, as better friends of the race than all other groups of hypocritical whites put together. I like honesty and fair play. You may call me a Klansman if you will, but, potentially, every white man is a Klansman, as far as the Negro in competition with whites socially, economically and politically is concerned, and there is no use lying about.'"

"Supremacism is the belief that a particular race, religion, gender, belief system or culture is superior to others and entitles those who identify with it to dominate, control or rule those who do not."
 * Under Supremacism Wikipedia has:

While it is true that Garvey worked untiringly for his people, the article's author has not proved that Marcus Garvey systematically pushed the idea that his people were better than others. He did try to help them improve their life conditions by founding the Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA) and African Communities League (ACL). If anyone will look in the yellow pages, under any ethnic or religious group, you will find any number of charitable organizations that have for sole purpose, self-betterment and self-uplifting. I do not see how Garvey's love of his people can indicate that he wished to dominate or control non-Blacks. Is it to be surmised that a self-loving Black person automatically becomes a Black Supremacist? Don't Blacks have the right to love their people? VaniNY 01:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Can You Prove the Allegation that Lauryn Hill is a Supremacist.
I have removed the entire section on Black Supremacism in the Hip Hop Movement because, after researching the references and documentation provided, the entire section appeared spurious. It all seemed to belong rather under the subject of hate offenses and not Supremacism.

The claims against Lauryn Hill is taken from an article published in an obscure, and very conservative online newspaper entitled Mens News Daily. This is a highly reactionary, right-wing rag, that publishes a number of disturbing stories that seem geared to frighten and incite hate and fear. In fact, it seems that the entire section was be inspired by this very incendiary article which is also cited as a reference. Entitled "Rapper KRS-One Supports Al Qaeda (But Don’t You Dare Report It!)", this article includes this quote:

'' Hip-Hop: Entertainment Without Entertainers

A “rapper” is typically a talentless black who wants people to subsidize him, so that he doesn’t have to get a j-o-b. Rap aka Hip-Hop (r/h) has refuted the racist stereotype, according to which blacks have “natural rhythm,” and revealed that the average black cannot sing, dance, compose music or write lyrics any better than the average white. Rappers’ rants often consist of nothing but narcissistic self-promotion, where the performer brags about himself in the third person. When r/h recordings do include something recognizable as music, it is invariably through plagiarizing someone else’s earlier recording, which is known in r/h by the euphemism “sampling.” ''

This type of referential material should be beneath Wikipedia. But as you can see it is not...

The article is a very biased account of the accusation, by two right wing, journalist-activists, that KRS-One supports the Al-Qaeda; a claim that he has vigorously denied.

The actual text of the citation used to support the Hip Hop section is the following: "Black supremacist writer Cedric Muhammed maintains, “Now keep in mind it is hard to argue against the reality that along with Minister Farrakhan [leader of the Nation of Islam], there was no greater 'outside' influence, during Hip-Hop's most 'conscious' era, on the lyrics of leading Hip-Hop arists, than the teachings of the 5% Nation. This is the case most obviously in 1987-1988 with popular artists like Rakim and Big Daddy Kane. To varying degrees Lauryn Hill, Nas, Wu-Tang Clan, Public Enemy, KRS-One, Ice Cube, MC Ren, X-Clan, Queen Latifah, and countless others have been positively influenced by the teachings of both the 5% Nation of Islam [Five Percenters] and the Lost-Found Nation of Islam in the West.”"

So you see, the author of the article is quoting a Mens News Daily journalist, who is quoting Cedric Muhammed, who is opining on the subject of Lauryn Hill and the other rappers. This reference is too far removed to be considered to be valid. Who is Cedric Muhammed and does the mere fact that Cedric Muhammed made inflammatory comments about Lauryn Hill, et al, prove that she is indeed Supremacist or supports Supremacist ideology? The article as stands is libelous and if I were Lauryn Hill I would attack this site for publishing hostile, personally damaging information.

The posturing of certain rappers, the inclusion of certain anti-white statements may be argued to be racist, or evidence of hateful sentiment. But Wikipedia has the following on Supremacism: "Supremacism is the belief that a particular race, religion, gender, belief system or culture is superior to others and entitles those who identify with it to dominate, control or rule those who do not." The author has failed to prove that the expressions of anger and hostility are motivated by Supremacism rather than sentiment of hate, fear of or resistance to white society. Nor is there any documentation, or reasonable argument that proves that Hip Hoppers and Rappers are trying to systematically dominate, control or rule white society. There is no discussion of the producers of these artist who often maintain creative control over Rap Music projects and who are usually white. There is no proof of an organization in operation behind the accusation. In short, this section certainly was not legitimately documented, was very subjective and personal, the information was anecdotal and incendiary without any basis in documentable fact.

Twisted, POV text

 * The entire section on hip-hop and rap as it is written is typical of the sort of POV twisting that has been done with this article. Support of the Nation of Islam for most blacks has absolutely nothing to do with black supremacist dogma.  Stix, who has made a name for himself with his abrasive, ludicrously twisted viewpoints, crusading against so-called "black racists," is ridiculous in his assertions.  There's a big difference between supporting the NOI to being a black supremacist.  Stix preposterously conflates one to mean the other.


 * Second, the twisted definition of black supremacy as presented in the lead paragraphs is simply the precise language regarding white supremacy (see the Wikipedia article "White supremacy, as with supremacism in general, is rooted in ethnocentrism and a desire for hegemony. It contains varying degrees of racism and xenophobia. White supremacy is often associated with ethnic cleansing and racial separation.") applied to this subject, which is not supported by the facts. Not even in the article on white supremacy is this information cited.  As is made plain in this article, black supremacy is not simply the flip side of white supremacy.  The language is deleted, with no citation having been provided in several weeks.


 * Third, the language equating black supremacy to white supremacy is grotesquely misleading and blatantly disingenuous:

"While black supremacism is viewed by human rights organisations [28] and black leaders of the American Civil Rights Movement, such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Roy Wilkins, as equivalent to the white supremacy movement[8]...."

The links to both sources say no such thing. That information -- again -- is deleted. deeceevoice 16:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but simply providing links to the information purportedly in works by Dinesh D'Souza and Steven Tsoukalas does not suffice as documentation, given the clear and obviously POV twisting of other cited works herein. Please provide direct quotes from each source which substantiate the questioned passages. I personally am skeptical of anyone who would claim that "Black supremacy, as with supremacism in general, is rooted in ethnocentrism and contains varying degrees of racism and xenophobia." "Associations of black supremacy with calls for ethnic cleansing Black supremacy, as with supremacism in general, is rooted in ethnocentrism and contains varying degrees of racism and xenophobia and racial separation are common, but not necessarily intrinsic...." [emphases added] My skepticism is particularly strong, given that the language was simply a turn-about of language in the article on white supremacy, which suggests the editor who contributed the information simply used that information and turned it on its ear for this article.

Compare, from White supremacy: "White supremacy, as with supremacism in general, is rooted in ethnocentrism and a desire for hegemony. It contains varying degrees of racism and xenophobia. White supremacy is often associated with ethnic cleansing and racial separation." And, from Black supremacy: "As with white supremacy, black supremacist dogma is characterized by ethnocentrism and may to varying degrees involve hostility toward other groups or xenophobia." Simply not credible.

The fact of the matter is black supremacy is not merely the flipside or a corollary of white supremacy, as has been noted by learned sources quoted in the article, among them bell hooks and Prof. Cornel West. deeceevoice 03:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

And a fourth matter, the use of the word "racialist" or "racist." There is an ongoing controversy with regard to differences between what is racism and what is racialism. Because many consider racism to be systematized, institutionalized bigotry, bigotry brought to bear on another group(like AA ;))Rbaish 00:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC), and not just unmanifested animous or prejudice, the word "racist" is inappropriately and unnecessarily contentious. The word "racialism" clearly fits, however, and that is why it repeatedly has been inserted -- and not, to my knowledge, initially by someone black -- in place of "racist."  It is not an attempt to play coy with the phenomenon; it is an attempt at choose the most accurate and least controversial term. deeceevoice 03:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

In that case perhaps someone should go to the article about Nazi's and change RACIST to RACIALIST as that would be less controversal. ideas of black supremacy as with those of white supremacy ARE RACIST. One is not less than the other so stop pretending it is.

Black Supremacy and Affirmative Action
I propose that the reasons for AA are black supremacist propaganda to promote white guilt and maintain a political “Race Card’ to dominate in wealth redistribution to blacks. AA also acts as a tool for ethnic cleansing. The acceptance of a clearly supremacist policy is not righting a wrong, but establishing an acceptable form of racial dominance. It is the black ethnocentric view that promotes the blacks of today are entitled to the rewards of American slaves regardless of who will ultimately pay for the affirmative action ideologues revenge. (unsigned post)

Sorry. But what do we care of your "proposal"? What bearing does it have on this article? Answer: none at all. And what weight should attach to your personal opinion here? Answer (again): none at all. deeceevoice 16:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The proposals relationship to the article is a depiction of AA proponents for what they are; black supremacists. AA discriminates against working class white males. From this POV it is an act of conscious domination. Working class white males are in no way responsible for the black condition, nor are they benefiting from any so called white privilege. This is without question, an appropriate venue for the discussion of black supremacy and its relation to black politics. (unsigned post)


 * If you can find a "reliable source" online that agrees with you, put it in. Otherwise it doesn't belong.  J jackson 00:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Supporting article from The Washington Post (Unsigned post.)


 * Washington post is a reliable source.  Go ahead and insert the information. J jackson 15:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And where precisely does Zelnick equate Affirmative Action with black supremacy? deeceevoice 12:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It is easy enough to find in the article. J jackson 15:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I admit I skimmed it. So far, the only thing I've read is a position antagonistic to Affirmative Action, characterizing it as what is commonly called "reverse discrimination," blah, blah, blah. I haven't seen anything remotely equating AA with black supremacy or stating that it is part of a black supremacist agenda.  (I'm crunching a deadline.  Will return to it later to check it out.)  But if you have a specific quote, it'd be easier if you'd simply excerpt it here. deeceevoice 17:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

From the Wasington Post article: Race preferences create dangerous precedents. Lance Morrow, the brilliant essayist for Time magazine, has warned that the "supposedly virtuous high road of race preference has taken the nation into dubious terrain." Compensatory unfairness may have surface appeal. But, in the end, it is "a flirtation with the devil, a deepening reliance on the principle that formed the foundation of slavery, the Ku Klux Klan and Jim Crow. This was the position at the center of apartheid and Hitler's Nurenburg laws." Strong language to be sure. But racial preferences enshrined into law are the first cousins to black separatism and black supremacy. They legitimize a sense of victim hood that entitles the bearer to hold grudges against individuals who did him no harm. Blacks entitled to enter Columbia University as a form of compensation are also, it seems, entitled to say of Jews, "Lift up the Yarmulke, and what you will find is the blood of billions of Africans weighing on your heads." Surely, some currently feel, a race entitled to a preference because whites hold a disproportionate number of managerial positions or because whites and Asians command disproportionate representations at the more selective universities is entitled to control the places of business in its own neighborhood. Surely, such a race has the right to protest the proliferation of Korean-owned grocery stores or a Jewish clothier planning to expand into space occupied by a black record shop. the fire at "Freddy's" in Harlem may have been set by a demented black racist, but the predicate was laid by black activist Al Sharpton, whose pretest demonstration claimed that it was somehow illegitimate for a Jew to expand his business in a black neighborhood. And the philosophical home for racial entitlements resides in the assortment of race preference programs managed by the federal and state governments. (Unsigned post by User: Rbaish.)


 * Put it in the article.  Don't let black supremacists on this talk page stop you, they are outnumbered by non-racists.  J jackson 04:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Such hypocrisy, Jackson. You wrongly and repeatedly characterized my perfectly legitimate observation that personal opinion has no place in an article as a "personal attack" and repeatedly vandalize the post (against wiki guidelines, BTW).  And then you dare refer to some of the editors of this article as "black supremacists on this talk page"?  Tsk, tsk.  You're such a naughty boy!  :p  deeceevoice 09:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quote, but ... um ... am I missing something here? The writer does not say Affirmative Action is black supremacist; he says the two are "first cousins." Last time I checked my first cousin and I are not the same person. He argues the two are somehow related, but not that they are one and the same. In fact, he doesn't even attribute AA to the same causes/motives, writing that AA "legimize [s] a sense of victim hood." While some white supremacists complain about so-called "reverse discrimination," the overriding philosophical construct that makes them supremacists is the notion of inherent superiority, some sense of natural, God-given entitlement to dominate other, non-white peoples. Looks to me like a case of someone jumping to conclusions -- because, if anything, white supremacy in many ways posits the precise opposite of victimhood, that whites are inherently superior and have (or ought to have) mastery over all other peoples. No. The subject of Affirmative Action is entirely inappropriate to this piece; it clearly does not belong here. More properly, this guy's comments belong in a discussion about Affirmative Action, which is the subject of the writer's intemperate, over-the-top tirade, with allusions to the Klan and Hitler. Like crying "wolf," his silly arguments cheapen the tribulations of his own people and demonize blacks. Never mind that millions of whites, Jews, non-black women, Latinos and other historically disadvantaged non-black groups actually support Affirmative Action. (Last I checked, I don't think many Jews up and volunteered to be discriminated against, starve themselves or turn on the gas.) Jeeze. What a hack. deeceevoice 09:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This is how I think it should read. What are your thoughts deeceevoice? '''Supporters of Affirmative Action. ''' The belief that black people have a higher rank for obtaining jobs, financial aid, acceptance to universities, government contracts, or any other special right is of a supremacist ideology. As practiced today, affirmative action discriminates on the basis of race, gender, or ethnicity against whites, males, and other unfavored groups. Policies of this nature can be used as a tool for ethnic cleansing. For example, the NFL and NBA were integrated racially in the 1960s, ‘70s and ‘80s and there were plenty of whites then who played football or basketball professionally and excelled at it. It is only since the late 1980s that positions in the NFL and NBA have become for all intents and purposes black only. This amazing and now permanent disparity in sports that whites have always loved and played so well come about solely because of "black supremacy" in athleticism. Blacks have benefited from the propaganda that they are victims of racism and should receive preferential treatment AND they benefit from the racist idea that they are ALL better athletes due to some connection to the wilderness of Africa or plantation breeding. Affirmative action is a systematic attack upon objective merit selection criteria. There is no moral virtue in supporting a policy that is supremacist in nature and corrupts the values it purports to serve. (Unsigned post by User:Rbaish.)


 * OMG! You've got to be kidding!  I'm not certain if you're yanking my chain or serious.  If you're serious, then -- sorry -- but your views are truly tragic.  That's about the worst thing I've ever read on the site.  Seriously.  It's full of vague, poorly written, wrong-headed POV statements and over-the-top judgments.  ("Ethnic cleansing" is what went on in Kosovo.  It's what is going on now in Darfur. Furthermore, black athletes dominate the NBA and the NFL because they are talented, and the "race"-based discrimination that formerly kept them out of the sport is no longer exists a barrier.  Affirmative Action may have helped some of them get into college (just as the old boy network/nepotism helped some whites do the same), but not on the professional playing fields/courts.  Professional sports is a ruthless business driven by the almighty dollar -- not political correctness, notions of egalitarianism, or compensatory access.  And even AA in college admissions is questionable.  Many probably received athletic scholarships because of their physical prowess and skill at the sports in which they excel.)


 * No way the language you suggest would fly/survive; it's appallingly conceived, appallingly written. You simply can't equate Affirmative Action with black supremacy.  It's an equation that doesn't add up.  Again, as I pointed out, not even the guy you quoted says the two are parallel.  deeceevoice 00:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I’m going to put in the article eventually. I’m asking for your input. What can you contribute? This section is and was always about the relationship between AA, black politics and black supremacy. (Another unsigned post by User: Rbaish.)


 * I appreciate your openness, your receptivity, to my input. However, there never was a section in the article treating Affirmative Action, or a notion of one -- until now.  Why?  Because there's no connection between it and black supremacy.  If there were a connection, I'd certainly have something to contribute.  But there is none, and you've as yet provided no coherent, cited/properly sourced information from a credible source that says otherwise.  Unless and until you do, despite what you may personally believe -- and believe passionately -- nothing you contribute in that regard will stand the scrutiny of other, objective editors.  deeceevoice 10:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * One thing. Please sign and date your posts.  It helps readers know when your comments end and those of another begin.  FYI, you can do so by inserting four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of your post.  deeceevoice 10:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * He has shown us the connection between AA and BS. Put it in, Rbaish.   And deeceevoice, before you dismiss discrimination in sports, consider that the rest of the business world has as much desire to make money as sports franchises.  Would you deny that the business world discriminates?  J jackson 20:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest you take that discussion to Affirmative Action, institutional racism or some other more appropriate venue. deeceevoice 05:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I see you've unearthed a neocon who has made a definitive connection. Congratulations. I've made some changes to the section, which consist of deleting the information with the specious connection of AA and BS in the first reference -- as discussed here. The guy simply does not equate the two. I deleted the bracketed "Black supremacy" in the second quote, because it's needlessly suspicious, and conformed the quote to the way it appears in print. That way, there's no confusion. And I deleted the closing one or two sentences, because that states an opinion as fact. (In today's world, it's possible to find anyone to verify the existence of virtually any crackpot notion. It is not, however, possible to validate such, IMO, tripe.)

The next step, of course, is for some rational person to make the point that, while support of AA is far from universal, Tsuma's (Tzuma? -- whatever the guy's name is) view is a fringe one, and to point out that this and that white (and other group) support AA -- blah, blah, blah. But I refuse to spend my time on it. (It's, frankly, beneath me.) deeceevoice 08:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

My bad. I didn't explain my edit note about removing the answers.com citation, because I thought the edit note and the facts themselves were self-evident. Answers.com is a mirror website of Wikipedia. You can't use the same article that appears on another website as a citation for that very same article -- which is essentially what you've done. Nor can you use one article in Wikipedia to cite another article in Wikipedia, unless that specific information is cited -- in which case the approach would be to use the original source, and not the information as it appears elsewhere on Wikipedia. Does that make sense? Anyway, that's why I removed the introductory information. It's not independent, it's not authoritative. What you're basically saying is, "It's true because I said it's true" (because it's the same information you contributed!), or, "Wikipedia said it, and it's true because Wikipedia says it's true." That definitely doesn't pass editorial muster. deeceevoice 11:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Latest deletion
I've deleted: "As defined by Dictionary by Labor Law Talk.com, Black Supremacy refers to the ideological claim that Africans and their descendants are genetically or 'racially' superior to those of other backgrounds. In this sense it is very similar to other race-based superiority movements, such as Germany's Nazi party, led by Adolf Hitler. Based on this definition, a person who believes that black people have a higher rank for obtaining jobs, financial aid, acceptance to universities, government contracts, or any other special right is of a supremacist ideology. As practiced today, affirmative action discriminates on the basis of race, gender, or ethnicity against whites, males, and other unfavored groups. As Bob Zelnick, A reporter from the Washington Post, wrote in his article Backfire, A Reporter's Look at Affirmative Action"

Black supremacy already has been defined in the article. No need to recreate the wheel. And you can't write that, because the definition of black supremacy as a belief in inherent black superiority, a person who supports Affirmative Action is a black supremacist. Given the support of Affirmative Action by millions of non-blacks, that just doesn't fly. It simply does not logically follow that AA supporters automatically believe that blacks are inherently superior to anyone. In fact, opponents of Affirmative Action have argued that it creates/reinforces feelings of black inferiority, that blacks need a "leg up" in order to succeed and are incapable of competing on a level playing field.

Therein lies the clear fallacy of, IMO, idiots like Zelnick and that other guy you quote. While their opposition may be passionate and determined, the "black supremacy" argument/defense for their political opinions is merely a flimsy and ridiculous assumption -- an artifice, when their true motivations are race-baiting and blatant distortions of fact -- that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. (After all, arguably, more non-blacks benefit from Affirmative Action than blacks, including Asians, Latinos, Native Americans, women, the handicapped and other "minorities.") There are certainly better arguments against AA than the absurdly silly spectre of black dominion over whites.

And, again, the Zelnick quote does not say one is the other. He claims to see a relationship. Nowhere does he say black supremacy and Affirmative are the same.

I appreciate your attempts at documentation. Admirable. While I vigorously disagree with your politics, at least you're doing the work required of a responsible editor, and that is attempting to document the material you contribute, rather than mindlessly edit war what clearly is your personal point of view (which is what far too many Wikipedians do in such matters). The problem here is that NPOV requires that you can't restate what they say as fact -- because it isn't; it is opinion. And not even mainstream opinion (not by a long shot) at that. That's why these political neanderthals are commentators and not reporters. You can only quote their opinions and leave it at that. deeceevoice 16:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I also tweaked the subhead so that it is NPOV. I'm not wedded to it, but it has to reflect that the section treats political opinions, rather than actual, provable fact.

And I returned the deletion of the brackets to the quote. Brackets indicate a choice of words that are not the author's, something the writer (you) have inserted to take the place of some other language, either explicitly stated by the original author or implied. Given that, the bracketed choice is selective; it is the choice of the interpreter -- and not definitive. Thus, there is room for anyone to monkey around with the language to twist it, to make it say something it originally did not. When treating such a controversial, fringe opinion as that of the writer, it is best not to leave room for the reader to suspect the language has been tampered with -- don't you think? In this case, I think it best to let the writer speak for himself, in his own words, particularly since the brackets are completely unnecessary; the original text reads perfectly fine syntactically, as-is. deeceevoice 16:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

su·prem·a·cy n a position of superiority or authority over all others

Encarta® World English Dictionary © 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

su·pe·ri·or adj 3.	higher in rank, position, or authority than another n 1.	somebody or something higher in rank, position, authority, or quality than another

Encarta® World English Dictionary © 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

And at no place in the section it there an equivalency put to AA and BS. The Main topic is on Supremacists; Supporters of affirmative actions are promoting government sanctioned multi-tier system for entitlements based on race. This puts blacks and other favorable people in a superior position for all the good stuff! The race of the supporter is irrelevant. Nowhere does it say you need to be black to be a black supremacist. (see white guilt, and self-loather) (Another unsigned post by User:Rbaish.)


 * The problem is not one of dictionary definitions or parsing words; the problem is one of fundamental logic, basic reasoning -- and, in this case, leaping to unsupported conclusions.


 * Of course. However, one cannot attribute self-loathing to anyone who supports Affirmative Action -- unless they actually come right out and say, "I hate being white. I'm guilty, and that's why I support black supremacy. That's why I support Affirmative Action. I am a (white) black supremacist." One cannot know for certain what is part of another's psyche; that is an assumption, an opinion. Further, the matter of Affirmative Action is one of honest political disagreement based on any number of factors. One cannot simply state it is a matter of black supremacy without advancing an opinion. The matter is a hotly debated one, and both sides have advanced perfectly logical, reasoned arguments (some more reasoned/valid than others) to justify their positions. However, the black supremacy card simply isn't one of them, and that's why it is a fringe -- and IMO, hilarious -- notion, utilized by journalistic pit bulls, hate and fear mongers in the service of political ideologues and opportunists, targeted at race baiting and the fears of ignorant, mostly poor, uneducated whites and racists.


 * And, yes, the issue at hand is black supremacy -- and not Affirmative Action. Thank you for recognizing that fact. Favorable treatment (for whatever reason) in the matter of, say, employment or college admissions is not ipso facto a prima facie case for espousal of supremacy of that group of which the favored person is a member -- and therein lies the problem. One can opine that, but one cannot prove it. There's a reason one doesn't see such tripe in news stories, but in op-ed pieces or editorials, or columns; it is opinion. Such a conclusion is not self-evident. It isn't even, frankly, a logical assertion. So, the text treating that opinion cannot be written as unchallengeable, as written in stone, as fact. To do so is blatantly POV. deeceevoice 18:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It is the action of support that is supremacist, nothing else. Your denial of this is an appeal to ignorance and uses observational selection. Just because the MSM has not pointed this out does not mean it is not true. There are no inconsistencies; it is just a very plain truth. There is nothing opinionated regarding the act of supporting AA being supremacist.This is clearly shown in the discussion above. Rbaish 19:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

What to you may seem evident to you clearly is not evident to others. I am not aware of a single advocate for Affirmative Action who would agree that they are because they are black supremacists. And that's the problem with your approach. If it's open to debate, a point of honest contention, then it simply cannot be written as fact. And that's that. Oh. BTW, thanks for signing your post. It's helpful. deeceevoice 19:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you prove that supporting AA is an act of BS is not evident to anyone else? Again, this is an appeal to ignorance to support your denial. Also, it is not necessary for a black supremacist to admit or acknowledge that they are a black supremacist in order to be a black supremacist. Facts are not open to debate. To support a supremacist policy is to be a supremacist. Rbaish 20:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * sigh* And there is no consensus that Affirmative Action is supremacist in nature. We're going in circles here.  You can't push your POV on Wikipedia -- and you certainly can't do so and call it fact.  Come up with some NPOV language.  deeceevoice 22:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Page protection
I've protected this article so the editors can cooldown. Suggest WP:RFC to bring in outside opinions on how to proceed. Best wishes,  Durova  18:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Protecting the article is a great idea but we still need the noncompliant, or neutrality tag in there.  Don't you think?
 * --Dohtem 20:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The only time when I've altered a page as I protected it was when WP:BLP was at issue. Page protection almost invariably locks down a version that makes someone unhappy (I've been on the other end of this too before I became an admin, so I sympathize).  The best thing would be if both sides of this dispute lined up some citations and if an RFC brought in some impartial comments.  Remember that no angry mastodons will trample anyone to death while the editors improve this article.  Regards,  Durova  22:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Nicholas Stix "The multiculturalists who have for 30 years waged war on white, heterosexual males often play the “core values” song, when they’re not the playing the opposite one. For instance, we need to get “beyond race” … as far as white folks are concerned, but “everything’s racial,” where blacks and Hispanics are concerned. “Core value” talk -- logic and morality be damned -- always seems to lead to the demand that black and Hispanic Americans (and Hispanic NON-citizens!) be privileged under the law, and white Americans be disenfranchised. And in fact, Obama is a rabid supporter of affirmative action, though Herbert failed to divulge that fact."

"“The first black supremacist to develop a national following was Jamaican immigrant Marcus Garvey (1887-1940), the founder of the Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA) and the “Back-to-Africa” movement. Garvey preached black self-help, supremacy, and genocide. (Unlike today’s black supremacists, Garvey did not demand handouts from whites.)”"

WSJ.com “On behalf of the city of Detroit, I say, `Bring it on,’” Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick said at the 51st annual Fight for Freedom Fund Dinner on Sunday. “If you want a fight, there is one waiting for you right here.”

“There will be affirmative action here today,” Kilpatrick said. “There will be affirmative action here tomorrow and there will be affirmative action in our state forever.”

Even worse is that "affirmative action forever" line, an echo of--of all people--George Wallace. In his 1963 Inaugural Address Alabama's then-governor declared:

“In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”

Supporting article from The Washington Post "Race preferences create dangerous precedents. Lance Morrow, the brilliant essayist for Time magazine, has warned that the 'supposedly virtuous high road of race preference has taken the nation into dubious terrain.' Compensatory unfairness may have surface appeal. But, in the end, it is 'a flirtation with the devil, a deepening reliance on the principle that formed the foundation of slavery, the Ku Klux Klan and Jim Crow. This was the position at the center of apartheid and Hitler's Nurenburg laws.' Strong language to be sure. But racial preferences enshrined into law are the first cousins to black separatism and black supremacy. They legitimize a sense of victim hood that entitles the bearer to hold grudges against individuals who did him no harm. Blacks entitled to enter Columbia University as a form of compensation are also, it seems, entitled to say of Jews, 'Lift up the Yarmulke, and what you will find is the blood of billions of Africans weighing on your heads.' Surely, some currently feel, a race entitled to a preference because whites hold a disproportionate number of managerial positions or because whites and Asians command disproportionate representations at the more selective universities is entitled to control the places of business in its own neighborhood. Surely, such a race has the right to protest the proliferation of Korean-owned grocery stores or a Jewish clothier planning to expand into space occupied by a black record shop. the fire at 'Freddy's' in Harlem may have been set by a demented black racist, but the predicate was laid by black activist Al Sharpton, whose pretest demonstration claimed that it was somehow illegitimate for a Jew to expand his business in a black neighborhood. And the philosophical home for racial entitlements resides in the assortment of race preference programs managed by the federal and state governments."

To End Racism We Must End Black Supremacy "Black Supremacy. That is what large portions of the US Civil Rights movement have become---a black supremacy movement. The anger is undisguised. Racism, to a black supremacist, means anything that stands in opposition to the economic and political interests of black Americans. If the economic and political interests of black people are better served by robbing white people, anyone who stands in the way of robbing white people is a racist. And that, by the way, is the entire philosophical base for affirmative action and the 'reparations' movement.”"

These are four articles that define the act of supporting AA as an act of BS.Rbaish 16:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've unprotected the page. Suggest WP:RFC for additional editor input on how to present this delicate topic fairly.  Best wishes,  Durova  15:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Nation of Israel
I do not see any reference to the black supremacist organization "nation of Israel" which holds that blacks are the true Jews of the bible and the true Israelites and the true Hebrews, not the people who call themselves Jewish and are currently living in the middle east in Palestine in a country wrongly named Israel. Is there any chance it could be?--Filll 13:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yea, it could be added. It's an offshoot from the non supremacist Black Hebrew Israelites. Paul B 13:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I was getting a bit mixed up there. Do you mean the Nation of Yahweh? AFAIK, the BHI are exclusivist but not rabidly supremacist. Paul B 13:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure. They might have changed their name. Or they might be so small and fringe-y that they do not have high visibility. Or they might be defunct now. I gather they were a response to the "Nation of Islam", and in some ways patterned on them, but I had the distinct impression from some conversations with some of the members that they held far more extremist and somewhat irrational views. I know they were quite active in the New York City area about 20 years ago.--Filll 13:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This is ignorant
This is be some ignorant white people's creation. Even if a black person or other minorities hold prejudice against white people, you cannot call them racist because racism is about POWER and oppression. White people hold the majority of the political, economical story throughout the history of racism in most parts of the world. I am not excusing anyone's prejudice, but minorities' prejudice against Whites is the reaction to the oppression they suffer.
 * Black people are not powerless. Rbaish 15:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Racism is the belief that one race is superior to another... Zaku Two 23:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that would be Ethnocentrism. futurebird 21:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, not ALL white people are those evil rich landowners and CEOs who hold down the brothaz. Same way as not all black peopl are oppressed. Why is this so hard for some people to swallow? To suggest somene can't be racist purely for their own skin colour is about as 'ignorant' as you can get.
 * Most rediculous thing I've read on here for a long time. So black poeple can't hate or discriminate against other groupsof black people?  so Mexicans can't hate blacks and vice-verca?  So Serbs can't hate Bosnians?

Racism has nothing to do with power. Ism refers to an idea, like existentialism. Blacks can be, and are racist.--Urthogie 04:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh, "Racism has nothing to do with power"?? You crazy son?! Urthogie, my dear Russian friend, out of greed, desire for wealth (colonies, the scramble for Africa, bruthas on plantations etc), pink to red skinned or "white" folks have used (and still use) their might/power (technology - accompanied by an incredible genius in spreading sick lies and propaganda ) that enabled them be the major 'instigators' and players in massive slavery to brutal, bestial slave owners to barbarous colonialists and greedy land scramblers to insane and dumb Nazi's to arrogant apartheid blind fools...sh**, the list is endless. Urthogie, when were you born!? I don't want to call you dumb, young and stupid but your last statement is reflects just that! If you are embarrassed of your "fathers" hideous acts and just can't take it...well - and as you said - swallow that!

"Not all black people are oppressed??" Heheh, check out articles like 'Race and intelligence', my dear son, and tell me that don't belittle ALL black folk. A classic example of present day "white" or pink/red usage of "power" i.e. Wikipedia to spread/maintain trashy "white" propaganda.

But yes, any sane person knows that not all "white" folk are racist...but on a personal note (and this could be POV)...after living/doing (honest) business in Europe for the last three years...man, I just had to retreat to Africa!!! User: Mwaafrika_mwema

Racism is not an idea, it's a practice. It involves DOING something, not thinking something. Even the example you used, existentialism begins its Wikipedia entry with the words "A philosophical movement." Obviously more than just an idea. Existentialism, communism, Judaism, capitalism and racism all have more to do with things that you do and the way you live than they have with strictly the way you think. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I don't care what you think of me, I don't care if you hate me. I start caring when you use power or white priviledge to deny me what rightfully should be mine. There is a functional white supremacy; American history is full of examples of white action against Black people in which the Black people had no recourse. Where in American history has there been a functional Black supremacy? There has been no such thing. This entire page is pretty useless. I may begin a proposal for deletion. Pihanki 07:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed text
This is the text that was removed. Let's talk about it here. futurebird 20:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Black supremacy in Politics
- 	Kevin Tuma, a paleoconservative critic of the US Civil Rights movement argues that it is heavily influenced by black supremacist ideas. To End Racism We Must End Black Supremacy. Tuma, a CNSNews editorialist, sees a connection between the American Civil Rights Movement's and black supremacy: - 	"Black Supremacy. That is what large portions of the US Civil Rights movement have become---a black supremacy movement. The anger is undisguised. Racism, to a black supremacist, means anything that stands in opposition to the economic and political interests of black Americans. If the economic and political interests of black people are better served by robbing white people, anyone who stands in the way of robbing white people is a racist. And that, by the way, is the entire philosophical base for affirmative action and the 'reparations' movement.”"

I removed it after reading it again for the first time in a long time. It's absurd. This is one man's opinion -- and someone who makes his living being a lightning rod for criticism and controversy. His is far from a mainstream opinion and stating it here lends his fringe, crackpot assertions far more credibility than they deserve. We live in times and in a society where just about anyone can be published who says anything. Simply being published doesn't make one an authority on a subject, or one's opinions valid or even worthy of note. No thinking, logical, reasonable person would sign on to his idiotic analogy involving blacks robbing white people and Affirmative Action or reparations. This is just another one of Tuma's polemical molotov cocktails thrown on the page for effect. It doesn't begin to rise to the level of the kind of thoughtful, reasoned analysis worthy of citation herein. deeceevoice 20:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, I agree with the reasons for removal. futurebird 21:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I happen to think Tuma hits the nail right on the head. This is not one mans opinion. There are three references above that links black supremacy to Government entitlement programs. Tuma just says it the best. Many people believe that AA is theft.Rbaish 23:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to say more becuase it has been removed again. This quotation detracts from more rational criticisms of black supremacy. (And there are many) It attacks mainstream civil rights reforms that are now largely regarded in a positive light. In incorrectly relates black supremacy to the civil rights movement and it is the opinion of just one individual who isn't notable enough to merit such an extended quotation for such a marginal view. It should be removed from this article. If there isn't a more rational reason explained here for keeping it I am going to remove again. It only makes sense. It's total POV.futurebird 23:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Our own President was critical of AA. You are entering your own personal POV, which doesn’t surprise me. The people in Michigan didn’t hold it in high regard. They voted to ban AA "civil rights" in government.


 * Affirmative action is only one small part of the Civil Rights Movement, a part that I feel (as many other people do to) is still open to debate. I'm talking about things that are not up for debate: desegregation, the end of Mortgage discrimination and redlining-- When one says "Civil Rights" these are the things that come to mind and these are the things that have had the greatest impact. This quote is off base becuase of the way it throws around the words "Civil Rights." futurebird 00:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

HE IS NOT ONE INDIVIDUAL!. There are three sources listed above that link AA to BS. Also the quote from the Detroit Mayor! Please tell me you read these. Also, Tuma uses the word PORTIONS, which means NOT EVERYBODY. The word civil rights is not thrown around. This being off base is your POV.Rbaish 00:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * He's saying that this is what portions (meaning significant parts) of the civil rights movement has become, and that simply isn't true. It's the civil right movement not "the civil grants movement" the issues I mentioned are still a problem today and that is what people who work in the civil rights movement focus on-- let me add to that list: equitable funding for schools, equitable use of civic and state funds in predominately black areas for services such as trash collection and civic upkeep, criticism of stereotypes in media such as books television and films and did I mention it isn't just about black people? It's about women and other minorities too...  there is so just much more to it than affirmative action and repartitions! But that is all critics talk about in order to keep people angry. Reparations are definitely a issue among black supremacists, but it's not a popular cause for most civil rights activists, to even say "portions" implies that it's far more important than it is. This quote is unbalanced. And it tries to vilify the work of a boarder group of people concerned with civil rights by implying that they are influenced by, or at least closely tied to black supremacists. I don't think it makes much sense to do this. In that sense, it is politically motivated because there are still people who are uncomfortable with the aims of the civil rights movement, despite the fact that many of its goals have become mainstream, and this type of quote will appeal to the fears of those people. I'm all for presenting all sides here, but this quote expands this topic into the realm of a greater political debate needlessly.


 * Since I know we will not be able to agree, I suppose because you are conformable with the implications of this quote, I suggest that we wait until another person or two speaks up about this matter. Let's try to find a compromise here. Deeceevoice wanted to delete a lot of other parts of this article and I didn't agree with that. I'm trying to be fair about this. Please work with me, Rabish. Please try to stay calm. futurebird 00:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well Mr. Bird, I guess you are going to have to find a source that states civil right groups are not dominated by race based entitlements, and post it. It’s the only fair solution. Rbaish 01:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

He's not the only guy saying this. It's pointed out in The End of Racism that the civil rights movement has become entrenched in racism, black supremacy, and afrocentrism.--Urthogie 05:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the passage again -- for the same reasons. deeceevoice 05:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's another example of Black Supremacy coming into politics, in a political meeting after Katrina in which Kamau Kambon suggested "Exterminating the white people" as a solution: . He received applause, and no boos from the audience.  He is a serious author who advocates genocides of whites.  This should be added to the article as well, as it was on a mainstream news source (CSPAN-- and its even covered in his article).  Sorry DC, this is proof in the flesh that black supremacy plays a role (albeit small) in politics.  What argument is there left?  The section is at the bottom, indicating its relatively small importance and significance.  But it's still relevant, as has been proven by 3 or 4 sources now.-Urthogie 05:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That is utterly absurd. That's just an example of a black oral tradition.  It's called woofin'.  Mau-Mauing.  Hyperbole.  His was a rhetorical device.  And if you asked the black folks in the audience who applauded, I'd bet new money not a single one of them would be in favor of white genocide.  Fact is, I probably would have laughed and nodded in agreement myself -- not because I would under any circumstance advocate or tolerate such a thing, but because I approved of Kambon's deliberately defiant expression, which is a manifestation of the common sentiment among blacks that there is a calculated, cynical, white plan to eradicate (certainly poor) blacks from New Orleans.  His comment expressed a kind of, "Oh, you wanna get rid of us because you think we don't fit in with where you want the "new" New Orleans to go?  Well, lemme tell u how we feel about white folks!"


 * And any black person in the audience would tell you as much -- as well as any person of any ethnicity with an understanding of black/African-American rhetorical and oral tradition.


 * Your assertion is absurd on its face. But your complete misunderstanding of such an incident is a common sort of thing on the part of whites/non-blacks -- and most African-Americans, I would wager, would find this exchange pretty funny/amusing. It's like back in the day showing up at some city government meeting with huge Afros, Army jackets and 24-hour shades, militant, cool, pressing an agenda -- and all the while cracking up inside about how the white folks flushed and squirmed and nearly soiled themselves at our mere presence.


 * In a world where genocide still occurs and is ongoing, it is somewhat understandable that such rhetoric would be interpreted literally by some -- and that sometimes that plays to black polemical and/or strategic advantage; sometimes not. Be that as it may, the case you site is beyond ridiculous.


 * We understand that there is no way in hell such a statement could be taken as a legitimate threat, because black people in the U.S. do not wield the level of power, nor are we in possession of the sort of weaponry that would make such a thing even remotely possible. As in rap, the tradition is that our words are a weapon against injustice and oppression, and verbal aggression is an integral part of African American oral tradition.  (I find it amazing that most non-black aficionados of hip-hop and rap still don't have a clue about the tradition/underlying ethos of the phenomenon of the black oral tradition.) If we did have such power, then we would most assuredly not use/approve of such language. deeceevoice 13:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeeze. U'r gonna quote d'Souza?  Lawd hammercy.  (shaking head) I got nuthin' more to say.  That speaks for itself.  deeceevoice 16:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course black supremacy plays a role in politics! It's a very political movement. I think the problem here is this specific quote. I object to it because it lumps black supremacy in with the civil rights movement. That's the problem. If you have other quotes and evidence you'd like to add, then please be my guest. I think that example is a lot better than this quote. Can we use that instead of what we have for that section?


 * I don't see what place a conservative editorial about how awful the civil rights movement has in the middle of a page about black supremacy, it'd be like bringing up "people who support the troops" the middle of a dissuasion of the KKK-- (hope that made sense...) futurebird 06:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC) futurebird 06:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

futurebird: revert yourself
Revert yourself, as you've violated, 3RR, which someone may report you for and get you blocked for 24 hours if you don't correct your mistake.--Urthogie 05:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay I'll revert it. one question: are you using the ip 71.112.7.212 ? futurebird 05:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No. I'm not even in that range.--Urthogie 06:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay then, no hard feelings, right. I still think this text must go. I'm requesting protection for this page. This is getting out of hand. futurebird 06:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow dude, nothing that bad has happened yet. Just continue the discussion before requesting the page be freezed.--Urthogie 06:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think you know how inappropriate that quote is. Maybe black supremacists and people fighting for civil rights all blend together in the eyes of a few people-- but, I assure you nothing could be further from the truth and I find the suggestion so extremist and so insulting that I am surprised that anyone can act so blithe about this. Please take this seriously. futurebird 06:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll remove it.--Urthogie 06:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I replaced it with something much more encyclopedic.--Urthogie 06:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow. I think you are the first person here who I've disagreed with who has listened to me. Thanks. futurebird 06:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I just don't want people to be stressed out :). Also, I see the suggestion of removing the quote as completely rational, while removing the section, as you pointed out, ignores that nature of black supremacy.--Urthogie 06:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Black supremacy in politics" (or whatever the subhead read)
I've deleted the business about the Civil Rights Movement and MLK. The CRM was not a stand against black supremacy; it wasn't an issue. It still isn't. Mentioning it in such a manner is misleading. There weren't constant exhortations against black supremacist notions, nor were there marches, sit-ins and freedom rides conducted by white folks to combat their collective endangerment by gun-wielding, molotov cocktail-throwin', noose-totin' black folks.

I initially deleted the entire section because Kambon wasn't identified. (He still isn't identified in any fashion in the article, and he needs to be.) Frankly, however, the incident quoted is hardly of note -- except that the media were there and happened to hear his comments. This section, if it remains, needs to be developed properly, with something more notable than a polemical outburst in a public meeting. Come up with something calculated and more formalized as a credible example. Further, the phrase attributed to Kambon must be properly cited. User:deeceevoice 04:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. futurebird 04:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see the editor gave up disingenuously trying to characterize MLK's remarks as stating that black supremacy and white supremacy were the same and decided to post the entire quote. :p Fine with me. At least now MLK's wrods speak for themselves -- and he clearly said no such thing. I deleted the reference to the CRM being a stand against black supremacy, because it simply isn't accurate -- along with this:


 * Black supremacy occasionally is advocated in politics. Former North Carolina State University professor Kamau Kambon received applause from the black audience at a forum on Hurricane Katrina media coverage at Howard University Law School when he suggested that the solution to black problems was to "exterminate the white people" Asked to comment on the incident, African American Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson stated in an American political debate television program on the Fox News Channel that Kamau Kambon is "representative of most racist blacks like the so-called civil rights leaders."

My objections to the insertion of this stupid incident are already noted above.


 * Keith Maurice Ellison, who has dropped his Islamic name, Hakim, for the race, became the first black Muslim with ties to the Nation of Islam to be elected to the United States Congress when he won the open seat for Minnesota's 5th congressional district in the House of Representatives in 2006. He is considered to be "Louis Farrakhan's First Congressman" by The Weekly Standard. On January 10, 2007 Ellison was appointed to the Judiciary Committee.

deeceevoice 10:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is utter crap and wholly insulting. Simply being a member of the NOI does not make one a black supremacist.  This doesn't even begin to be responsible editing.  Who the hell put this in there thinking it would stand?  Not a snowball's chance in hell.

People with limited vocabularies should think twice before editing.Rbaish 11:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

SNCC & disinformation
I expanded the section to deal with the grotesque mischaracterization of SNCC as a black supremacist organization. No one -- and I repeat -- no one with any modicum of understanding of what was going on during the struggle believes that crap from COINTELPRO, even if they once were gullible or scared enough to do so. deeceevoice 20:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Changes


 * "The doctrine of black supremacy led to a division in the African-American Civil Rights Movement which was aimed at abolishing racial discrimination of African Americans.
 * This is POV and inaccurate and hinges on the acceptance of the "black supremacist" label affixed by the FBI to SNCC. Later in this section, that matter is addressed and dealt with fully.  The label is clearly inaccurate.


 * "While more mainstream civil rights organizations stood against both black and white supremacy...." Mainstream civil rights organizations took no stand against "black supremacy."  It wasn't an issue.  King may have addressed the matter as a counter to white concerns about growing militancy in some quarters, but the Big Five did not address the matter as a monolith, nor was it a matter of serious concern.  I challenge the edit-warring editor to find a statement of any kind where they did.
 * "Under Stokely Carmichael, the SNCC ... advocated black supremacy .
 * This is also incorrect. This is a website from an organization in the Netherlands.  This business on this website about "black supremacy" comes straight from the microfilmed FBI files -- a fact which is addressed in my revision.  And the click to this same link is provided for reference.


 * "Carmichael dismissed such charges, attributing them to white paranoia and deliberate disinformation by COINTELPRO." This is a misstatement of the deleted information. The original, accurate text has been restored.
 * The quote from Stokely about working with poor whites has been restored, because it is the most obvious refutation of charges of black supremacy.
 * The information about COINTELPRO has been restored, as it is the source of the "black supremacy" charge vis-a-vis SNCC. It is important for the reader to know that COINTELPRO, the program, the information it provided, as well as then FBI director Hoover, have been thoroughly discredited.  deeceevoice 23:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Disputing Source
The source I mention is source #53:

^ "[List of Black or Latino Artists Awarded GRAMMY's Who Put Out or Promoted Violent Racism http://home.att.net/~phosphor/grammys.html]". Violently Racist Music. 15 October 1999.

I read through a few of the articles on that source and fond some assertions to be distorted and taken out of context. Unless a better source can be found I believe the source and points in which it is used should be removed from this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marcusvra (talk • contribs) 01:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC).


 * This source fails to meet WP:CITE in any case. futurebird 17:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is colored
I would just like to say everyone is colored, There is no blacks or whites, because they are not colors they are shades. So if black people are colored that means white people must be colored. Kind of like native americans, there not indians to all idiots who say there indian still. They are just simply americans and not from INDIA! White is the incorrect term for a "Caucasian"(note the asian part) person just so you know, white people aren't actually white. Secondly any kind of racial pride is just plain stupid because it all goes back to the Only race,the Inferior race, THE HUMAN RACE! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.208.78.62 (talk) 03:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

And how does this help explain black supremacy?Rbaish 12:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

a racist doctrine
Everyone agrees racial supremacy is racist, so why does one editor keep saying it is "racialist"? Sadly twisted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.7.212 (talk) 02:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Some people feel that "racism" is a term that only applies to the group with the economic political and violent power used to oppress. I don't think it is twisted at all. Although, in most main-stream discourse "racist" applies to any group that irrationally hates another race, oppressed or not. futurebird 02:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That's basically a perfect description of the term right there. However, let's keep in mind that NPOV dictates that we should not give undue weight to the non-mainstream view.  Therefore, racism as in thinking someone's skin decides their feelings, thoughts, and character is the one we should go by.--Urthogie 04:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that's fair. And in that sense Black supremacy is racist. futurebird 04:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the use of the term "racist" to describe black supremacy. It's got nothing to do with a double standard, but has everything to do with using non-disputed terms. As futurebird pointed out, some people -- and many blacks -- define racism as bigotry in action; it is oppression. Others disagree, but for some, implicit in the term is an important element of reification, power.

With regard to the subject of the article, I'd say that the vast majority of black supremacists I've known are not only pretty impotent when it comes to exerting power over whites (or other ethnicities) in general, but aren't even supremacists in the sense of having an external agenda. They may believe in the inherent superiority of black people over others. They may even ascribe to all or some aspects of Melanin Theory, but they have no inclination or desire to dominate other groups on the basis of skin color; it doesn't even enter their heads. In this case, I have preferred (and still do) the term "racialist," which simply means, in effect, "race-based." It is certainly accurate, still places the term in the very clear context of "race" -- yet avoids an unnecessary characterization with which many would take issue, because -- if one understands racism to have an element of power attached to it, a perspective that is not uncommon -- it does not accurately describe the overwhelming majority of black supremacists on the planet. So, to characterize black supremacy as "racist," when the majority of black supremacists are poor, powerless and utterly without an agenda to dominate others on the basis of "race" -- when many, many people equate the terms "racist"/"racism" with the desire and ability to discriminate against, and the actual power materially to oppress, another on the basis of "race" is needlessly argumentative.

When defining the subject of an article at the outset, before the details are laid out and parsed later in the article, terms which are clearly not in dispute and which havethe broadest, most accurate application are preferable to ones which are controversial and contested. deeceevoice 09:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This seems to be the "might makes wrong" argument :P--Urthogie 14:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That is a neither thoughtful nor helpful response. It fails to recognize that some peopole have a legitimate (thoughtful, reasoned) issue with the application of the term in this instance.  For those people, the term is inaccurate, and for that reason, "racialist" is the more appropriate term.  The article (the balanced version) itself goes on to delineate sufficiently the nature and parameters of black supremacy.  16:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The key thing to note is that there is no difference in ideology between the two definitions-- only in the effects of ideology. It's still the same exact individual failing on the part of the racist for believing that ideology.  The idea that black supremacy is a group "response" to white racism ignores the fact that most blacks aren't black supremacists, and that it's therefore merely an individual moral and intellectual failing.--Urthogie 19:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually I initially changed it from "racism" to "racialism" a while ago to stop a mini edit war in which the word racism as being repeatedly restored and deleted. See the article Racialism Paul B 09:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

In the end, I feel it is more important to show how some form of racism have been used to oppress people and how other forms are reactions to oppression and racism. This is of course not an excuse for any kind of violence, but we must put this in perspective and in context. futurebird 01:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We should include how the USCRM spawned affirmative action, which oppresses whites. Rbaish 01:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Caption for Photo
I am changing the caption of the photograph of Stokley Carmichael in reference to Adam Clayton Powell. Considering the outcome of the U.S. Supreme Court case, "Corrupt Politician" is not an appropriate reference here especially since the incident is not mentioned anywhere in the text of this article. Pihanki 11:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The question is, why is the photo there at all? The article isn't about Stokley and adds nothing -- except, in the highly POV version being pushed by Rbaish, to impugn his character.  deeceevoice 16:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your perspective. I was willing to stretch to give the photo itself the benefit of the doubt based on Stokley's words and ideology, but the negative comment against Powell was unacceptable. I think that unless the photo has a good explanation, it should be left out.Pihanki 17:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Good! When you have a moment -- and some patience -- I ask you to take a broader look at the article and compare the version I have been trying to institute here and the one constantly being edit warred by Rbaish and a number of sockpuppets. The article is horrendously skewed. Thanks. deeceevoice 17:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it a very appropriate picture. Stokely is an icon of black supremacy and of black power. The image depicts him as an angry leader with a following. Its perfect. :D Rbaish 18:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the photo makes it seem like ACP was involved with black supremacy. That makes no sense. We should work on finding a better photo, like maybe those guys on 125th street who say that white people are evil. Something like that. futurebird 19:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The caption abstracts ACP from the protest. Rbaish 00:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Still, it brings him in to an article where he doesn't belong. I mean this guy fought for the anti-lynching law! futurebird 01:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * ACP could be replaced with “black politician” if date and place were added to the caption.Rbaish 19:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be an improvement untill we find a better photo. I don't like this photo because it shows him doing something that isn't "black supremacy." The protest wasn't a "black supremacist" protest, some black supremacists were there, but most of the people were just supporters of ACP. But, if we change the caption I'll put up with it for now, until we can find something a little more on topic for this article. futurebird 21:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This image is suitable for the following reasons: 1) It displays the power and organization of black supremacists. 2) The protest displays the political interests of blacks being more important than bringing a corrupt politician to justice.

This article could defiantly use more photos.

This is POV pushing at its most blatant. The "power and organization of Black Supremists???" Where is your documentation that ANYONE at that rally was one? As I said before Stokley...maybe at best. He was pretty impotent as far as supremacists go. I mean, it would be like a page on Nazis and using a picture of some skinhead in Nebraska as opposed to Hitler. Surely you can find a better example of the "power and organization" of Black Supremists than Stokley Carmichael. In terms of equity with white supremacy, we can find historical example after example of organized groups of whites executing terrorist campaigns against people of color including in many cases members of the law enforcement community that was supposed to protect the citizens that we being terrorized. Where are the examples of large organized groups of black supremists terrorizing white people? If such a thing exists, it needs to be in the article, not the countless suppositions, unproven allegations and speculations that are currently in the article. That picture needs to go because it was not a black supremacist rally. Let's find a better picture of Stokley Carmichael for the article and I will be willing to let it slide on the speculation that he was somewhat of a supremacist.Pihanki 18:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

An addendum: There is a photo of Carmichael at http://share4.esd105.wednet.edu/aosborn/kim-stokley_carmichael.htm  Someone could check into the copyright info an possibly use it in place of the rally.Pihanki 18:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

He was protesting the censure of a corrupt politician only because the guy was black. He felt the black cause was superior to the cause of Americans. His objections to the censure were baseless. This qualifies it as a black supremacist rally. Then the zebra murders should go back in!Rbaish 22:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the censure was unconstitutional, I suppose they are a Black Supremacist organization as well.

I am definitely going to get involved with the work to bring this page to a higher standard. We cannot equate the actions of an oppressed people seeking self determination with the action of their oppressor on this page. I am in favor of this page being about people who were organized in an effort to dominate people of other races. I am strongly against this page being full of specualtion and innuendo. "Well...I think this person was a black supremacist because they said something negative about white people..." That standard won't cut it.

I asked for some verifiable documentation that the rally was indeed a Black Supremacist rally. If it was not a black supremacist rally then the photo should not be used on this page and another picture of Carmichael should be used since the section of the article in question is about Carmichael, not about the rally. Rbaish, your statement on this talk page about the rally is in violation of WP:OR. If the documentation of the nature of the rally is not submitted I will remove the photo. Pihanki 20:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

And I will not tolerate a double standard. If you are concerned about oppression, keep it current and relate black supremacy to affirmative action.Rbaish 21:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Black Supremacy? Come on.. LET'S DELETE THIS ENTIRE PAGE RIGHT NOW.
I can easily see this page was not the creation of a black person. There has never been any organization in the world, of black people that have preached quote "black supremacy". Black pride, yes. Black supremacy? No. KKK, neo-nazi groups etc. clearly state white supremacy in their speeches, books and websites. But NO, and I mean NO black organization has stated "Black Supremacy". This page is absolutely useless, does not state true facts, tarnishes several individuals,and will lead people looking for real information on Black people astray. I say this entire page gets put in the trash right away. Chairman Sharif 13:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a few people I would like to introduce you to then, in that case. I am not sure where you live and what your experiences have been, but I suspect you have been sheltered somewhat.--Filll 14:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Denial isn’t just a river in Africa Rbaish 14:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Chill FILL, I'm in the South Side of Chicago, dog.. Don't let some cat up in this take black pride, and turn into racism by calling it black supremacy. Chairman Sharif 14:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If this "black pride" is not supremacism, then neither is "white pride". The sword cuts with both edges.Dogface 14:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Man, I live in the DC area, and it is about 70% black around here in this metro area of millions of people, not some little midwestern backwater, and let me tell you, black supremacy lives. It is just the tribal nature of humans. I have seen the same thing out of any group that finds itself in a majority in some area. Jews. Blacks. Whites. Japanese. You name it. That is just how humans are. Sad, but true.--Filll 15:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Midwestern backwater? You got this spot twisted, it's ALL black out here, B.. I never said it doesn't exist, I said no organization preaches it, as in on their website "BLACK SUPREMACY". Tighten your game, dog. What this page does is give all types of white people out there ammunition to use against our people out there representing us properly. And people trying to learn something about some of our leaders will find them linked to a page that teaches they're racist. We can do without this, B. Chairman Sharif 15:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think deleting the page is the solution. This idea must be placed in context. And there are a small number of black people who have said things like "all white people are evil" But this isn't the main thrust or idea of the majority nor should it be confused with "the civil rights movement" or other anti racist efforts. futurebird 17:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Censorship (page deletion) is always the solution to totalitarians. Just as Klansmen wish to censor any mention of their dirty deeds, so would black supremacists.Dogface 14:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Affirmative Action is a “civil rights issue” and a racist policy that gives some races and gender entitlement, while it discriminates against others. AA is a policy that has come to fruition due to the efforts of the victimization pimps in the “civil rights movement”. Rbaish 10:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Nobody was talking about affirmative action, dog. Chairman Sharif 16:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I am, woof Rbaish 22:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

good work!
this article is really improving.

RFC: Kwame Kilpatrick quote
While certain AA programs may be problematic, they're not "black supremacy." I thus deleted this paragraph. -- TedFrank 11:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Coming in from the RFC, I agree. Affirmative Action is intended by its proponents to counteract discrimination, and if Kwame Kilpatrick is saying it will always be needed, he is implicitly asserting that racial discrimination will always continue. This is the direct opposite to 'black supremacy'. Unless there is a good source that accused him of promoting black supremacy, that paragraph should stay out. Sam Blacketer 11:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The prior post is speculation on Kilpatrick’s intent. AA is a racist policy that discriminates against whites. He is calling for a never ending entitlement to certain people based on race. This is the exact definition of black supremacy. Rbaish 11:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This argument is problematic on two levels.
 * The statement "AA is a racist policy that discriminates against whites", while one I share with respect to a number of preference programs called AA, does not comply with WP:NPOV if made without acknowledging the counter-argument;
 * Even if one agrees that the purpose of Kilpatrick's claim is to seek a never-ending entitlement, that does not make it black supremacy, which is the different claim that blacks are racially superior to whites. See generally Orwell, Politics and the English Language. -- TedFrank 11:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone read the definition of black supremacy? Did we miss the part regarding anti-white racism? AA is anti-white racism. Kilpatrick’s statement calls for AA forever without regard to future change to racial demographics, or power structures.Rbaish 11:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * While all black supremacy is anti-white racism, not all anti-white racism is black supremacy. (All lions have four legs, but not all four-legged animals are lions.)  If Kilpatrick is a black supremacist who believes blacks are racially superior to whites, there is surely less ambiguous and controversial evidence of it than his support for affirmative action; by that problematic definition, Joe Lieberman is a black supremacist, which makes the term meaningless.  -- TedFrank 12:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Kilpatrick is not just advocating AA, he is advocating it for eternity. AA is supposedly in place to reverse the effects of racism against blacks. People of Lieberman’s ilk believe AA will work eventually. To hold the position that AA is necessary forever shows that Kilpatrick believes whites are inertly racist and blacks are not, or he wishes to have an anti-white discrimination practice in place for ethnic cleansing. The use of the word “forever” puts him in the category of a black supremacist. Rbaish 13:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is original research on your part - you are arguing your own case. It isn't appropriate for an encyclopaedia article unless there is some attributable external source which has made this claim, and so far as I can see there has been none. This google search shows no accusations of black supremacy arising out of Kwame Kilpatrick's speech. I also think it is questionable under biographies of living people policy to accuse him of being a Black supremacist without a very good source. Sam Blacketer 13:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

His embrace of black supremacist Louis Farrakhan before his speech in Detroit displays his association. [Link] [[User:Rbaish|Rbaish]] 16:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

google turns up multiple sources saying the nation of islam, a black supremacist group, is responsible for kwame's election. kwame gave farrakhan a very, very long hug in the video rbaish posted. then kwame calls for a neverending, anti-white policy, using the very same words of a white supremacist (george wallace). that's enough for me. this was in the wall street journal, so please stop saying that this is not a "reliable source". as much as i dislike the wsj, no one can say it fails WP:RS, no more than the nytimes anyway. as it only includes cited facts, WP:BLP is not at issue; though rbaish you should be sure to be neutral. 71.112.7.212 07:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the removal as it was. While the quote has the potential to be black supremacy, we can not speculate on it's meaning and spoken at a rally against the creation of anti-aa laws, could simply be hype or it could be more. Agree with the above that claiming it falls under the "more" category is original research. Inseeisyou 13:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Questionable POV
I said it before in an earlier discussion on this talk page and I'll say it again. This page has improved some, but it still has a lot of bias on it. Several figures are attributed with Black Supremacy by very questionable sources. There are still many far-right-wing sources on this page such as WorldDailyNet, FrontPageMagazine, Dinesh D'Souza and other spurious and semi-anonymous sources of questionable reputability. The far-right wing has always been known for it's opposition to the Civil Rights Movement and has always been known for questionable claims about various Civil Rights leaders. Such as claiming that Martin Luther King, Jr. had ties with the Soviet Union. One of the sources quoted as "neutral" information is the CONINTELPRO itself. That's like quoting Stormfront for information on the Holocaust. This page needs a serious clean-up. Either the right-wing sources and spurious accusations need to be gotten rid of, or there need to be left-wing, liberal, centrist and far-left-wing sources on here to balance things out. Full Shunyata 22:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sharpton & Jackon
I have attempted to add Alfred Sharpton, Jr. and Jesse Jackson to the list of "Noteable black supremacists" and they have twice been removed without explaination on the talk page. My basis for adding them to this list is that like the others on the list by their well documented public speaches and by their actions their words and actions have been consistent with racism towards non-blacks. In fact, their controvercial views and behaviors are documented within Wikipedia already. Of course, like other black supremacists, they do not self-identify as such. However, if we use similar inclusion criteria as we would for white supremacist leaders such as racist/hateful public rhetoric as well as behaviors targeted at in one way or another harming the targeted group it seems both Mr. Sharpton and Mr. Jackson should be included. They have self-appointed themselves as spokesmen for the "black community" as if american blacks are a heterogenous single minded group which is doing a great diservice to american blacks. As such, it is important to point out that they are black supremacists and represent only one of many points of view towards other ethnic groups in the United States.

I will be adding both of the aforementioned leaders to the list.

Federal15 18:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You need to have a source that calls them "black supremacists". You can't just decide on your own. -Will Beback · † · 05:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Black supremacism in music
This section is completely ridiculous. Mentioning the NOI or the 5 Percenters in their lyrics does not make a rapper a black supremacist. In fact it does not even come close. The notion that Lauryn Hill, Nas, PE, KRS-One, and Latifah advocate "black supremacy" is just absurd and shows that the person or people who wrote this don't know what they are talking about when it comes to hip-hop and black culture. There's a difference between black supremacy and black empowerment (even X-Clan falls more into the latter category). I'll wait a couple of days to see if anyone wants to discuss this, but then I'm going to remove this entire section (which is largely unsourced--the source for Lauryn Hill is literally one of the dumbest things I have ever read, it sounds like it was written by a racist church pastor who fears rap music). There are some rappers who could be seen as advocating black supremacy, but to discuss that we would need to start from scratch and make a section along these lines much more nuanced. The current version is, in my opinion, complete garbage.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed the whole thing as unsourced and for the most part untrue. One could make an argument for particular songs or groups being "black supremacist" and if reliable, third party sources can be provided than this section can be re-created. I don't see much of a need for it though, and quite frankly I think there is a confusion here between black supremacy and black power.  The kind of artists that were cited in this section fall much more in that latter category, not the former, and perhaps some of this stuff could be placed in the black power article (which, like this article, is pretty much a disaster. --Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 02:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Keith Ellison
I again deleted the paragraph on Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison. There is no rationale whatsoever offered for the inclusion of Keith Ellison in this article. He has had some association (the exact nature of which is in dispute, see the article on him for some information) with the Nation of Islam in the past but during the 2006 campaign he denounced Louis Farrakhan and the NOI for anti-semitic comments and beliefs. He was endorsed by a Jewish newspaper in the Twin Cities, which suggests that they were not particularly concerned that Ellison was a "black supremacist." The paragraph contained the sentence "He is considered to be "Farrakhan's Candidate" and a "racist fascist" "Muslim radical" by the Frontpage Magazine and "Louis Farrakhan's First Congressman" by The Weekly Standard." This sentence seems nothing more than a means to smuggle in the right-wing view of Ellison. In this instance, Frontpage and The Weekly Standard are not reliable sources for establishing the fact that Keith Ellison has black supremacist beliefs. And anyway, the quotations provided do not even say anything about him being a "black supremacist"--they say he is a "racist fascist" and "Louis Farrakhan's First Congressman" (what those phrases mean exactly, I have no idea).

Sticking Ellison in here without providing any valid sources which point to him as a "black supremacist" strikes me as little more than an effort to tar him with the tag of black racist. If someone chooses to reinstate this material, I hope they provide a rationale for its inclusion and take the time to add reliable sources, though I don't think anyone will be able to find a reliable source that says the congressman from Minnesota's 5th congressional district is a black supremacist.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Inside the Fronpage article, there are citations to MSM sources. Everything checks out. Rbaish 22:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Your reply is underwhelming, to say the least. I read the entire article, and I did not see any citations to mainstream sources which identified Ellison as a black supremacist in any way, shape, or form, so your comment that "everything checks out" is a bit bewildering.  Almost all of the citations are to right-wing blogs with an ax to grind.  The entire article is from a far-right web site with an ax to grind.  And again, even in the Frontpage article it does not specifically assert that Ellison is now a black supremacist.  He obviously had some association with the Nation of Islam in the past (that does not, however, automatically make one a black supremacist) but during his last campaign he denounced them (a really annoying fact for anyone who wants to stick Ellison in the black supremacy article).  The Frontpage mag does not even come close to cutting it as a source here, and Rbaish does not provide any mainstream, reliable sources that refer to Ellison as a black supremacist.  Until Rbaish or someone else does so, this material on Ellison cannot stay in this article.  For one thing, it is defamatory and probably violates WP:BLP which says "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space" (emphasis in original).  I've removed it again, and will continue to do so until such time as legitimate sources are provided.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 02:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

LET'S DELETE THE ARTICLE
does this even exist? just delete the article - its obvious that it's in retaliation of the 'white supremacy' article. Just `cause you nerds wanted to get back at the black people who bullied you at school!

Melanin theory
Melanin theory really needs its own article. It's a huge section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.130.128 (talk) 18:35, August 29, 2007 (UTC)