Sunday, July 23, 2017

Corporate Greed Poisons EVERYTHING!


Muhammad Rasheed - SDCC 2017: DC Comics Says The Comic Book Industry Is On The Brink Of Collapse, And They Have A Plan To Save It by Tom Bacon

Brian Williamson - This all sounds encouraging, but no matter how good, or innovative, the product is there's a problem with visibility - if potential readers can't see the product, they can't buy it. Comics shops are great, but they're a niche market compared to newsagents, news-stands, supermarkets and corner shops. You have to get comics back into mainstream distribution - comics speciality shops are forbidding places to the uninitiated ( I've been drawing comics since before my kids were born, and getting them to step over the threshold of Forbidden Planet is like pulling teeth.) Maybe the distributers are the problem, and that might be an insurmountable hurdle to a struggling publisher - but Marvel and DC are both owned by movie studios so it shouldn't be beyond their means to invest in some trucks and spinner-racks in order to prevent the golden goose from starving to death.

Tom Bacon - @Brian Williamson... Spot on. One of the more encouraging comments from this was a reference to looking at different approaches to distribution; if they can pull it off, and find another way to distribute their comics that isn't so closed off to new customers, then they've got a solid chance. Unfortunately, they didn't explain what they meant by that; they sound to be quite early on in those particular discussions, referring to them as part of their strategy next year.

Muhammad Rasheed - The comics industry took a nose dive when they allowed the distribution channels to be monopolized by one or a few 'yuge-bigly' corporations. Monopolies kill the wide variety of smaller businesses, which removes options, which hurts the consumer, but makes the monopolizers billionaires.
This is the root cause of ALL the comic industry woes. Open those markets back up, and everything else will balance-work out.

Jeff Carroll - Are you talking about Diamond? I think their sales problems lie with their stories. The superhero movies have better stories. I also think independent press like Image, Omi, IDW and Boom are a factor that they don't mention.

I think getting better writers are solution though.

Muhammad Rasheed - The talent pool was always the same. In a monopolized market, there are less venues for the talent to publish in. So when nepotism gets hacks into top fields, you get those inevitable "We need better talent! That will create jobs or whatever!" kind of complaints. lol

Open up those markets again, and more people will get to share that business, there will be less economic risk to experiment, there will be MORE books to choose from, and the Top Talent will rise to the heights for you to easily buy their stuff. #RootCauseAnalysis

Corporate greed hoards wealth. It pushes forces smaller businesses into bankruptcy by closing the open markets that capitalism requires to function. This removes options, hurts the consumer, but makes the corporatists billionaires since the income flows of the monopolized industry now only flow into their vaults.

It's in the corporatists best interest when government leaders refuse to enforce the anti-trust laws designed to keep the markets from being monopolized in this way. Of course the politicians would have little motivation to do so if their corporate buddies pay them to look the other way, or worse, pass laws that help corporate destroy our capitalist traditions for their sole benefit.

That Thin Sharp Line 'Tween Art & Commercialism


Brian Martin - I think the hardest part of transitioning from comic-strip cartoonist to children's book illustrator is remembering to draw the characters with 5 fingers instead of 4 now. Real Life Struggles

April Goldsby McBride - Well at least you don't have to worry about fingers for the Connor books!

Eric C. Martin - Serious question: Is it really important to make characters with 5 fingers?

Brian Martin - I think for people characters... at least that is what the agent I have been working with has stated

Richard Walsh - you could always treat the characters like the Simpson's they have 4 finger and god is the only one with 5

Tim Winstead Cartoonist - At the risk of sounding like an idiot...why is that? I do single panels and the three finger method applies, but why is it different in childrens books?

Brian Martin - I don't know. I think this agent is trying to get me to be less cartoony. Most of the artist I have been looking at all do the five fingers. Maybe another picture book artist can elaborate?

Emily Drouin - To be a cartoonist is to play with form, whether in children's books or comics. Unless the client specifically says not to, I think 4 fingers is fine if it's your style :)

Tim Winstead Cartoonist - Thanks guys for the info. I thought really appreciate it. I'm a four finger guy, but I also understand the need to be flexible

Muhammad Rasheed - You're an artist. Creativity is your realm.

The only rules are the ones you make.

Brian Martin - Unless I want to get paid right?

Muhammad Rasheed - If you choose to align your creative rules to the economically successful tropes of those that are selling, that is still your choice as the artist.

Brian Martin - Well said

Muhammad Rasheed - Fans: "I kinda like this comic, but I just can't bring myself to buy art when the people have only 4 fingers. ew."

Artist:  :(  *applies for foodstamps*

Richard Walsh - @Muhammad... it does not work that way.... there are rules even in the creative field and one can be broken if the argument is in agreement to what is needed. I fought many a battles and won some but lost many

Muhammad Rasheed - It does "work that way." What you lot are describing is when the creativity of art collides with the rules of commercialism.

Just because the individual artist may make the choice to compromise his power of creativity so he "can get paid right?" doesn't mean he can't make up his own creative rules if he decided to do so.

Art is art. Business is business. The line between is inherently contentious in our capitalist tradition.

Brian Martin - As a commercial designer and illustrator I know what it's like to follow orders as an artist. Starting off as a children's book illustrator I never really would have imagined the large differences in comic strip art and picture books. I know that if I want to be successful as a picture book artist there is some molding I need to do. I'm not looking at it as selling out as a cartoonist but as growing to learn another form of art

Muhammad Rasheed - What's needed are new platforms, new markets, new consumers. To get that takes experimentation, but the time and freedom of experimentation is for those who aren't worried about "getting paid right?"

Muhammad Rasheed - It makes commercial art a form of exploitation.

Brian Martin - Exactly... right now I have too many financial responsibilities to just do what I want. The hope is to one day get to a point where clients will come to me for what I do.... not me hunting them down

Brian Martin - @Muhammad Rasheed... any job is a form of exploration. I am just lucky enough to have something in a field I enjoy... so it's not as bad as it could be.

Richard Walsh - yeah advertising is the prostitution of the design field

Brian Martin - I dunno man... I work in product development.

Muhammad Rasheed - @Brian... No, not all jobs. Just the ones where the markets are deliberately restricted by monopoly/collusive cartels. Notice that whenever the artists find a way to break free and control a bigger part of the pie, the monopolizing administrative suits who were eating fat off their art efforts always call the free artists "greedy."

Brian Martin - Who would have thought that 5 vs 4 would've started such a debate... where does everyone stand on using dots for eyes?

Muhammad Rasheed - EVIL!!!!!!!!  >:(

Muhammad Rasheed - j/k

Richard Walsh - I think this was a good debate and we all learn something; 5 finger are better than four when stealing that candy bar off your co workers desk

See Also:

When Art and Corporate Meet

The Half-Assed 'Diversity' Agenda of Fakeness


Muhammad Rasheed - A bunch of White guys and a Black woman, huh?


You know what would make that amazingly better? Bring in Balder the Brave, cast a handsome, charismatic, VERY alpha badass Black guy in the role, and put him in there, too. Thanks. #assholes

(the movie looks good other than that raggedy shit)

Salvant Breaux - Idris is there too

Muhammad Rasheed - Was he off panel, gathering snacks to quench the hunger of the bunch of White guys/Black woman in this poster?

Salvant Breaux - Naw he has been in every this and they showed him leading the army in the clip

Muhammad Rasheed - Not the same.

Heimdall was established as the quiet stoic dude who -- although a badass warror figure -- never leaves his post. He functions like a robot, not a potential love interest or anything. Plus there was also that scene where he pledged allegiance to Thor and symbolically took a subservient role to him.


This deliberately and carefully constructed "strong Black woman" -- who you can best believe will DEFINITELY be portrayed as an equal to Thor -- will not be interested in the self-confessed lesser ranked Heindall.

Wikipedia

By contrast, Balder is Thor's best friend, and would trade with him as a sarcastic equal. THAT'S what's missing in this poster image.

Muhammad Rasheed - As it stands, this warrior Black woman functions as the 'Token Black' trope, surrounded by White men. Should she have the love interest scene, then the fake "You can't help who you LOVE!" card is already stacked in a very particular direction, as usual.  This is an attempt to indoctrinate me with a bs agenda, pretending to be positive "progress".

Fail.

Saturday, July 22, 2017

"If You Only Knew the Power of the FORCE."



Muhammad Rasheed - I HATE what y'all did to the Star Wars universe. You took the parts that were most fun and de-emphasized them, watered them down, filled everything up with stupid clutter, and tainted it all with your modern, pseudo-deep philosophic BOLLshit!

[gritted teeth] Please. Improve. [/gritted teeth]

Muhammad Rasheed - Never mind, I'll do it myself...   



Muhammad Rasheed - Bet!

SOURCE
Muhammad Rasheed - I'll write the Star Wars story I've spent all of these decades expecting to see -- based on everything the original canon films had Obi Wan and Yoda explain about The Force -- but that everyone involved with the IP has gotten further and further away from. The tale I've always wanted to see, and just assumed was coming based on the logical story thread of what was established in the original films.

I don't understand how they managed to fuck that up. (*EDIT* - yes, i do. the machine got a hold of it and pushed it in the direction they wanted, because the logical thread of the Star Wars story wouldn't serve their corporate brainwashing of the masses.)

(Based on story concepts created by George Lucas.)





Stephen Wilkinson - WHAT parts, specifically?

Muhammad Rasheed - THE GOOD PARTS, DAMMIT!!!!

Stephen Wilkinson - non answer.

Not gonna "fill in the blanks" with MY notion of the "good parts" making your vaguebook post relevant.

State the specific parts or consider your argument waived.

Muhammad Rasheed - Psh. Your posts don't count anyway.

Stephen Wilkinson - ^ Said the small man about his own posts

Muhammad Rasheed - My posts are EPIC. (the force is with me. you don't know)

Stephen Wilkinson - * Farce

Muhammad Rasheed - (stephen doesn't even LIKE star wars)

Jeremy Travis - Can you be any more or less vague, please?

Muhammad Rasheed - You'll see. Compare my tale to the claptrap THEY are doing.

Stephen Wilkinson

Jeremy Travis - I don't know any more now about your argument than I did before I saw it. I'm on the verge of thinking that you are having a stroke and it's causing you to be extremely incoherent. Should I call 9-1-1 for you?

Muhammad Rasheed - Wait till my Star Wars story is finished...

Jeremy Travis - Why don't you shut up and write it before you start talking shit, you dolt?!

Muhammad Rasheed - What do you mean? Have I ever given the impression that I won't follow through on an ambitious cartoon media project?

Jeremy Travis - Whether or not you finish the project has nothing to do with making vague posts about next-to-nothing.

Muhammad Rasheed - You'll see!

It'll be the best Star Wars tale since the 1977 bubble gutz!.

To ME anyway.

Jeremy Travis - *prepars bonfire for whatever shit you create that you swear I'll like*

Muhammad Rasheed - lol I didn't say YOU'LL like it. I just said it will be THE BEST!

You're into the TMNT, so what the hell would you know? Psh.

Muhammad Rasheed - You're probably part of the reason the shit's fucked up.

Stephen Wilkinson - NEWS: Random shitposter blames bystander for their message

#BlameTheMessengee


Jeremy Travis - I didn't ruin Star Wars, Lucas ruined that ridiculous shit show, doing incest before Game of Thrones and whatnot.

Muhammad Rasheed - That wasn't the ruined times!

Stephen Wilkinson - @Muhammad ... seems you supports the incests!


Muhammad Rasheed - lol Shut up.

Clifton Hatchett - You don't even like Star Wars.

Take this post down

Muhammad Rasheed - I love Star Wars! I don't like y'all!

Clifton Hatchett - That's sentiment is mutual. We ain't gotta like you 'cause we love you.

No more derogatory Star Wars Post.

It's too early too be antagonistic.  You've really pissed me off.

Good Day Sir!

Muhammad Rasheed - This isn't a derogatory Star Wars post, you fake Star Wars fan philistine.
I'm fixing it!

Clifton Hatchett - You're a heretic.

Muhammad Rasheed - I'M THE REDEEMER!!!!!

Clifton Hatchett - Now you just being blasphemous....

I'm done with you for like the next 30to45 minutes.

I better not get another notification.

Muhammad Rasheed



See Also:

Star Wars: Just Wing It!

Batman versus The Force

The Uncovered Schemes of the Enemy


It's like watching a mass of
bloody demons squirm around
in a backed-up toilet...

Daniel Barker - There's a lot of talk about the British Empire this week and I want to keep reminding people that Operation Legacy was a thing and it worked. From the 1950s to the early 70s the British government systematically destroyed the documentation detailing the worst crimes of the empire.

This is from Ian Cobain's excellent book The History Thieves:

The History Thieves:
Secrets, Lies and the Shaping of a Modern Nation

by Ian Cobain
                                                

Thousands of people over many years burned and dropped into the sea documents that showed the true barbarity of what Britain had done. Records of abuse, torture, rape and mass slaughter. Because they didn't want history to know what we did.

Beyond that, it left countries gaining independence without records of their own history, of the subjugation that informed their new freedom.

In the 1970s diplomats checked to see which countries new about Operation Legacy. Malta and Kenya did, 35 others didn't. Great.

In 2013 William Hague told the commons we would pay £1.2m to Kenyan survivors of British internment and torture in the 1950s. That only happened after years of lawyers and historians toiling to force the government to admit it still had some records somewhere.

I can't do justice to it here but the fight to reveal what happened in Kenya is an amazing story. Britain in Kenya in the 50s was despicable.

The colony's Attorney General described treatment of the Mau Mau in Kenya as 'reminiscent of conditions in Nazi Germany or Communist Russia.' He continued to oversea them and added new torture techniques. On redrafting the law to do this he wrote to the colony's governor.

The Attorney General, Eric Griffiths-Jones, new secrecy was crucial. The memo states: “If we are going to sin we must sin quietly.”

Apparently lots of us now believe the British Empire was wonderful. We're supposed to. People have worked hard to make us think that. When we continue to look away from the horrors of the empire we are complicit in the quiet sins of those men.

Gen X Trend Setter‏ - man, the other night I stumbled onto a piece about the Belgian rubber racket in the congo, absolute carnage..

Daniel Barker - yeah the history of the Congo is seriously grim.

Gen X Trend Setter‏ - the whole 'hands as currency' thing, holy fuck.

anonymous account‏ - "Severed" on the cultural history of severed heads also sheds some light on how fucked up things got.

What duck?‏ - I sort of knew they weren't encouraging us to think too hard about the Empire but I had no idea it was this premeditated

Ryan Locke‏ - THAT and how recently these actions were taken is worthy of discussion alone :D

Jack Bernhardt‏ - Excellent thread. I studied history at university and I didn't know about much of this until this Radiolab episode: Mau Mau

Geraint Thatcher‏ - Do you feel guilty and shame at what your ancestors did

Daniel Barker - Nope.

Geraint Thatcher‏ - Yet your expecting other people to feel guilty

Daniel Barker - *you're. And also "no".

Geraint Thatcher‏ - Grammar Nazi ?

David Fowles‏ - "Grammar Nazi?" not "Grammar Nazi ?"

Geraint Thatcher
‏ - What's your point

Nitin Sundar‏ - "What's your point?"

Gerry White - Guilt over what our ancestors did vs not whitewashing are two different things, we are responsible for our actions, not anyone else's

john ling‏ - We cannot and should not feel shame or guilt, it was not us, we had no say but we should at least be educated, transparent and open about it

Owen‏ - Yep, definitely. And by the same token we should not be proud of it either (being proud about something a century ago is weird anyway)

john ling‏ - You're right it's weird, it's the mentality that Brexit is built on

Jessica Tasman-Jones‏
- Would it be possible for former colonies to negotiate reparations as part of post-Brexit trade deals?

"swishhhh*
Muhammad Rasheed - To be CLEAR, the reason why they don't feel guilty about the atrocities that make up the bedrock of the White-Ruled Western Civilization, and why Reparations for the victims of said atrocities are not on the table, is because:

  1. Even the very lowest member of the privileged class (who survive through life on the mere fumes of "Whiteness" alone) will not willingly give up that privilege.
  2. In order to maintain their stranglehold of dominance, and their monopoly of wealth & power, the subjugation and exploitation of the victims of the privileged class must continue. To acknowledge they've done wrong, the next logical step would be the righting of that wrong.
  3. The only way to right the wrongs of Western Civilization -- which amassed it's vast wealth specifically by subjugating and exploiting People of Color and preventing them from sharing global power -- is to share that power, compete with POC on an equal playing field, and share the wealth that they brutally rung out of the POC's hides  (see #1).

The Purely Speculative Tragic End of Stuart Immonen


TBD Brandt - You know, once again the Eisners ignored my write-in category of Best Stuart Immonen. I'm beginning to think it's a fix.

Muhammad Rasheed
- You want to boycott? Let's do it.

TBD Brandt
- Seriously, it's criminal that man is not literally buried under a mountain of Eisners

Muhammad Rasheed
- There are quite a few artists in that same generational-influence pool though. Very competitive.

TBD Brandt - That's absolutely true, but to have a career like his with no formal recognition is batshit.

Muhammad Rasheed
- Unfortunately, that phenomenon is the norm rather than the exception. Hopefully Stu absolutely loves what he does regardless.

As prolific as he is, he probably just needs to get his "political social party schmoozing" game up.

(but of course that will make him less prolific, and thus, more prone to missed deadlines and/or depression.)

Muhammad Rasheed - I would be forced to blame the resulting tragic suicide on you, Brandt. #WhatHaveYouDone

Friday, July 21, 2017

Encounter with the Soldier of God


Muhammad Rasheed - [whiny sing-song voice] "Why did you have to bring up race?" [/whiny sing-song voice]



Soldier of God - To be fair, as a non white, not all whites are racist or bring racism into the world. If talking about ppl like KKK, then you have a point.

Muhammad Rasheed -


Soldier of God - Should I take a seat when people say all blacks are monkey and criminals too? Or that Muslims are inherently violent?

Muhammad Rasheed - Considering that NO Blacks are monkeys, and that no human beings are inherently violent, the answer would be "no."

Those Blacks that aren't criminals may take a seat.

Soldier of God - I'd rather stand up for righteousness than sit on the sidelines.

Muhammad Rasheed - It's your duty to stand up for righteousness. Agreed. It's not your duty to take comments personally if they do not apply to you. Hyperbole is a normal part of human discourse. Getting offended over clear exaggeration is a mark of immaturity, not righteousness.In context, the meme references Whites in discussions of topics that are historically saturated with racism. Among themselves, they are used to the luxury of ignoring the racism part of the topic; when a Black brings it up they get uncomfortable. The "Why did you have to bring up race?" whine gives the deflective impression that the Black 'played the race card' or even invented it. Just because they have the luxury of pretending there is no racism while in their bubble, doesn't mean it isn't relevant to the topic.

Their cowardly discomfort isn't a good enough reason for the victims of racism to avoid the topic themselves.

Soldier of God - I'm not offended by any of it, just saying none of it is true & that gullible people believe generalities so it's good to speak against it.

Muhammad Rasheed - In fact, coddling their cowardice is PART of the racism society perpetuates, and is one of the reasons why the foul evil endures.

Soldier of God - That's true, but why focus on whites only? Blacks browns yellows reds do so as well

Muhammad Rasheed - "Blacks browns yellows" aren't the dominant conqueror group that hoards wealth & power at everyone else's expense, Soldier.

First, destroy the very real 500 yr old problem, and then do the lesser clean-up on the other side.

Soldier of God - I've had dialogue with black supremacists who don't wanna speak about race/issues with anyone who doesn't look like them. Same with arabs. China? Nigeria? Venezuela? Plenty of is do, but we live in a majority white part of the world, it's only natural that the majority do it.

Muhammad Rasheed - The majority Whites are the ones that spread their racist supremacy through colonialism, and it's why Nigeria/Venezuela experience it. Those are perfect examples of the side effects of the greater problem I mentioned. For China it's similar. There's very well may be a defense mechanism because of what Whites did to them during the Opium Wars. It would still function as a side effect to the evils the Whites first unleashed upon the world. Today they continue to have influence. Destroy that influence, and the rest of the world will be able to snap back to pre-Eurocentric normal.

Muhammad Rasheed - Racism issues among other groups are merely a side effect of the core racism the whites invented and cultivate for their power monopoly.

Soldier of God - Racism existed before whites tho.  Since before biblical times. I don't blame white man for racism.

Muhammad Rasheed - Racism 100% did NOT exist before Whites transformed their conquering from Christian-based to White Supremacy-based. Racism is only 500 yrs old. It's entire point is to enable Whites to monopoly resources based on race phenotypes. This is new in the world.

Soldier of God - But it's existed way before then.I've read studies Into ancient history that Babylonians Assyrians  and Egyptians were racist bigots as well

Muhammad Rasheed - No one ever hoarded wealth & power and deliberately held down others to exploit based on race phenoypes, Soldier. No one.

Soldier of God - Egyptians were racist to Israelites. Arabs racists towards blacks. Of course it existed before whites and Christianity.

Muhammad Rasheed - The Egyptians and the children of Israel were both Black. Arabs are predominantly a Black people. Your understanding is skewed in an inaccurate, Eurocentric direction. Considering what the historical record actually looks like, caping for wypipo isn't a 'soldier of God' trait. Just the opposite in fact...

Soldier of God - Arabs castrated blacks and called them raisin heads.  Most Arabs are semetic not hemetic. They don't have negroid phenotypes. Same with most

Muhammad Rasheed - Most Arabs are Black/negroid peoples. Yes, they are. Light-skinned Arabs are int he minority, and came from mixed relationship families.

Soldier of God - Ancient Egyptians and Israelites.  You're worldview seems to be a very afrocentric one. I don't rely in Europe or Africa centricity.

Muhammad Rasheed - You have 100% demonstrated that you rely on the white-washed, very Eurocentric version of history. Unfortunately. The ancient Egyptians of that land's Golden Age were Black African. Abraham's family were Cushite aristocrats and were very Black.

Soldier of God - It's funny because I go out of my way to not do so, as i debate many black "hebrew Israelites" and white supremacists as well.

Muhammad Rasheed - No offense, but from what you've revealed here, you no doubt made a fool of yourself. Please research. Start here:

The Racial Contract
by Charles W. Mills

Read this:

The Falsification of Afrikan Consciousness:
Eurocentric History, Psychiatry and the Politics of White Supremacy

by Amos N. Wilson

Soldier of God - Abraham was from the line of Shem, as all abrahamic beliefs have it. Egyptians, like the Israelites mixed with other peoples so they became more varied. Judah married a Caananite woman, so His ancestors were darker than the tribe of Dan, who didn't intermarry as much.

Soldier of God - Do those books prove Abraham and the Israelites were "black"? Or that racism didn't exist before europeans?

Soldier of God - Do you have scientific studies to prove your claims, because I have some that shows that truth is not afrocentric or eurocentric.

Muhammad Rasheed - So far you have unashamedly supported the Eurocentric worldview of everything we've discussed, Soldier. Please read those two books.

Soldier of God - you can't let your  apparent hate for white people skew your worldview away from actual fact, my friend.

Muhammad Rasheed - lol Please don't call me "friend" while talking like an agent of my dedicated enemy. Thank you.

Read this, too:

Ebony and Ivy:
Race, Slavery, and the Troubled History of America's Universities

by Craig Steven Wilder

Then come back when you are done.

Soldier of God - Seems like an ad hominen to me. I've read much on the Afrocentric worldview (from many diff people) but it's mostly philosophy, not science.

Muhammad Rasheed - These I've provided are high-level scholarly works that reveal the history of the subject.

Soldier of God - Well my brother, Idk what whites have done to you personally but you gotta love your enemy. If i was the same way, i'd hate everyone.

Muhammad Rasheed - It has nothing to do with love/hate, but about being "wise as the serpent & innocent as the dove." Please read those then come back. The prophet Joshua (pbuh) didn't have to hate in order to be wise and canny in battle against a dedicated enemy.

Soldier of God - I'll read them (might've already read excerpts from them).Tho your worldview seems to not be grounded in truth, from my experience/studies.

Muhammad Rasheed - Hold that thought, read the books, then let's have a fresh discussion based on what you learned, please. If you continue to sound the same then I promise to let it be, and you can go your way, and I'll go mine. Deal?

Soldier of God - But His enemy was literally Satan and Death, and He beat them both. He even did a miracle for a centurion, so for God it isn't about skin.

Muhammad Rasheed - Whites subjugate exploit non-whites to hoard wealth & power, and they choose to do it along the lines of racial phenotypes. I didn't say that Joshua's enemies did the same exact thing. You kind of missed the point there, dude. lol The point was the refutation of your idea that I have to "hate" in order to be a soldier of God against oppression. That's a fallacy.

Soldier of God - Sure Mr.Rasheed. If you don't want to conversate then just let me know. I've had these convos and read similar books and they have yet made me hate whites. But i'll read for my own knowledge and wisdom. God bless Rasheed. Peace be upon you.

Soldier of God - No i get it, I just dont see it as the same as what you think you're doing, but it's alright.

Muhammad Rasheed - It's also something that my enemy says all the time because he desperately wants me to own MLK's 'non-violent' philosophy towards him.

Soldier of God - Hey, the devil's a snake. sometimes, he'll make you strike him first before he goes in for a kill. MLK, or Malcolm X, death is inevitable.

Muhammad Rasheed - Your insistence that I must 'hate' means you don't get it, but hopefully you'll at least be able to understand my POV once you read these. I referenced the Hebrew prophets as an example that you don't have to 'hate' in order to be properly prepared and know thy enemy's ways.

Soldier of God - When death is inevitable in this life, Personally, I'll rather be with MLK (for many reason) or Marcus Garvey, but to each his own.

Soldier of God - well to use violent, you have to hate for it to be effectual. Only non-violence can utilize love as intended.

Muhammad Rasheed - So you insist that the prophets of the One God hated? Passion and anger is not the same as "hate," Soldier.

Soldier of God - I know, but if you're not careful, it can turn to hate. That's why God says to us to love your enemy, and pray for those who persecute you.

Soldier of God - some prophets did but for the things God Himself hates (Proverbs 6:16-19). Even in the Quran, Allah hates certain things Surah (5:87)

Muhammad Rasheed - Allah tells us to fight the oppressor so that we all can live in Peace. He hates oppressors, those who spread mischief in the earth. As the victim of the White man's oppressive campaigns, I am rightfully passionately angry, and it is my duty to beat him back. That does not equal 'hate.'  As long as I do not give up, and do everything in accordance with God's rules, He will be with me.

Muhammad Rasheed - The two are not exclusive. Jesus was certainly praying for his enemies while he instructed the apostles to fetch those swords.

Soldier of God - passion and anger for the right reasons is good, but not if it makes you think that there is something wrong with being white.

Soldier of God - swords used once (by Peter) who Jesus healed the man who Peter struck on the ear (luke 22:51). Swords unused in battle.

Muhammad Rasheed - They were unused only because the apostles fell asleep on guard duty and allowed the enemy to capture them. Jesus (pbuh) certainly didn't have them get the swords for decoration. You're missing the point again. lol

Soldier of God - I understand your sentiment but our world views are just different. I'll try to understand you'r WV more clearly though in the future.

Muhammad Rasheed - All I can ask is for the try. I'll appreciate it, Soldier. Peace.

Soldier of God - but like we started, i'll stand up to any oppression/oppressor in the way Jesus and MLK did.. No matter who it comes from.

Muhammad Rasheed - What was the 'way' that Jesus and MLK did it? With courage and conviction in the name of the God they served?

Soldier of God - considering Jesus was almost stoned multiple times, they didn't use them because Jesus would've never let them.

Muhammad Rasheed - He instructed them to fetch the swords intending to not use them? Your doctrine is in the way of common sense...

Soldier of God - Jesus and Muhammad are not the same.

Muhammad Rasheed - Their missions were the same. The responses of their people were what was different (big time).

Soldier of God - yes, and not advocating violence.

Muhammad Rasheed - Let me remind you that Jesus instructed the apostles to fetch those swords. hahahaha

MLK's non-violent political stance wasn't the position of Abraham's Lord, and thus, lacked inherent virtue.

Soldier of God - common sense need not always apply to Christ, who spoke in parables,ate with sinners, raised people from the dead, never advocated violence.

Muhammad Rasheed - All of those items had definitive common sense motives to them while the last is a doctrinal fiction. He clearly wasn't opposed to violence.

Soldier of God - which were never used or instructed for any type of self defense.Christ was unlike any other man,even His apostles couldn't fully understand

Muhammad Rasheed - The Christ Jesus, son of Mary was a human being like other humans. His mission was special though, and so was his origin. His apostles often let him down. Their understanding was suspect from the jump. lol

Soldier of God - Old covenant laws are revealed under the new covenant that is grace in Jesus, its the best way to inherit the values & righteousness of God.

Muhammad Rasheed - Considering "sword gate" it wasn't Jesus' position either, dude. lol You're being stubborn based on doctrinal blindness. Jesus' position in all things was clearly no different than that of the prophets that preceded him.

Soldier of God - I believe He was God in the flesh and is more than what u make Him to be, but to each their own. It's clear, Jesus never advocated violence, and He opposed violence on people by the way He lived His life, His words and His works. Simple as that. When you heal the one against you.

Muhammad Rasheed - The scripture is plain enough. The "God in the flesh" doctrine isn't apparent within the very bible record of his life that you hold.

Soldier of God - it's clear on how Jesus viewed injuring other people.

Soldier of God - Read Sermon on the Mount. (Matthew 5). Jesus position and knowledge of God's  Word goes deeper than previous prophets.

Soldier of God - considering even the prophets of old foretold about God dwelling amongst humanity (Isaiah 9:6), and NT (Colossians 2:9). it clearly does.

Muhammad Rasheed - God is ever-present and is always closer than your juggler vein. Deifying the messenger wasn't necessary for that analogy.

Soldier of God - Prophesies of God dwelling amongst men and verses of Christ having the fullness of God within Him have nothing to do with His spiritual presence with humanity. if it was so, those verses would not make sense within the context of their reading.

Muhammad Rasheed - Meanwhile, they make 100% sense thru the context of His spiritual presence, but conflict with the message through your 'sonship' doctrine.

Soldier of God - It's clear you're a proud black Muslim, and that's your right to be so and I dont hate you for it. It makes me interested in your worldview

Soldier of God - I have to go because it's getting late, but hopefully i can get to read those 3 books soon and hope you stay safe so next time we can speak about what we've learned. Peace Rasheed. Be safe and may the God of Abraham bless you.

Muhammad Rasheed - Peace, Soldier! Have a good night.

The Character Lynching of O.J. Simpson


Jennifer Lang - Why do some people still believe that O. J. Simpson did not kill Nicole Brown Simpson?

Muhammad Rasheed - For me, the list of items that led the jury to the "not guilty" verdict:

  1. the glove didn't fit
  2. Fuhrman's racist agenda
  3. the LAPD's historical racism combined with the odd fumbling of evidence by veteran officers
  4. the impossibility of creating a murder scene blood bath and cleaning up then rushing to the airport without smearing blood everywhere in such a small time frame
  5. high-level expert testimony stating it wasn't possible for O.J. to have done it from a technical standpoint
  6. Fuhrman's 5th amendment stance

… very heavily leans towards innocence.

By contrast, the list of reasons why people do believe O.J. committed the crime:

  1. "he did it just because I KNOW he did it"
  2. white people really, REALLY think he did it
  3. white people enjoy ruining the lives of Black people for their sadistic amusement
  4. O.J. is a Black man

…aren't strong enough reasons to make me 'believe' O.J. is guilty the way the racist and/or easily-influenced-by-racists sheeple masses have.

Bakkah Rasheed-Shabazz - I watched the televised lynching of O.J. every single day while living on campus and attending the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, MI. There were masses of students and staff watching with blood in dripping from their eyes waiting to take him by force and hang him from the nearest tree. Among that mob of salt was a few grains of black pepper, who looked at our much smaller numbers sitting in silence to observe and listen to every thing the enemy had to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" that O.J. was not only capable of such a heartless, gang style double murder, but he absolutely must be guilty for no other reason that he was arrested, charged, and on forced to defend himself in court. Fortunately, this time a so-called black man that had been accepted by white people for the majority of his life as a "star" football player, had enough money to hire the best defense attorney. The whole trial was the first televised one in history. It was treated like a new tv program that was used to divide the nation along the lines of race and class. The set-up that eventually resulted in a criminal trial, for which O.J. is being released after 9 years in prison is more like an attonement for the double murders that the mainstream media continue to tell their viewers he "got away with." Yeah, I agree that O.J. got away from the false charges of double murder, but he will never escape the stigma of being assumed guilty as charged. 

Clifton Hatchett - He not Black, he's O.J.

He said it.

I have no love for Black People who don't like the fact that they're Black.

Muhammad Rasheed - Meh.

You knew Black people were broken when you showed up. Those are the last people you should be turning your back on, or having a hard-line stance of unforgiveness.

Take your brother's hand, please. You don't have to like him, or agree with his displayed weaknesses, but we need to be together.

Clifton Hatchett - He's not we.

He's that dude that's terrified of me.

I actually know his types.

I'm all for us, but if there is any amongst us, who do not want to be amongst us,...

They can go straight to Hell.


Muhammad Rasheed - I didn't say nothing about 'loving.' Calm down.

Clifton Hatchett - Lollol... I'll consider it.

Rayshan Hampton - Standing with an alleged murderer is having unnecessary blood on my hands... I'm not gonna stand with somebody just because they're my color. That's like standing with Michael Vick for abusing animals.

Muhammad Rasheed - As I recall, he's not an "alleged murderer" since he was found not guilty of the charge. The intense butthurt expressed by the wypipo over it is a public 'character lynching' by the mob.

Please don't partner with wypipo when they do what they do.

Clifton Hatchett - He killed somebody?

Muhammad Rasheed - No.

Muhammad Rasheed - There was a high-profile homicide, and one of the most notoriously racist PDs in the country was pressured to hurry up and solve it. It was all down hill from there.

Stop listening to wypipo, please. Truth rarely flows from that direction (when it does it's by accident).

Clifton Hatchett - I thought I missed something.

Rayshan Hampton - Do you know what ALLEGED means? Why do you think I included the word... you know, a simple Google search would've saved you a lot of energy and agitation typing such an ignorant response.



Muhammad Rasheed - Calm down, please. I thought you were using the legal term, as in for someone preparing for the trial that hasn't happened yet. I know you're mad that he's paroled, but I'm not the one that did it. Chill.



Rayshan Hampton - Fair argument I'll give you a pass but don't insinuate I'm a coon

Muhammad Rasheed - Thanks for the pass. :)

All I'm saying is that, despite evidence to the contrary, wypipo BELIEVE he did it, apparently for no other reason than because he's a Black dude. It's not a good look to partner with Adventures in Whiteness, or to be seen in that vicinity.

Muhammad Rasheed - At least have a REAL reason for why you'd think he really did it. #LetMeSeeYourPapersGal

Ralo Noon - Yeah but it will make white people mad if he get out so .. Let the juice loose...plus he might have learned his lesson for saying that Dumb shit !!!

Muhammad Rasheed - Right. That was a long time ago. Especially for him.

Elton Leonard - we dont get mad at them because we've accepted their culture by force.

Muhammad Rasheed - "awww... look at that face. I could never be mad at you, my diabolical oppressor. It's so #adorbs when you falsely accuse me of rape."

"I'll call you 'Nkechi Amare Diallo' if you want. I think it's cute. It go with yo eyes."

Clifton Hatchett - A long time ago?

So.

I have zero forgiveness in me for those types.

Muhammad Rasheed - "Those types" make up the bulk of the damn diaspora. There's a reason why Blacks are broken, remember?

You need room for forgiveness in your repertoire, Clif, or you'll be fighting the Revolution all by yourself...

Clifton Hatchett - Forgiveness seems so dangerous fam.

I've tried, honestly.

Something just boils in me man. I love me, and us, so when I see or hear us talk as though being Black some how is a bad thing,

It bothers all the shit outta me.

I stink right now.

Muhammad Rasheed - It IS dangerous. It IS risky.

You also can't fight a war by yourself. The people of your nation are broken, but they are all you have. Be willing to forgive them of the symptoms of their well-documented broken state.

Or recruit Rachel Dolezal. #PickOneCrazy

Clifton Hatchett - I can always count on you.  I'm always working to be a better human.

The amount of progress I've made has yet to be determined.

BaShiru Johnson - @Muhammad Rasheed... thanks for the insight.

Muhammad Rasheed - I'm here to help.


Yeah, y'all were crazy for that. No knock against Cuba, but O.J. had that alpha-superhero thing happening.
Julian E Herring - I see what you mean. The square jaw, high cheek bone vs Cuba's puffy low cheeks and his "what the heck is going on with" jawline.

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

Confused Eurocentrists Confuse Themselves with Confused Double-Talk


Anonymous - If Adam and Eve were the first people on Earth (assuming they were Arabs or Caucasians), how come there are Africans, Chinese, Indians, Malays, etc.?

Muhammad Rasheed - Why in the world would I assume Adam & Eve were Caucasians when it is physically, scientifically impossible for Caucasians to birth darker races?

Why in the world would I assume Adam & Eve were Arabs, when the Arab nation were the children of Ishmael, who was born aeons later?

Does Eurocentrism ever attempt to make sense? Asking for a friend.

Anonymous - Sorry. Let me be clear, the assumption that Adam and Eve is Caucasian/Arab/others is based on what is said in the Quran/Bible, if I understand correctly. I'm not saying that this is true. I'm just saying that, if these claims were true, how can people of other ethnicity emerge? If two married Caucasians gave birth to an African/black baby today, would you think it's possible, or would you think that the wife is a dirty whore? There are many studies that show that there were humans who lived before Adam and Eve, so, with these evidence, suggests that the holy scriptures are wrong or inaccurate about the creation of mankind (I'm saying this with all respect for all religions, and despite being a Muslim myself, I've been skeptical ever since my teacher couldn't answer this question when I was 9 y/o).

Hence, if the theory of creation in the scriptures does not match scientific findings, it would raise doubts on the whole teachings of religions; in that, they were not words from God, and that they were just an accumulation of knowledge/guidelines compiled by Humans, adjusted to suit their own needs. For example, we know that the Abraham religion all have one root, even in the Quran it was mentioned that the Gospel, Book of Psalms, and Torah precedes the Quran and were revealed to Jesus, David, and Moses respectively, and all these people are recognised in the Quran as Prophets. Now, if this is true, does it not make more sense that religion started from one person/tribe who evolved as per Theory of Evolution and not created from clay, and as time passes and the earlier teachings spread to many, certain powerful people/groups started to ‘change’ the teachings to suit their own personal/political needs? Take ISIS for example, they changed the interpretation of Quran to suit their own political views and needs. If this could happen in the modern world where knowledge is easily accessible and people actually buy into it (ISIS, not Islam), who's to say it didn't happen thousands of years ago? If God exists as per religion, do we really think He would call for His followers to act in such barbaric ways?

Now, let me reiterate, I'm not saying that the scriptures are wrong and God does not exist as I can't prove it, but so far, the evidence I read so far suggests that scientific theories makes more sense, plus no one can prove that God exists, except in the scriptures. It is quite convenient that ‘miracles’, if they actually happened, only happened thousands of years ago with no concrete evidence, but not today when we need it more than ever?

P/S I know this is a sensitive topic, but please let's be civil and have a friendly discussion/debate.

Muhammad Rasheed -  Anonymous wrote: Let me be clear, the assumption that Adam and Eve is Caucasian/Arab/others is based on what is said in the Quran/Bible, if I understand correctly.”

Then you do NOT understand correctly, and you are NOT clear.

Being “created from clay” means the same substances that are found within the earth are found within you. As De Grasse said we’re all made of “star stuff.” God didn’t literally fashion you from ‘clay’ like a potter.

The two Semite nations under Abraham were but the last of all those who preached God’s message, a message that is far older than the roughly 6,000 yrs of the time of Abraham to Muhammad (peace be upon the messengers). The last time there was a global cataclysm that matched the description of the biblical flood within the existence of modern homo sapiens, it was 12,800 yrs ago. So the time between Noah (pbuh) and Abraham was approximately 6,800 yrs. The earliest homo sapien fossils found to date are estimated to be 160,000 yrs old, and if we wanted to play stupid and be scientifically irresponsible and proclaim that those remains were THE oldest homo sapiens, then that would make 150,000+ yrs between Adam and Noah, but realistically, homo sapiens are probably far older than even that time frame, since we have no idea how long Adam was hanging around before Eve showed up, and how much time those two were hanging out before the fall. Allah did say that He rose up a prophet among EVERY people, some He told us about, many He did not. As you see there is a ton of interesting data missing from your 9 yr old levels of speculation. I suggest you study more.

Peace.

Paul Coomber - We cannot be sure what Adams skin colour was. It is quite reasonable to assume that he had within his genes the ability to pass on to his children many different types of features and skin colours.

We can’t even be sure that Eve had the same skin colour as Adam. Added to that, we can’t be sure whether their numerous sons and daughters shared the same skin colour.

Until the flood it’s probable that the colour differences were less extreme and thus seldom referred to. Noahs son Ham appears to have been of a darker complexion than Shem and Japheth, but it is clear that it was of little consequence to the family.

It seems that the extremely different racial features first began to make themselves more apparent only after the flood when the various family groups began to separate from one another and live in more isolated groups after their languages were confused.

But, in answer to this question, the various shades of skin colour were all encoded in the original DNA contained in the cells of Adam and Eve. It was just a matter of time before these differences began to make themselves apparent.

Muhammad Rasheed - Since the Black race has within its genes “the ability to pass on to his children many different types of features and skin colours,” and the Caucasian does not have this ability, then we can absolutely be sure what color Adam’s skin was. He was a Black man.

Paul Coomber - Does it really matter what colour his skin was? We have no way of being sure. What we do know is that at the time of the flood all of the humans in existence were wiped out and only Noah, his three sons, and their four wives survived. What their skin colours were is a little easier to determine when we look at the races that later came from each of their family lines. Still, we cannot be dogmatic about any of this, so why make a fuss of it?

A more important question than the one about Adam’s bodily features is why and how Adam lost God’s approval, and what meaning this has for us today.—Rom. 5:12.

Muhammad Rasheed - You’re asking a member of the race who has been continuously attacked with White Supremacist propaganda to break his spirit in order to make him easier to exploit, if it matters whether everything the White Supremacist has told him for the last 500 years was a lie.

Was that really a question?

Paul Coomber - Are you here to have a discussion? Or are you just looking for a fighter?

If the latter then this discussion is over.

I enjoy discussing these biblical questions, but I have no intention of getting involved in a political debate, which is where these racial discussions generally end up.

Muhammad Rasheed - It sounds like you are implying that it isn’t a discussion unless I agree with you. Or is the 'discussion' you prefer having some kind of semi-formal game to see who can most creatively plug the holes within the extremely problematic Eurocentric explanation of history?

Paul Coomber - Muhammad, this started out as a discussion about Adam and Eve, and nothing else. That is all I am willing to comment on. So let’s just leave it there now.

Muhammad Rasheed - Specifically, this started out as a speculative discussion about Adam & Eve’s race, which of course is a topic pregnant with historical, socio-political baggage and tension. If that baggage and tension is too intense for you to deal with, then perhaps you should withdraw from the discussion, Paul.

Paul Coomber - I will do just that Muhammad.

Muhammad Rasheed - Peace.

William Rundle - Adam & Eve were a mixture of all ethnical groups before any of these groups even existed; they had the DNA within them capable of producing all of them. All people and ethnic groups descended from Adam & Eve.

Muhammad Rasheed - By definition, “a mixture of all ethnical groups” describes the Black race, who are capable of birthing every racial phenotype.

Geoff Cutler - Firstly Adam and Eve were here about 37,000 years ago, and we already had races by that time. On the other hand, the “first parents” arrived about 993,500 years ago. (Yeah that’s the Urantia Book. Maybe it is really accurate, I don’t know, but it has a habit of specifying exact dates like that.)

Muhammad Rasheed - Since the earliest modern human fossils (‘homo sapien idaltu’) is estimated to be 160,000 yrs old, how do you possibly justify a 37,000 years ago date for the patriarch’s family?

Steve James - Adam and Eve would have been proto-racial. They are the father and mother of all, thus all races would trace back to them. Therefore, they would have to be all races or rather, proto-racial.

Muhammad Rasheed - All races trace back to the Black race, therefore the Black race is that very “proto-race” you are describing.

Michael Pfister - Adam and Eve carried the genes for EVERY type of human alive today, plus the types that are now extinct, such as the so-called “Neanderthal” men and some very wide varieties of pygmies and giants that lived in antiquity. That’s a lot of diversity.

It comes about the same way we get dog breeds today from a fairly common ancient dog: natural selection. Add in the fact that humans tend to like other humans that look like them in terms of sexual attraction and we mate with people we have a cultural connection to, and you have a powerful natural selection tool to split out different races. Especially when you factor in the language division at the Tower of Babel, which split people into groups and separated them by a language barrier.

Muhammad Rasheed - Does the notoriously recessive gene Caucasian race “carry the genes for EVERY type of human alive today”? lol Then what does your answer have to do with the baffling and confused assumption that Adam & Eve were Caucasian?

Michael Pfister - My apologies, I thought I was clear: Adam and Eve could not have been Caucasian or Arabs. If they had been, then there would not be Africans, Chinese, Indians, etc. If you make the assumption that they were in fact Caucasian or Arab, then you eliminate the other possibilities. I don’t know what you would call them other than “human”, but they were probably dark skinned and I imagine they more closely resembled someone of Indian or perhaps African descent than Caucasian.

Margarita Mazina - Edit: Arabs are Caucasians.

Caucasoid race includes people in Europe, North Africa, Middle East and South Asia. They share similar skull characteristics differing from other races.

Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) "Arab" is not a race. The Arabs contain all racial groups with the most abundant being the Black race.

2.) The House of Saud has partnered with the Western-European governments to push forward that 'light-skinned euro-look' as the standard of beauty, which gives the illusion that "Arabs are Caucasians." They are NOT.

3.) Abraham's father was a Black man... an aristocrat from a highly-influential Cushite family. The Arab was always predominantly Black/brown-skinned as the tribes reflect today.

4.) It is common knowledge that the human skull is very malleable during the birthing event, and people shape the skull however way they like, often to cultural or even just familial preference. The Eurocentric insistence that the skull shape "of the different races" of the same species means anything, is only a reflection of stubbornness, not a propensity for science.

Margarita Mazina - Caucasoid race is an anthropoloical term, look it up. What people call “Caucasian” in U.S. (with its fucked up Racial Census that has nothing to do with science) is simply European.

I never said Arabs are a “race".

I don't keep track of conspiracy theories, so I am not interested in listening to another one. “Big races” are determined by skull structure, then there are sub-races or ethnicities (depends which classification you look up), that's all what modern anthropology has proven. Ethnicities are hard to determine, as certain genetic clusters canbe shared by different random groups of people in different parts of the world.

Muhammad Rasheed - “Arabs are Caucasians” is definitely a “conspiracy theory” since these predominantly Black people certainly don’t have Caucasus mountains origin. You just don’t keep track of non-Eurocentric conspiracy theories, which receive artificial legitimacy from the systemic racist institutions that birthed the Anthropology fields.

But to each his/her own.

Margarita Mazina - I don't understand what is so “racist” in my statement, honestly. It's not the end of the world that people's skulls look different. Racist would be to presume they are somehow inferior of superior because of their build.

Muhammad Rasheed - Margarita, considering I’ve recently had experiences in which White people who were actually supposed to be actively in the anti-racism fight turn around and become racists — and 100% didn’t see that they were doing it! — I honestly have zero faith that you will EVER understand. But it is all one.

Please return to your regularly scheduled whatever-you-do.

Margarita Mazina - What do you mean by “black"? Arabs are anthropoloically Caucasoid, not Negroid.

Modern Europeans don't live in Caucasus, either, but somehow you don't have a problem with calling them Caucasian.

Obviously, Arabs aren't white (European Caucasians). But it's strange to presume they are black. The only group that is sometimes classified as “black" are aboriginal Australians as their skull structure is similar to Sub-Saharian Africans. Scholars still argue about that.

Muhammad Rasheed - "Arabs are anthropoloically Caucasoid, not Negroid."

Noooo...




"...you don't have a problem with calling them Caucasian..."

You call yourselves "Caucasians," remember? lol  I didn't make it up, genius. I actually prefer "wypipo" for you, quiet as it's kept.

"But it's strange to presume they are black."

Noooo...



"...as their skull structure is similar to..."

Their "skull structure" is whatever the hell their people shaped their newborns' heads into.  Will you please stop with your bs quackery?  What, did you minor in chiropractic, too?  Your "education" is garbage, Margarita.  Please STOP.  jesus...!


*Margarita blocked me from commenting on her posts*

Agha Talal - Firstly I don’t know if you realize this but Arabs, North Africans and even some Indians are technically Caucasians. If you think that Caucasians means white people as opposed to brown or black then you are incorrect. White people along with Arabs, Africans, Indians are considered a sub race of Caucasian. In the west people usually use the word “Caucasian” to refer to white people only but this is technically not true. The notion of classifying white people as a separate race originated in the 17th century. Otherwise phenotypically Arabs, some ethnic groups of white people, Some ethnic groups in India, some ethnic groups in Africa are related to each other and fall withing the same taxon of Caucasian.

Furthermore not all white people are Caucasians either. You will find white Hispanics, white Brazilians and white South Africans.

Secondly considering that Adam was THE FIRST MAN it logically follows that he cannot be classified into any of the races that we classify ourselves. ALL races originated from him, in other words all phenotypes that exist in modern day humans originated from Adam.

If you are referring to skin color then the Islamic texts state that Adam was of reddish complexion. Infact the meaning of the name Adam itself in the semetic languages is
  • to be like the Earth; or one who is like the Earth (in his appearance,nature etc.)
  • to be red like the Earth
*Edited*

After going through the question a second time I realize that I haven’t actually answered it.

Regarding the human race there are more than one origin stories. The one put forth by evolutionists is that humans evolved from hominids. They reject the existence of Adam and Eve. According to what we know about human genetics it is scientifically impossible for mankind to have originated from a single pair.

On the other hand the Judeo-Christian and Islamic version of the origin story of man is that Eve (may Allah be pleased with her) would give birth to twins, a boy and a girl in a single birthing. The way marriages worked was that the son from the first birth would be paired with the daughter from the second birth, while the son from the second birth would be paired with the daughter from the first birth. By today’s standard this would be considered incest. But that is what we believe happened in the ancient world.

Muhammad Rasheed - So even though humans came out of Africa, this dubious and mysterious “technical” measuring tool you are referencing categorizes them under “Caucasian” now?

lol

This re-purposing of the term is problematic, considering the heavy baggage that particular term holds within both an extremely racially divisive society, and within an extremely racist field of study.

Agha Talal - I have edited my answer. I suggest that you give it a second look and tell me what you think.

I don’t live in the west therefore I cannot relate to the “racial divisiveness” that you are mentioning. Also I am not sure what you mean when you say “extremely racist field of study”. What field of study are you referring to and how is it racist ?

Muhammad Rasheed - So after your edit, I notice that the word “technically” is still being over-emphasized in the same “Look at this hand so you won’t see what the other hand is doing!” kind of way, while still using it to legitimize the bizarre categorizing of Africans under 'Caucasians.' Curious.

So how did your edits alter the implications of my first response again?

Muhammad Rasheed - As an aside, this thread is the very first time I've encountered one of those "But what about the Arab Slave Trade?!? The Arabs enslaved Blacks, too!!" wypipo agents that the Afrocentrics are always going on about. I believed that they existed, of course, I just never engaged with one before. It turns out that coons come in all colors, don't cha know? I'm not going to go so far as to say that the puppet agent of my enemy is worse than my enemy, but I know for sure I don't like these assholes.

Agha Talal - The Caucasian classification is based upon cranial and skeletal morphology not hierarchy and includes people from different parts of the World. African is a geographical classification, the two are as different as apples are to oranges. Not all Africans are black skinned and include races belonging to variety of ethnic groups some of which are white skinned and some of which are brown skinned. Not ALL Africans are Caucasians and not ALL Caucasians are Africans. You are conflating two different criterias.

Muhammad Rasheed - Who made the decision to use the extremely problematic, and baggage ridden ‘Caucasian’ term to describe cranial & skeletal morphology? Considering the African continent has gangs of varying ethnic groups converging upon it from all over — drooling with greed over the abundance of its natural resources — who made the decision to name all of these foreign agents as “African” while categorizing a very specific group of them under the “Caucasian” umbrella? Identify the specific institutional body that is responsible for this, please.

Agha Talal - Well, my purpose for mentioning the difference between Caucasian and African was purely informative. You are the one who steered the conversation towards racism and politics.

If you feel that these classifications are problematic then you are under no obligation to refer to them.

How would you classify the races ?

Muhammad Rasheed - lol The topic is inherently full of racism and politics. Pretending it is otherwise is part of that game.

Tell me who is the body responsible for re-purposing ‘Caucasian’ in this way.

Agha Talal - So are you saying that we should not classify humans into races ?

Muhammad Rasheed - I'm asking you to publicly identify the specific institutional body that is responsible for re-purposing the term ‘Caucasian’ to describe cranial & skeletal morphology of certain specific groups in Africa.

Agha Talal - The term Caucasian was coined by the German historian Christoph Meiners and later used by Johann Blumenbach along with Georges Cuvier to refer to a specific type of Cranial morphology. Initially he used skin color as a criteria for classification but he later abandoned it after he noticed that fair skinned people could acquire a tan and become brown skinned. Therefore they eventually used cranial measurements and skeletal morphology as their criteria.

It was in 1885 that the Caucasian taxon was sub divided into three sub races; Aryans, Semites and Hamites. Hamites included and still includes Afroasiatic people native to North Africa. Hamites also intermarried with other native African tribes of the time and gave rise to ethnic groups such as the Masai, Bantu etc. and so you will find Hamites who are black skinned.

Muhammad Rasheed - Where does the “technical” aspect come in, Agha?