African People Are Incapable
Of Migration

 

by Keith W. Jones

 

African people are incapable of migration. That is an idea that many scholars would still like to have us people of African descent believe. I find it disappointing that even today, as we transition to a new millennium, this concept is still being pushed, taught, and written about.

 

The static African concept, as I call it, is implied in our literature, newspapers, and cinema, and is disseminated during television broadcasts. One possible result of this concept is that, being incapable of movement might be linked to being incapable of accomplishment. That is, if one cannot think well enough to move from one location to a better location, even though all of his or her muscles are fully functional, then how can one possibly think well enough to develop technology, which will make life easier for himself or herself.

 

I believe that what is most psychologically damaging, though, for people of African descent, are the Eurocentric and ethnocentric falsehoods still disseminated in most of the textbooks used in schools today, by our children and young adults.

 

Put another way, when African American children and young adults go to school, they still are taught and they still read about untruths regarding the lack of scientific, intellectual, and technological accomplishments made by people of African descent. These untruths are in addition to what these young people are learning about the so-called mental and intellectual inferiority of African peoples to other ethnic groups. However, I am getting ahead of myself.

 

Let me start from the beginning; that is, what caused me to write this essay. Before I started my doctoral program, I already knew that I wanted to conduct dissertation research that combines two of my scholastic loves: Applied Science and History of Science and Technology.

 

Applied Science is a broad-based field of study, which includes the disciplines of physics, materials science, and various engineering disciplines. The field of study called History of Science and Technology is a field of study which examines the past, the present, and the prospective as they pertain to historical analyses of science, engineering, and technology insertions, applications, impacts, costs, and non-applications-from intellectual, sociological, technological, and business perspectives.

 

Within this specialty, I am specifically interested in examining the History of Science and Technology regarding the contributions of African and African American peoples to science and technology. In other words, I want to examine historical cases where African folk have addressed their own scientific and technological needs in ancient, medieval, and modern times.

 

However, while in the process of conducting this research, I realized that I had skipped the first step. That is, how can you research a group of people having historically done something regarding science and technology, or research their histories, in general, for that matter, when those people are and were perceived as being incapable of movement altogether? We are taught that African peoples are static; thus they are powerless to move from one point to another without the assistance of some other people.

 

For example, some scholars still even assert that the medieval city, Great Zimbabwe, located in the southern part of Africa, was built by people other than the Shona who have always resided within its vicinity. The country is landlocked, 500 miles away from the Indian Ocean. Yet, we are supposed to believe, based on scholarly documentation, that foreign traders, that is, a group of people other than the local Shona, were responsible for building this magnificent city of stone over 1,000 years ago.

 

The points that I am trying to make here are these:

 

(1) When historical evidence indicates that ancient and medieval people of African descent were dynamic and capable of migration from one location to another; they become honorary White persons; and, in time, the iconographic portraiture representing these people began to show attributes reflective of Caucasian racial features.

 

(2) When historical evidence points out that ancient and medieval African peoples made scientific and technological accomplishments, three arguments are advocated by many Eurocentric scholars:

 

(A) Even though these people appear to be non-White, or Black, we shall now classify them as being White, because we can only link being White with accomplishment. We cannot make such a linkage with being Black.

(B) These are Black [indigenous] African people. However, we (the scholars) are going to continue to insist that people from Asia or Europe must have traveled to their countries and assisted them in accomplishing their scientific and technological achievements. We can use the approach that these people were simply duplicating what they saw more civilized people do.

(C) We see the scientific and technological accomplishments; however, we shall either ignore or downplay those achievements. If the subject is ever brought up, we will always see those accomplishments as more negative than positive and will find fault with them.

 

Usually we see combinations of all three of these types of arguments in newspapers, cinema and scholarly and popular literature, and during television broadcasts.

 

Consequently, I personally believe that racism derives from this type of historical mischief. Until all people, regardless of color, make intellectual and academic efforts to destroy racial stereotypes and falsehoods, African Americans, as well as other people of color, will continue to have problems-academically, socially, and intellectually-within all sectors of our society well into the new millennium.

 

A people's failure to deal with abstract intellectual and academic concepts might be almost as bad as not dealing with overt racism, segregation, police brutality, or chattel slavery. I believe that our failure to examine intellectual and academic abstractions on a large scale is the reason why African people are still considered incapable of migration (or movement).

Some of you may assert that you are not African, you are American. This is, indeed, true. Most of us with few exceptions have never been to the Motherland. In other words, most African Americans, or Black Americans, or Black Hispanic Americans were either born in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Haiti, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Central America, South America, or in other West Indian nations.

 

Nonetheless, what is equally true is that the past and present mistreatment that many of us receive because of African ancestry is due to the past and present social construct of racism. Many African Americans, I believe, are taught to think that it is somehow shameful to be African and to have ancestors who were once slaves, and that nothing good has ever come out of Africa.

 

Many scholars of African and European descent, past and present, did not and do not agree with this negative school of thought that is still disseminated in our children's textbooks and taught in our schools. Unfortunately, this disagreement that some scholars have with the falsehoods about African and African American history being taught in our schools is written about only in scholarly journals.

 

It is not written in a manner that the laypublic will necessarily read. Therefore, these falsehoods are also a plausible reason why African people are still considered to be static and incapable of migration (or movement).

 

Inasmuch as African people, on the continent and throughout the Diaspora, continue to be intellectually and academically thought of as being static and incapable of migration, as well as intellectually and academically incapable of scientific and technological accomplishments, without assistance, of course, the social construct of racism shall continue to prevail.

 

When we critically think about the concept of any group of people standing still, however, it does not stand up to scrutiny. Even animals are capable of migrating from territory to territory, country to country, and continent to continent.

 

Arctic terns have been observed over a period of time migrating from their summering ground in the Arctic to a wintering ground in the Antarctic, traveling more than 7,200 miles in one direction. Further, a blue-winged teal was banded in Canada and found 3,800 miles away, 30 days later, in Venezuela. Furthermore, the king and chum salmon are reported as swimming distances of over 2,000 miles to reach spawning grounds.

 

Does it make sense to believe that African peoples cannot migrate from territory to territory? That is, can we accept the assertion that Igbo peoples, past and present, were (or are) not able to migrate to the land of Hausa peoples; or Ashanti peoples, past and present, were (or are) not able to migrate to the land of Wolof peoples. Does it make sense to believe that African peoples, past and present, could not migrate from country to country?

 

That is, can we regard as true the argument that people living in Mali, past and present, were (or are) incapable of migrating from Mali to Algeria; or people living in Niger, past and present, were (or are) incapable of migrating from Niger to Libya. Does it make sense to believe that African people cannot migrate from continent to continent?

 

That is, can we view as valid the claim that African peoples, in general, were (or are) incapable of migrating from Africa to Asia; or from Africa to Australia; or from Africa to Europe; or from Africa to America. As I stated earlier, to prove that African people are incapable of migrating from Africa to Europe; or from Africa to Asia, some scholars overlook the facts regarding historical migrations by African people altogether. Put another way, if you refer to almost any encyclopedia, you will read little, if any, information regarding people of African descent living in Southern European countries (such as Spain, Portugal, Italy, Sicily, Greece, and Turkey) or Middle Eastern countries (such as Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, or Iran).

 

However, one can travel to these countries and quickly observe that some of these people fit into the social construct called the Black [indigenous] African (or so-called Negroid) race. One can also observe that the present-day populations residing in the aforementioned countries show remnants of the past aboriginal African inhabitants' attributes in their facial and body structures. Notwithstanding these facts, scholars still attempt to lead us to believe that African peoples were static.

 

This past- and present-day philosophy leads me to ask the question: How far are some of these countries and continents from so-called sub-Saharan African countries?

 

After a few calculations, I determined the following distances from sub-Saharan African countries to other countries and continents: to travel from Accra, Ghana to Istanbul, Turkey the distance is 3,033 miles; from Accra, Ghana to Panama City, Panama is 5,431 miles; from Lagos, Nigeria to Palermo, Sicily is 2,265 miles; from Lagos, Nigeria to Seville, Spain is 2,195 miles; from Lagos, Nigeria to Jakarta, Indonesia is 7,219 miles; from Casablanca, Morocco to Lagos, Nigeria is 1,977 miles; from Casablanca, Morocco to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia is 3,397 miles; from Casablanca, Morocco to Dakar, Senegal is 1,432 miles; from Casablanca, Morocco to Seville, Spain is 286 miles; from Casablanca, Morocco to Palermo, Sicily is 1,220 miles; from Lagos, Nigeria to Cairo, Egypt is 2,443 miles; from Lagos, Nigeria to Tel Aviv, Israel is 2,698 miles; and from Lagos, Nigeria to Baghdad, Iraq is 3,220 miles.

As I stated above, there is a species of bird capable of traveling as far as 7,200 miles in one direction; and a species of salmon capable of traveling distances over 2,000 miles in one direction. Does it make sense for us to continue believing that African peoples are incapable of migrating such distances? Shall we, all people, all so-called races, continue to allow African peoples to be falsely labeled a static people, and go on believing that African peoples could not do something that, even, a bird and fish can do?

 

Scientists tell us that based on the Out of Africa hypothesis, African people migrated from the continent of Africa to other continents such as Europe, Asia, Australia, and the Americas. It is the theory that states "…the first humans left Africa some 100,000 years ago, reaching Asia around 60,000 years ago…some of these hunter-gatherers moved southward to New Guinea and Australia during the ice ages 40,000 years ago. At the time, glaciers had sucked water out of the oceans, lowering the sea level and expanding Asia into a vast region known as Sundaland. As a result, much of the southward migration occurred on foot (Mukerjee 1999, Scientific American Online) …." The scientists advocating this theory have proven this hypothesis during recent years by using DNA samples collected from various people all around the world, which allowed them to trace most human ancestry through mitochondria DNA (mtDNA).

 

That is, through the mother's DNA, they traced back to a hypothetical African woman referred to as the African Eve. These experts assert that the widest DNA variations are found in sub-Saharan Africa, and that they are less so, elsewhere.

 

The DNA variation, they claim, infers that sub-Saharan Africa is the source of the mitochondria DNA for all people, in the rest of the world. Because less gene variation infers familial ties, where more infers less familial ties, researchers deduced that human origin must have occurred in Africa; with groups of people having the same familial ties leaving the continent while others with different genetic markers, or familial ties, remained there.

 

As a result of the Human Genome Project, researchers have validated the hypothesis, that there is no such thing as a race of people. This is a concept that many scientists asserted as far back as the 1940s and 50s. The genetic markers between people of different races, outside of Africa, are so similar, claim the experts, that scientists have to plan to specifically look for certain characteristics at the outset of a DNA experiment. From a scientific perspective, I think that these conclusions are fantastic.

 

However, from a social perspective, more work must be done to reverse the effects of three hundred years of deep-seated racism, discriminatory practices, prejudging, and psychological damage that exist throughout the Western Hemisphere in regards to this issue that we call race.

 

At the time of this writing, though scientists have proven the falsity of race, I see no ongoing effort to eradicate the social construct of it. There is no one who I know of that has gone onto a television broadcast and made a public statement saying:

 

"Folks, when our ancestors created a concept that we now call race, it was a lie. It was created for exploitative purposes." No one has yet made this type of comment with total and deep contrition: "Let us work to undo the falsehoods that were created because of the concept of race. We shall do this from a public and a private perspective; intellectually and academically; let us change or correct what is reflected in the literature, the newspapers, the cinema, on the television, and in the textbooks used by our children and young adults."

 

Moreover, based on the social construct of race, we can still see large numbers of Black [indigenous] Africoid people throughout Asia. I am arguing that based on the one-drop rule and the close proximity of their countries to the African Continent these people might have some African ancestry. Also, I assert that these people would be treated as if they were African Americans were they to the Western world. I make the claim that because of the distances that some Asian countries are from the African Continent that some Asian people easily validate the Out of Africa hypothesis.

 

Further, based on the social construct of race, I believe that people in the United States would perceive these people as Africans or African Americans until someone told them otherwise.

What I am attempting to state, here, is that when I use the term social construct of race, its meaning is manifold: (1) As stated above, through DNA experiments, scientists have proven that there is no such thing as a race of people. (2) That a people resembling African people, such as a true Native Hawaiian or Timorese or Australian Aborigine, might receive treatment similar to that accorded to African Americans, regardless of whether that treatment is positive or negative. (3) The word race is related to what we can visibly see, feel, and prejudge; but it is only skin deep or superficial. (4) Overall, I interpret the social construct of race to be a philosophy concerning how a people are to be treated; that is, whether they will or will not have all of the rights and privileges that are their due as citizens in a particular country.

 

Race is an exploitative economic engine that still remains with us today, because it still produces income today, and may continue to produce more income tomorrow. By using the social construct of race, some people who are in positions of power can keep worker's wages low. By using the social construct of race, some people who are in positions of power can pit one group of people against one another; that is, instead of critically examining what is actually happening, these groups end up continuously fighting amongst themselves. When using the social construct of race, some people who are in positions of power have fewer reservations about physically, psychologically, intellectually, academically, and economically exploiting groups of people who they see as different from themselves.

Nevertheless, here are the specific names of Asian people, past and present, that fit into the social construct of race regarding people of African descent: (1) Many of the Bedouin groups residing in Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan, and Syria. (2) The Abid (or Marsh Arabs) of Iraq. (3) Many of the Yemenite people. (4) The so-called Negrito people residing on the Andaman Islands, which are off of the coast of India. (5) The Dravidians of southern India. (6) The Timorese people of Indonesia, Timor, and Australia. (7) The Papuan New Guineans. (8) The Australian Aborigines. (9) The now extinct Tasmanian peoples. (10) The Melanesian peoples of New Caledonia, Melanesia, the Solomon Islands/Guadal Canal. (11) The so-called Negrito peoples of the Philippines. (12) The Melanesian peoples in other parts of the South Pacific such as the Fiji Islands, Pitcairn Island (of H.M.S. Bounty fame), et cetera.

 

There is quite an amount of distance between these locations and sub-Saharan Africa. Should we continue believe that when these people started migrating out of Africa, whether on foot or using a boat, they failed to stop in ancient Saudi Arabia, or Iraq, or Iran, or Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or India, or Burma (Myanmar), or Thailand, or Cambodia, or Viet Nam, while trying to reach Malaysia, Indonesia, Melanesia, Australia, Phillipines, Solomon Islands, Tasmania, Timor, and other parts of the South Pacific?

 

Of course not. Based on today's scientific data, we can only conclude that wherever these people stopped, they either died out for environmental reasons, intermarried with other peoples, or that they are represented by those remnants of Black [indigenous] Africoid peoples in places where they are not supposed to be.

In regard to Southern Europe, scholars would have us believe that these people migrated out of Africa, but that they instantly changed their skin colors once they arrived in Southern Europe. If you do not like this theory, another one is that these people were White in skin color before they left Africa. However, due to skin cancer concerns, this theory, most probably, would not hold up to critical examination.

In addition to what I have already stated, and according to the social construct of race, scholars, attempting to explain away enigmas, tell us that the Black [indigenous] African-like people living in Middle Eastern countries, and Southern European countries are recent arrivals through past enslavements (over the last few hundred years) or immigrations.

 

I am certain that there may be some validity to these explanations. However, what is it that invalidates the hypothesis that some of these people were always there? For example, there are Native Americans, or indigenous people, here in the United States who did not intermarry with Caucasians.

 

Some examples of the remnants of aboriginal peoples are the Eskimos and Native Americans in the Americas; the Eskimo-like peoples of the Northern European Scandinavian countries; and the Australian Aborigines. I believe that it is equally possible that the enigmatic Black people residing in the Middle Eastern and Southern European countries might also be remnants of past indigenous populations in those regions that did not intermarry.

If what I have already stated is not enough to cast doubt on the way that we are taught to view things regarding African peoples and their histories, there is even more baffling information. Archaeological researchers have re-discovered Black [indigenous] ancient Egyptian mummies and, through biological collections from these cadavers, these scientists have found traces of cocaine and tobacco.

 

If this claim is valid, and many experts believe that it is, then it indicates that ancient Egyptians were trading with Native Americans living in Central and South America several thousand years ago, that is, "thousands of years before the tobacco and the cocaine coca plant were 'discovered' along with the New World."

 

Nonetheless, we might disbelieve this if we believe that people of European extraction are the only ones capable of discovering land, minerals, plants, or scientific theories. For the most part, this is the paradigm from which our Western school of thought operates. Put another way, only people of European descent, or people under the auspices of people of European descent, can make discoveries. Because of this philosophy, anything that does not fit into the paradigm becomes labeled as mysterious.

Nevertheless, the tobacco and cocaine discoveries are not the only riddles. The Olmec heads re-discovered by archaeologists in Mexico are another such riddle. Van Sertima tells us "…In all, eleven colossal Negroid heads appear in the Olmec (Mexico, added by me) heartland-four at La Venta, five at San Lorenzo and two at Tres Zapotes in southern Vera Cruz."

If what I stated above is factual, it brings to mind the question: Where did the falsehoods regarding people of African descent come from? Bernal tells us that it comes from the Aryan Model. More specifically, he states there are actually two models that we should understand and those are the Ancient and the Aryan. The Ancient Model, states Bernal, "…was the conventional view among Greeks in the Classical and Hellenistic ages. According to it, Greek culture arisen as the result of colonization, around 1500 BC, by Egyptians and Phoenicians who had civilized the native inhabitants. Furthermore, Greeks had continued to borrow heavily from Near Eastern cultures."

 

He comments further:

 

…Most people are surprised to learn that the Aryan Model, which most of us have been brought up to believe, developed only during the first half of the 19th century.

 

In its earlier or 'Broad' form, the new model denied the truth of the Egyptian settlements and questioned those of the Phoenicians…it will be necessary to not only to rethink the fundamental bases of 'Western Civilization' but also to recognize the penetration of racism and 'continental chauvinism' into all our historiography, or philosophy of writing history…

 

For 18th- and 19th-century Romantics and racists it was simply intolerable for Greece, which was seen not merely as the epitome of Europe but also its childhood, to have been the result of the mixture of native Europeans and colonizing Africans and Semites. Therefore the Ancient Model had to be overthrown and replaced by something more acceptable….

 

Bernal strikes an even greater damaging blow towards racism in scholarship, when he states "…Another way of looking at these changes is to assume that after the rise of black slavery and racism, European thinkers were concerned to keep black [indigenous] Africans as far as possible from European civilization….

 

"Thus, what sprang from this philosophy of the European thinkers were three different schools of thought: the so-called Aryan Model; the term sub-Saharan Africa; and Romanticism toward Egypt, Northern Africa, and the so-called Middle East.

 

Put another way, there were and still are scholars who, due to the modern tradition of racism in scholarship, deny any ancient connection between the Egyptians, Northern Africans, Middle Easterners, and the Greeks. Further, there are other scholars that accept such a connection as long as the people are separated from their brethren; hence, the Africa below the Sahara or sub-Saharan African argument. Furthermore, there are other scholars who accept the connection as long as the people are separated from their brethren, but they go further by scholastically removing all of Northern Africa from the African Continent; and whitening the people in Northern Africa and the Middle East.

 

The latter is the most damaging of all, because it involved the changing of the iconographic attributes of Northern African people scholastically and psychologically. This philosophy, like the other two, remains with us even today.

 

Separating the past and present people of Northern Africa and the so-called Middle East and Southern Europe from the people of sub-Saharan Africa makes as much sense as separating the past and present Native Americans of Canada from the past and present Native Americans of the United States, or the past and present Native Americans in the United States from those of Mexico.

There are many people living in Northern Africa, Southern Europe, and the Middle East whose skin color appears different from those traditionally ascribed to people of Black African ancestry. However, to nullify such an argument all we need do is examine American history regarding a group of people referred to as Melungeons. The Melungeons are groups of people who are a mixture of African, European, and Native American ancestries. On this issue, Rogers asserts, "…

 

There are many groups of mixed Caucasian, [African] Negro, and Indian ancestry, who either deny their Negro strain or claim to be of foreign origin. Among these are the Moors of Delaware; the Melungeons of Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee….

 

"Today, many people who are called Melungeon, now, have Caucasian features. Yet, at a cellular level, some

of them are still susceptible to diseases, such as Sickle Cell Anemia and Thalassemia, which are usually associated with people of African descent, or those only a few generations removed from having a dark-skinned, or Black, African appearance. Other people who fall into this category are Spaniards, Sicilians, Portuguese, southern Italians, other southern Europeans, Greeks, Turks, and Arabs.

Hence, experts state that the percentage of White Americans with African ancestry ranges from 6 percent to 20 percent.

 

Tony Brown tells us that a June 15, 1958 Associated Press story asserted that 21 percent of White Americans (which translates to forty million people today) have African ancestry.

 

Further, the assertion that people residing in a country today, can be the same people as those that resided there yesterday, can be either true or false. For example, in the United States the majority of the population today is not representative of the majority of yesterday's population. If this is true for the United States and other countries, it can also be true for Northern Africa, Southern Europe, and the Middle East. Rogers tells us that cave drawings or rock art in Lascaux, France; Altamira Spain; Palestine; South Africa; and India display people of African descent.

 

Personally, like many of our present-day scholars, I believe that race is a social construct, that there is no such thing as race.

 

However, even though some scholars have determined scientifically that it does not exist, few of these scholars have yet to rectify its still existent social aspect. It is unfair, disingenuous, and without intellectual integrity for one set of scholars to falsely create the concept that we call race, in the 17th century, and for another set of scholars in the middle of the 20th century to scientifically and scholastically acknowledge that it was made up, write about its non-existence in scholastic journals that most people will never read, but continue to allow the mythology race to be continuously taught in our schools and incorporated into the textbooks used by our children and young adults.

Our teachers still teach and our children still learn the inference that Africans were a static people incapable of dynamic movement from one location to another. Therefore we can see how Northern African, Southern European, and Middle Eastern countries are made to appear farther away from sub-Saharan African countries than they actually are, with African peoples being incapable of moving from one location to another.

 

Nevertheless, Africa is where human origin occurred, and these same experts tell us that these people migrated from Africa to other regions of the world.

 

Yet, some of these same scholars would lead us to believe that, instead of these people gradually changing from their Black (or Dark brown) skin colors over periods of thousands of years because of new foods and environments, they became White, Yellow, Red, et cetera, overnight.

 

That is to say, these experts imply that these people migrated to other regions of the world and changed their skin colors, practically, overnight. This logic makes little sense, considering that African Americans have lived in Northern America for some two-three hundred years.

 

Northern America has a colder climate. However, after all of this time, our Black (or Dark Brown, if you prefer) skin colors, in addition to our other African attributes, are still quite evident.

 

Keith W. Jones
joneskw@ix.netcom.com

 

References:

 

1. Asante, Molefi and Asante, Kariamu. Great Zimbabwe: An Ancient African City-State. Blacks in Science. Journal of African Civilizations. 1994, pp. 90-1.

2. Encyclopedia Britannica, Online. 1999.

3. Encyclopedia Britannica, Online. 1999.

4. Encyclopedia Britannica, Online. 1999.

5. Chiarelli, Brunetto. The `African Eve' theory in light of paleontological evidence for the outward diffusion of hominids. Mankind Quarterly, Spring94, Vol. 34 Issue 3, p147.

6. Bower, B. New gene study enters human origins debate. Science News, 9/25/93, Vol. 144 Issue 13, p196

7. SCIENCE FARE., The Dallas Morning News, 01-13-1997, pp 8D. Curse of the Cocaine Mummies - 8 p.m. on The Discovery Channel. Wolfgang Pirsig, a German Egyptologist, made a startling discovery recently that set off a controversy among Egyptologists, botanists, archaeologists and forensic scientists. His tests of nine ancient Egyptian mummies for drug use found traces of cocaine and nicotine in all nine samples - surprising since tobacco and coca are native to the Americas and were not thought tohave been "discovered" until 2500 years after the mummies had lived.

8. Ibid.

9. Van Sertima, Ivan. The African Presence in Ancient America: They Came Before Columbus. Random House. 1976, p. 31.

10. Bernal, Martin. Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization. Volume I: The Fabrication of Ancient Greece 1785-1985. Rutgers University Press. 1987, pp. 1-2.

11. Ibid, Bernal.

12. Op. Cit., Bernal, p. 30.

13. Egyptian Nubian Classified As White! New York Beacon, The, 05-21-1997, pp PG. Dr. Mostafa Hefny, an Egyptian Nubian and a naturalized American citizen, is contemplating filing a lawsuit against the U. S. government. Hefny has discussed the matter with several attorneys and has settled on a Bloomfield Hills, Michigan law firm. Dr. Hefny said he plans to file the lawsuit as soon as possible, the delay in filing is due to his law firm's busy schedule. Dr. Hefny's complaint is based on the United States' definition of white and Black persons. The complaint says according to the U.S. Government Directive No. 15 of the Office of Management
and Budget, a white person is "A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa or the Middle East," and a Black person is "A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa." Dr. Hefny is physically a Black person; his hair is kinky, his facial features are African and his complexion is darker than that of most African Americans. Dr. Hefny is considered a Black person by the international community. He also has written statements from many U. S. scholars
which state that he is a Black person and that the Nubian are indigenous Africans or Black persons.

14. Rogers, Joel A. Sex and Race. Vol II, 12th printing. Helga M. Rogers. 1991, p. 351.

15. Lang, Joel. Colorlines: White Lies. The Hartford Courant. June 28, 1998, Magazine Section, pp. 8-16.

16. Brown, Tony. Black Lies, White Lies: The Truth According to Tony Brown. William Morrow and Company, Inc. 1995, p.96.

17. Rogers, Joel A. 100 Amazing Facts About the Negro: With Complete Proof. Helga M. Rogers. 1995, p.4.

 

More information of interest: Genes Reveal Adam Was Black And He Came Out Of Africa

 

Humans Began in Africa

 

African origin theory advances

The connection of people with Sickle cell disease

 

 

Beyond Words Village

Give us your thoughts and opinions!

 

Keith W. Jones is a practicing engineer-scientist, program manager, and Ph.D.

candidate in Applied Science and History of Science and Technology
Email: joneskw@ix.netcom.com

 

This article was published courtesy of Keith W. Jones.

Copyright © 2000 Keith W. Jones. All rights reserved by the author.

 

 

| KINGDOM | ABOUT US | BOOKS | SCULPTURES | MUSIC |

| SHOPPING CART | CUSTOMER SERVICE | 
| GLOSSARY OF TERMS | OPEN OUR EYES | NEWSLETTERS |

| BEYOND WORDS | YOUR EYES |

| KNOWLEDGE LINKS | NEW BEGINNINGS | WHAT'S GOING ON |

 

©A.B.N. Enterprises, 1999-2008, all rights reserved. The words

African By Nature are registered trademarks of A.B.N. Enterprises.

Copyright