Debunking: Afrocentrist Theories on the Hebrews and Jesus – Part 1

Hello and welcome to another edition of Debunking Historical Myths.  In earlier editions I have shown how historically Roman Catholicism isn’t witchcraft, and how modern Wicca isn’t an ancient religion practiced by pre-Christian proto-witches.  Today, I figured I’d move a little away from religion and head into another hotly contested area – false racial histories.  Specifically I’m discussing an aspect of Afrocentrism, the claim that the ancient Israelites (and indeed, that the larger middle east and Mediterranean were in fact, all “African” in ancient history.

But before we begin perhaps an explanation on Afrocentrism is in order, as not everyone is familiar with this field of psuedohistorical research.  Afrocentrism is the idea that everything comes from Africa, not just the human race, but every positive result of science, music, history, art can directly be traced back to some historic event in Africa.  (Mind you, this is a quick explanation of a very complex concept.)  This idea arose in the 1970s, though its origins go a little further back, it is in fact a product of the American civil-rights movement and at its core, Afrocentrism is a racist explanation of history that glorifies one race (the African) while directly denouncing another (European “whites”) and denigrating and marginalizing the others (middle eastern, south asian, asiatic, Amerindian, aboriginal Australian and MesoAmerican) by claiming all their great achievements as the result of African ingenuity.

Moreover, the overriding claim of the Afrocentrist movement is that real history is being suppressed by “white historians, archaeologist and anthropologists” as part of a massive conspiracy stretching back to the dawn of time, to deny the African his place as the innovator of history.  (Personally, as an aside, this sort of racial history reminds me too much of Nazi Germany’s pro-Aryan theories and anti-Semetic philosophies for comfort.)  This assumption assumes offhand that the vast majority of European and White American historians and specialists have no academic integrity, that the historical record that has been built by a world of archaeologists, anthropologists, and historians is patently false, and that it is intentionally so, simply to oppress the black race.

And this isn’t supposed to be “offensive” to those of who consider ourselves professional.  Or maybe it is, all I know is that according to Afrocentrism, I, your humble blogger, am a howling bigot who desires nothing more than to rob the world of its true history.  Well, that aside, how about we take a good look at some Afrocentrist claims and see for ourselves the validity of theory.

 

How did Jesus and the Hebrews become WHITE? – (False Historical Claim site.)

 

Claim 1:

How did the Hebrews turn White? Of course they didn’t really; just in the imaginations, and then the histories of White people. Who for probably practical reasons, decided that Hebrews, and also the Blacks who originally lived in the Country’s that they took over, should all become White for posterity’s sake.

Seeing as how it only takes three generations to turn a Black person into a White person (and visa versa). No doubt there came a time when as Europe’s formerly bi-racial populations, became more homogeneously White, White people decided that they could no longer acknowledge that all that they knew and had, was derived from the minds and labors of Black people – even down to their religious beliefs. The logic no doubt being that Whites could not progress to their full potential, if they were always looking up to Blacks, as the personification of knowledge and wisdom. So a change had to be made, and at some point, by somebody, that change began.

Of course, we have no way of knowing when this process of Whitinizing Blacks began, or who did it, or where it was first done. But we do have some materials by which we can track the process, somewhat.

 

Rebuttal 1:  The notion that the “Hebrews” are or were white is a relatively modern one, as notions of “whiteness” really didn’t creep into people’s vocabulary until the 16th – 17th centuries, when what we now call institutionalized racism became a phenomenon in Virginia and the American colonies as a way to break the colonies dependence on indentured servants, who, after their period of service, were often required to receive by law 50 acres of land (at least in Virginia).  Prior to this, there were intermarriages of races in America, low class laborers of either race often lived together, married together and went to the same churches.  Which isn’t to say that things were peaceful, early America was a very violent place, but rather that most racial animosity was dedicated to “dangerous” or “wild” indians as opposed to “tame” indians, and towards the Spanish, whom the British believed were hiding under every single rock, tree and ship that pulled into British colonial ports.  Conversely, after the invention of institutionalized racism in America, this notion of “whiteness” wasn’t extended to a number of “white people” until much later in American History.  These “non-white” races which became white include the Irish, the Italians and perhaps unsurprisingly to anyone who has studied European history, to the Jews (the Hebrews).  Thats right, until the 20th century, in America, you weren’t really considered white if you were Irish, Italian or Jewish, especially not if you kept “ethnic” ties.  So, in a real way, this question of “when did the Hebrews become white” has a historic merit, however, the answer they give to the question is incorrect.

Second problem with the opening claims – that Hebrews are/were black.  If the Hebrews only became “white” in the last century, does that mean that they were always black?  No, it does not.  Understand that “whiteness” had less to do with skin color as it did with how society considered you, and how far you deviated from an Anglo-Saxon Protestant core.  Meaning that while an Irish Protestant who spoke with a New York accent would likely be treated well, say in 1867, by his compatriots, he was a still “an Irishman” or a “Jew” or a “Negro” – depending on his personal heritage.  So what does this mean?  It means that in prior centuries, ones heritage was everything, and that is what delineated racial categories in the United States more than anything else.  An Albino black man was still black, regardless of the lack of pigment in his skin.

The Hebrews, like many middle eastern peoples (the hittites, Canaanites, Egyptians, Syrians) are a Semitic people who possess several distinctive racial traits (Lord knows I hate that terminology but it fits) including fairer (but darkening due) skin (but not necessarily the ivory white of Europe, which is more pinkish but eh), and curly or straight black or red hair.  It should be pointed out though that Semitic peoples aren’t really a racial classification at all, but are in fact, a language grouping, meaning that Semitic language derive from an earlier proto-Semitic tongue that was in fact, the origin for myriad languages in history and modernity (including Hebrew, Arabian, Egyptian, Akkadian, et cetera).  

Next, the claim insinuates that the “white” peoples of Europe drove out the extant “black cultures” that had already been there, absorbing and wiping out all traces of them before engaging a program to “whitify” the Hebrews, which is kind of funny, that they would begin a multi-millennium process of whitification of a group of people that throughout history, Europeans have repeated attempted to utter destroy (the Holocaust, the Spanish Inquistion and the expulsion of Jews from Spain, the forgotten Holocaust of the First Crusade, various Pogroms over the years I haven’t mentioned).  So, the Whites of Europe have done their best to make the Jews White, long before people ever thought in those terms, while at the same time trying to commit genocide on these people they are trying to make white.  Makes perfect sense.

 

Claim 2:

It is worth mentioning, that the Hebrews were just as literate, and just as artistic as the other Black civilizations around them. The reason that we have to depend on outside sources for pictures of them, is because Whites destroyed all that the Hebrews ever created. Even down to the very religious writings that they claim to worship by. That fact is that ALL Hebrew writings, even the SEPTUAGINT {the original Bible}, which was only roughly Hebrew (it was made for the Greek King of Egypt, Ptolemy II (Philadelphus) in 282-246 B.C.), has been destroyed. Everything except for the “Dead Sea Scrolls” which were found in 1947, in Qumran, a village situated about twenty miles east of Jerusalem. The Scrolls are under the joint custody of the Catholic Church and the Israelis. The translated contents of those Scrolls has never been made public, and probably never will be – no doubt the differences in teachings and facts would be irreconcilable.  (A few inconsequential snippets have been made public – the entire Scrolls is a huge work, which contains the entire old Testament plus many other works).

Why wasn’t the material in these pages destroyed? Because after it’s fall, Assyria came under the control of the Persian Empire, which was itself a Black Empire. It then came under the control of Greeks, who were at that time, seeking to merge with the Black Persians, not in denying that they were Black people. Then Assyria again came under Persian control, and then finally under the control of the original Black Arabs. So at the time when Whites were destroying vestiges of Black history, they had no access to the Assyrian artifacts.

But at those times when Whites did have control of an area, they seem to have been very through in destroying all vestiges of the former Black inhabitants; there is nothing left to suggest that Carthage was a Black city, Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley civilizations are some of the oldest known, yet very little is left – next to nothing in the Indus valley. Ancient Anatolia (Turkey), was home to many great and famous civilizations, but very little has been found there. The Egyptian artifacts, of which there are many, were mostly recovered in modern times, when Whites rather than simply destroy, instead modify artifacts; sometimes just by breaking the noses off, in order to make them look like White people, and then proudly display them as proof of the White mans greatness.

The Khazars, a Turkish tribe who had established a Kingdom in the Caucasus region, and converted to Judaism in the 8th century A.D. Must have seen the doings of the Romans and Greeks, and seen it as an opportunity for them to take over the Hebrew identity, and thus control of the orthodox branch of the Hebrew religion – which indeed they did. They logically thinking that if Jesus can be White, why not then, the entire Hebrew nation – which was by then a diaspora anyway. The Islamist side-stepped the entire issue by forbidding imagery of any kind.

 

Fact 2:  Yes, the Hebrews were as literate and artistic as any other kingdom around them, but they were not “Black Kingdoms”.  Persia was founded Proto-Indo-European speakers who migrated from somewhere out of Turkey, not out of Africa.  The Indus River Valley people, with their proto-Shiva were in fact the people the Indian Subcontinent.  Mesopotamians, Sumerians, and the like descend from their own language group speakers who migrated from around the Persian gulf region.  Traditionally, Persian culture is very much like the neighboring South Asian culture of the Vedic peoples.  In fact, many of the old Persian Gods are Asuras in Vedic culture, while some Vedic religious traits appear as demonic in the Persian history.

In other words, Persia was not black.  Neither was Assyria or Babylon, and neither were the Jews.  Which isn’t to say that there aren’t or weren’t black Jews in the present and in the past, but that the Hebrews were not a “black kingdom”.  They were and are their own people.  Persia really didn’t “fall” under the control of the Greeks, Alexander conquered it, but it quickly regained autonomy after his death, resulting a resurgent Persia that would continue to war with Europe (through Rome and Byzantium) through out the remaineder of the BCE timeline, and up through the middle ages, until at present, the West stands in a sort of perpetual cold war with Persia, which is funny (and sad), as both the west and Persia share a common origin among the Proto-Indo-European peoples.

Moving onto Carthage.  Now, despite being in North Africa, Carthage was not a “black city”.  It was a Phoenician city, founded by the sea-faring people Phoenicia, who were a Semitic people who moved from the Middle East and settled all around the Mediterranean sea, which was in fact the center of their empire and the source of their livelihood.  Carthage, being Africa, no doubt had many black citizens and over the years, probably became highly hybridized with Africans taking leadership roles throughout the city, this does not mean it was “Black city”.  In fact, the whole notion of “black kingdoms” and “white kingdoms” is racist and perverse form presentism that ignores the context of race in antiquity and replaces it with our modern notions of race, which is that the ancient world consisted of racial monopolies that controlled entire regions and that people largely stayed among their races.  This is false, as the ancient world was full of movement – a person in Thebes might expect to see Egyptians, but he would also be exposed to Nubians, Akkadians, Hittites, sailors from India, Mycenaens and Hebrews, and its hard to imagine that any city built for trade like Carthage was would be dissimilar.

And, as my friend who runs his page full of distorted history likes to do, I will offer an example of a period bust of Hannibal – the most famous of all the people of Carthage:

Such a proud African man was Hannibal!  Though he was every bit the scourge of Rome, I don’t really see the “black features” – but I’m sure some white historian carved this marble bust and replaced the original, simply to confound the black man.  (jking).

 

Lastly, in this claim, we get to the Khazars, a Turkish people, who, despite their central asian origin, decide independently to convert Judaism, pass themselves off as white, because if they are white, then Jesus was white (because the Jews support Jesus!) and thus all of the hebrews were white – or so says the author of this page.  Frankly, the Khazar conversion to Judaism is a hotly debated topic among historians, but the one thing they can largely agree upon is that 8th century Central Asians didn’t really consider themselves “white”.  They considered themselves Khazars (though thats really the name we give them, they probably considered themselves to be whatever name they gave themselves) as well as Jews, through conversion.  In their conversion, their written works or their surviving artifacts we have NO examples of any widespread conspiracy among them to become white, just as their is NO evidence anywhere of Europe trying to “whitify” the Hebrew race at all, not until the 20th century.

 

Now this page, itself, is longer than most, so I will revisit this topic next week.  Until then, just remember, racism and history don’t mix.  Cheers!

Advertisements

One thought on “Debunking: Afrocentrist Theories on the Hebrews and Jesus – Part 1

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s