Talk:Black supremacy/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Original version of the article

This is the original version of this article, which was replaced by a differing opinion:

Some believe that there is no such thing as black supremacy; if there were, "Black Supremacy" groups, the government would have intervened. If anything, it's more like Black mobilization after centuries of brutality by whites. Black people want to live free of the continued subjective internalized hatred that they are met with on a daily basis. This hatred towards Blacks is were the Black Panthers and the Black Muslim party sprung from; not any notion of black supremacy. The white groups adhere to the supremacy as a way on instilling their racialized mytholgies of supremacy due to skin color.

I have re-inserted these comments into the article, editing them to present them as a point of view under the NPOV policy. -- Anon.

I disagree. We must not present these statements as facts. Some irrational people truly believe that the world is flat, but this has no place as an equal point of view in an article on the Earth. Rather, that point of view should only be a minor point in an entry; this point should then link to a section on paranoia, pseudo-science and conspiracy theories. Simiarly, some American blacks (a very small percent of the community, to be sure.) deny that racism exists in the black community. They sometimes claim that some supposed pro-white government wouldn't allow these black supremacists to exist. This claim is just plain false, as well as a bit paranoid, and only tells us that some people really are too deep into conspiracy theory. Other black racists in America claim that racism can only exist among those with political power and money, and since blacks (on the average) earn less than whites, black people by definition cannot be racist. Obviously, this claim is incoherent as well as. Plenty of black people have money and power; and plenty of black people are racist. I have personally witnessed black Nation of Islam rallies which were scary as hell, due to the hatespeech they spewed towards all white people, as well as Jews and mainstream blacks. RK
I concur with you that this article should mention the existence of these beliefs, but the article should not imply that this is a mainstream view among black people. They should be presented as a minority view, usually spread by the Nation of Islam and the New Black Panthers; the article should then link to the proper sections on racism and conspiracy theory. RK
Hold up a minute. These views were never presented as being part of the black mainstream --though, in my experience, they are far more widely held to some degree than a lot of nonblacks would suspect -- which is precisely why I thought such an article would/should be of interest to Wiki readers. And, no. Not all folks who subscribe to all or some of, say, Melanin Theory or Frances Cress Welsing's Theory of Color Confrontation, are members of organized groups -- not by far. Many are relatively apolitical black folks. Don't try to pigeonhole people into readily identifiable organizations because you think they fit a particular mold or because it makes you comfortable to write them off as lunatics. Black people are no different from anyone else -- e.g., not all white folks who believe in black inferiority/white supremacy are memberse of the KKK or some other group -- not by far. I've got to get back to work, and so I haven't read any of the changes. But I'll do so later on in the week, after I've knocked out a couple of deadlines. deeceevoice 14:16, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please feel free to do so. I also invite the original poster to comment more on this. -- Anon.

No such thing as black supremacy?

I removed this paragraph until someone can re-write it:

Some people believe that there is no such thing as "black supremacy"; they believe that if there were, "Black Supremacy" groups, the government would have intervened. If anything, they consider it to be more like Black mobilization after centuries of brutality by whites. They say "Black people want to live free of the continued subjective internalized hatred that they are met with on a daily basis". According to them, this hatred towards Blacks is what the Black Panthers and the Black Muslim party sprung from; not any notion of black supremacy. In their opinion, the white groups adhere to the supremacy as a way on instilling their racialized mytholgies of supremacy due to skin color.

I removed it simply because it does not make sense. Are the "some people" in question claiming that Blacks are not superior to Whites; that no race is superior to any other race; or that there is no organized movement among Blacks that espouses "Black supremacy?" Who exactly are these people -- do they themselves representa a movement? Are they historians? Politicians?

Also, I don't get the "debate" over the origin of the BP. Yes, it is a question whether the BP officially espoused Black supremacy -- I do not know, this is a straightforward empirical question. But this paragraph is trying to account for the origins of the BP -- certainly it is possible that BP arouse BOTH as a response to White racism AND as a celbration of Black supremacy. I am not saying this is the case, I am just saying that they two "causes" are by no means mutually exclusive.

Also, does any one know more history? I cannot believe this article begins with the 1960s -- shouldn't Marcus Garvey at least be mentioned? Slrubenstein

Garvey's UNIA was not a black supremacist movement and did not teach/preach black superiority over whites. Ditto for the Black Panther Party for Self-defense and the Nation of Islam. deeceevoice 21:18, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The BHI information is obviously cut and pasted since the contributor didn't bother to even remove the "31" footnote number. But I don't find it with Google. -- Zoe

Melanin: superconductor vs. semiconductor

There's been an interesting exchange in Superconductor with regard to an egregious cognitive glitch I made in editing this piece. (I meant to explain that, contrary to Melanin Theory, melanin is a semiconductor, rather than a superconductor. Instead, I continued to use "superconductor" (which makes no sense). I've since recognized my error and made the appropriate changes in this article and related others. I also did some checking on the Internet with regard to Melanin Theory. There are references to it on various Afrocentric websites that properly refer to melanin as a semiconductor, so I have to assume that the "superconductor" business is simply a corruption/misapprehension of MT that has taken place over time. I've also made appropriate edits in this article to reflect this fact. deeceevoice 12:07, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Melanin and Parkinson's disease

Can anyone provide information on whether or not there is any correlation between levels of melanin in the skin and in the substantia nigra? Appended to a paragraph on Parkinson's and melanin is the statement, " Possibly related, there is also a higher incidence of Parkinson's disease in whites than in blacks." I wrote this because a "race"-based variation in the incidence of the disease pointed to a possible correlation. But I could find nothing of this on the Internet. Someone in another discussion raised this point (rather intemperately), and some clarification would be useful. If there definitively is none, then the piece should definitively state that. deeceevoice 09:47, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Go get this book In the blood: god, genes, and destiny by Steve Jones. On pg. 193 he mentions there are "suggestive but inconclusive" associations between melanin and resistance to Parkinson's Disease. As far as I know that's the only reference I found. Maybe somebody will find more source from this reference. I wouldn't add it in outright though as it can very well be heresay Wareware 11:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hm-m. Interesting. Thanks. Guess the poster in the melanin forum was just blowing steam and didn't know what the hell he was talking about. I'm not famililar w/Jones, but I Googled him. I don't think Jones' information would be "hearsay"; he's a well respected scientist and author. I think I'll add it to the article, and perhaps someone else more familiar with the subject can expand on it, if they so desire. deeceevoice 11:47, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What I meant was that we don't know in what context Steve Jones was talking about this correlation between melanin and Parkinson's. He could very well be repudiating this notion. Again, the only source I knew that Steve Jones wrote something about this was from a two-sentence mention from Afrocentrism by Stephen Howe. So we basically don't really know if Steve Jones is supporting, disapproving, writing from original research, or simply mentioning this correlation. I'm not challenging his credentials or position, it's just that we simply don't know the context. I guess that means somebody needs to pick up the book and actually turns to that page. Wareware 00:49, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Again, somebody needs to pick up the book and find in what context is Steve Jones talking about the relationship between melanin and Parkinson's disease. I'm afraid mentioning his name and the quote is not enough and may be very misleading. Wareware 04:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits reverted by Deeceevoice

I changed and then you reverted the section:

"Melanin is, in fact, an organic semiconductor. It is also a neuropeptide, a polymeric substance that conducts electrical impulses in the neural networks of some living creatures, including humans. It also mediates the conduction and absorption of light and heat. As such, it is the subject of intense interest in biotech research and development, most notably in plastic electronics and nanotechnology. Researchers postulate that melanin, in both its organic and synthesized forms, may be among a number biopolymers that one day could routinely supplant conventional, inorganic materials like gallium arsenide and silicon in some high-tech devices such as microchips."

This is just incorrect misinformation I'm afraid.... Firstly melanin and other organic semiconductors will never be used as a substitute for GaAs or Si in microchips. ever. The electron mobility in organic molecules is just far too low. It is not a substitute for these materials in any way. Secondly where is melanin used in nanotechnology? Really I don't think that it is at all, or ever has been. Also you are misapplying the word "biotechnology" here as this field has nothing to do with organic semiconductors. The sentence " It also mediates the conduction and absorption of light and heat." really REALLY needs to go, it is completely irrelevant to any applications of melanin either commercially or biologically and is worded very improperly for a scientific statement. Furthermore it is not entirely clear that melanin "conducts electrical impulses in the neural networks of some living creatures..."

Now on to your other reversion: "There are some blacks who today believe that, because blacks are the most ancient human beings on Earth"

What I object to here DC, is not that "black people" (more appropriately, Africains) were the first humans to arrive in the evolutionary tree, it is the statement that "blacks are the most ancient human beings on Earth" which needs a bit of a tweaking. To say that black people today are more or less "ancient" than other racial groups implies a "static state" of evolution which simply does not exist. We have all been evolving since the first humans appeared and current "blacks" are likely just as far (evolutionarily speaking) from the first "ancient" humans as say...south east asians are.

I really must insist upon citations if we are to keep the reversion you applied to the melanin/semiconductor section though. (ps. I hope,HOPE that you aren't getting your info from this [1] crazy site. That site is so full of scientific inaccuracy and outright falsehood it makes me feel dirty just linking to it! :o) It's made by some guy who calls himself a doctor and sells all sorts of crazy hair growth potions [2].--Deglr6328 00:02, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I haven't even bothered to follow the link you provided, because I don't think it has anything to do with where I retrieved my information. I've been visiting a number of sites on the web to obtain information. The 2004 International Symposium on Environmental Nanotechnology featured at least one presentation on the use of (plant-derived) melanin in nanotechnology. Google it; you'll find articles and references to melanin films (nanocoatings and nanocells). I've seen references to nanotech and melanin dealing with innovations in the textile and clothing industry and all sorts of potential applications -- including as a polymeric coating in microchips. Melanin (plant- and animal based, synthetic and natural) is an "amorphous semiconductor threshold switch," that electroluminesces when it switches. This has been known for 30 years. (If you dispute/question this basic information, I'm pretty sure I can dig up a link to the article, if you'd like.) This research website at the University of Queensland, Australia, may be of interest. They are focusing on melanin research, investigating in a wide variety of possible applications, including nanotech:
I also contributed info in this vein to the article on melanin. There may be something there that I haven't mentioned here.
With regard to the business about black people being the oldest humans on the planet, it is true in the sense that the very first human beings were black Africans. Geneticist Spencer Wells, who specializes in genetics and population studies (The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey), describes San (bushmen) has having "oldest DNA on the planet"). Now, I know, of course, that humankind has changed somewhat over time, but that's hardly the point. I am describing a belief grounded in scientific fact. The same is true with Melanin Theory. It's a postulation grounded in scientific fact. It may be hogwash; it may be "pseudoscience," but it is what it is. It is not presented here as fact; merely presented and explained.
I've got some terrible deadlines this weekend and early into the week. But I'll check back for questions, comments, when I can. Hope you find my response at least somewhat helpful. And sorry if I, perhaps, haven't addressed all your issues; but I'm really pressed for time at the moment. Peace. deeceevoice 03:43, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You said- "I am describing a belief grounded in scientific fact. The same is true with Melanin Theory. It's a postulation grounded in scientific fact. It may be hogwash; it may be "pseudoscience," but it is what it is. It is not presented here as fact; merely presented and explained."
Uhhh, say again? It was indeed presented here as fact. And it was quite wrong. One single article does not constitute "intense interest in biotech research and development, most notably in plastic electronics and nanotechnology." It is really currently quite a backwater in conductive organic compound research, there are materials with far better properties for research purposes.
also, you say "Now, I know, of course, that humankind has changed somewhat over time, but that's hardly the point. I am describing a belief grounded in scientific fact." huh? That IS the point! Something is either scientifically factual or it is not. Saying that "black people are more ancient" than other groups is inaccurate. Perhaps certain aspects of current african inhabitants have changed less (retention of dark skin for instance) since ancient times, than other racial groups (say...eskimos) but that does not make current africans "more ancient". Perhaps it might be permissable to say (I'm not certain) that modern african people are more closely genetically related to these ancient groups but by definition, we are all modern humans today.
I trust that your knowlege in the areas of africain-american history are more accurate than mine though I am not so convinced regarding your knowledge about scientific issues. As you yourself recently admonished another user for being too obstinate saying "you can't know everything" perhaps we can have an agreement here that other users might know a bit more on the subject?--Deglr6328 04:35, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Deglr, reading comprehension. Melanin Theory is presented as precisely what it is -- and not as fact. And "one single article"? I read several different sites before I wrote the material on nanotechnology, semiconductivity, etc. I'm not wedded to any specific language in this piece, but I think it important to explain what black supremacy is and how it differs from white supremacy; also to explain what Melanin Theory is, how it relates to black supremacy, what is and is not known about the properties of melanin in this context, and how Melanin Theory is regarded by the mainstream -- all of which I have attempted to do. Before people start excising wholesale sections of text, it would be wise to discuss questions here. While I may not have a perfect understanding of the scientific aspects of melanin research, I've at least done reading from various sources on the subject. Have you? deeceevoice 01:16, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes I have actually. To be honest I couldn't possibly care less about the difference between white/black supremacy, it bores me utterly and I'd much rather leave those battles to those who care about such things. Again, CITE articles where you are getting your information if you're gettting it from the web. It only takes a few seconds! I am concerned here, merely with the scientific accuracy of portions of the article which relate to hard science. As it was, there were egregious errors in the science content of this article. They're mostly gone now, as someone else removed them. What caused me to initially suspect there was inaccurate science content in this and other articles, was your insistance in the superconductor article that melanin is a SUPERconductor (and you reacted rather nastily when your edit was rightly reverted, to the point that you instantly suggested racism was at work and began to actually antagonize other users, suggesting that they "check themselves"). Your admission that this was an error on your part is fine and good but it betrays what I suspected was a deeper ignorace of science in general(which is of course NO BIG DEAL, we're all ignorant in certain areas, I'm the first to admit). No one versed in common scientific knowledge, let alone the specific and complex conductive polymer science and semiconductor/superconductor science would EVER make, and then insist upon such a claim. It stuck out like a sore thumb to us who edit that page. Unfortunately my suspicions were confirmed when I came here and to the melanin article. When I removed a statment that melanin might someday replace GaAs and Si semiconductors (an utterly preposterous idea to anyone who knows anything about semiconductors) and you then replied with a revert and the comment "never say never", I thought we might be in for a bit of a quibble here. The statment "never say never" is generally not one used in the scientific arena, physical law strictly forbids certain events from occuring and "never" is in fact a perfectly apt word to use sometimes. Anyway, I implore you to be a bit more willing to compromise on edits to these articles. I know after you've contributed a great deal to an article it's difficult not to feel a certain sense of ownership over it. However none of us owns these articles, they are everyones and as the bottom of the page does say "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it".--Deglr6328 03:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've already explained how that error occurred; believe it or don't. See my later comments regarding the science of melanin and technology, melanin and deafness. My reactions have absolutely nothing to down with a sense of "ownership." With regard to my lack of understanding of science, I'll be interested to read your responses to the information I've posted below. I haven't taken the time to read the changes made in the article, but I suspect I'll be retoring a good deal of the information when I do. You seem inordinately and unwisely fond of tossing around words like "bizarre" and "preposterous." When I find the time to hunt up the passage about melanin replacing gallium arsenide and silicon, I'll provide the link. deeceevoice 00:54, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A separate argument: superiority of the black race

Deleted and/or Edited:

It its simplest form, black supremacy is the belief in the inherent superiority of the "black race." Historically, however, it has manifested itself as a tool in framing an intellectual and conceptual dialectic (in the Hegelian sense) that has been utilized as a kind of liberation theology for the societally marginalized and oppressed. In neither its intellectual nor its political context, however, is black supremacy -- as many nonblacks are inclined to believe -- mere sophistry; it is a strongly held notion. Even so, it is little more than an intellectual construct. Author and social commentator bell hooks (1995, p.154) writes...White supremacy, in contrast, has been historically— and remains today— a political ideology, a worldview, the power of which is projected outward as an instrument of dominance and oppression to preserve, protect and regain white hegemony, white power and white privilege. The power and pervasiveness of white supremacy are such that even people of color, whose intrinsic worth it devalues, may subscribe to it. This internalization of a belief of a (usually) dominant group in the inherent inferiority of another group by members of that subject group generally is referred to as self-hatred. Based on an understanding of power and ethnicity such as that expressed by hooks, there is no such thing as black supremacy, per se, as a corollary of white supremacy; it simply does not exist. But black supremacy as a core belief in the inherent superiority of indigenous peoples of Sub-Saharan and West Africa and their progeny has been a fairly marginal, but growing, school of thought among blacks for 75 years or more in the modern era.

What's this apologist drivel? Simplifying world politics, economy, and history into black-white context is simplistic to the point that it is confusing. What is the point of this passage? All we need to what black supremacy is, what are its tenets, who believes in it, what has changed, not some dense drivel that goes into semantics and doesn't really have a clear-cut definition or reasoning to it Wareware 01:29, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Still stalking me, eh? And another incivil reaction. You will note I was not the individual who included the quote by bell hooks; it was part of the article when I came to it. But I do agree with its inclusion and hooks' explanation. It is not "apologist." It, as well as subsequent passages, makes a very important point that black supremacy is not white supremacy in blackface -- which is what very well could be the natural assumption of the reader. It is important that the differences be clearly explained. I won't have any other comment on your response on this matter, or on any other matter, until you learn to engage in civil discourse. deeceevoice 03:49, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Gawd, at least I wasn't the one having all those arguments with other contributors and the one being requested to act with civility from sysops. Teach me civil discourse will you, eh? Try looking into a mirror and see if you can see a savage yourself. Are you gonna respond or just blanket revert and adding all those pointless rant in the article? Wareware 05:48, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I do not presume to teach you anything; frankly, I've begun to doubt that you are even marginally trainable. "Savage"? I have responded, civilly and with specific information -- which is far more than you have done. deeceevoice 01:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Did you read anything I wrote? You haven't given any specific arguments except more semantics and "verbal diarrhea," as one user puts it. You're the one having all those heated arguments with other users, from afrocentrism, cool, to other assorted articles that had you have edited on, not me. You say you acted with civility, you gotta be kidding me. Is your reading comprehension way below average or do you need somebody to take the jungle out of you? Wareware 04:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Parkinson's disease / deaf cats / and semiconductors

I've made several changes to this section, most notable the removal of a bizzare section which included a mention of deaf white blue eyed cats. Deafness in this case is not a result of lack of melanin as was claimed, but instead is an unrelated conincidence of the "Dominant White Syndrome" "disease" in cats. See here:[3].--Deglr6328 04:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've been really busy lately and haven't had much time to read this piece -- or any piece on Wiki -- in detail lately. But I caught the word "bizarre" somewhere. That's very POV and should be changed. The notion of black supremacy is no more "bizarre" than the notion of white supremacy. And no matter what one may think of either of these ideas, the way to refute both is not to attach value-laden labels to them, but to conduct a scholarly examination of the facts, letting the facts speak for themselves. I find the subject of black supremacy intriguing for many reasons -- not the least of which is that it runs so diametrically counter to prevailing notions of white supremacy.

I don't think whites (or people, generally) know much about the foundations of modern-day black supremacy, so I think this is a great opportunity to examine the notion -- and to do so dispassionately and thoroughly. Tags like "bizarre" are not helpful and contribute absolutely nothing to the subject.

Now, with regard the science, the connection between melanin and deafness is not as crazy as you might think. This from the April 2, 1988 issue of the Hereditary Deafness Newsletter" on linkages between vitiligo (loss of pigmentation throughout the body, most noticeably in skin):


Vitiligo, an as yet unmapped mutation characterized phenotypically by progressive depigmentation, was screened for hearing loss using broadband freefield click-evoked auditory brainstem potentials as described above. Five vit/vit mutants and 5+/? littermate controls were tested. All five mutants showed moderate to severe elevation of hearing threshold. One of 5 mutants had a 40dB elevation, 3/5 had 60dB elevations and 1/5 had no response at 60dB HL (the highest stimulus intensity available in this particular testing paradigm). All animals have been fixed by intracardiac perfusion and histologic processing is in progress. These preliminary data suggest that the mutation Vitiligo is associated with a peripheral type deafness. (Rauch)

In the same journal, another lengthy treatment of "The pathogenesis of pigment anomaly-associated hereditary deafness" in mice:

In order to investigate the pathogenesis of pigment anomaly-associated hereditary deafness, we studied the black-eyed white mutant mice (gene symbol WWv. The WWv mutant mice belong to the white spotting category of inherited pigment abnormality. We used F1 hybrids WWv mice from the breeding pairs C57BL/6J-Wv with WB/ReJ-W (Jackson Laboratory). The amount of spotting is affected by the combination of the mutated genes and the genetic background. There are essentially two kinds of pigmentary anomalies: albinism on the one hand, where the synthesis of melanin is disturbed, resulting in a general lack of melanin including the eye, and the white spotting kind of abnormal pigmentation on the other hand, where the formation of melanocytes in the neural crest or the migration to the target organs is disturbed [emphasis added]. The mutants represent a model, where the inner ear lacks neural crest-derived melanocytes. At regular intervals from the 6th postnatal day to about 18 months of age, we examine the inner ears of 100 mutant mice with the block surface technique, including electron microscopy. The primary alteration in the inner ear appears to be located in the stria vascularis, which remain much thinner as normal; in the electronmicroscope at age 8d the stria of the mutant appears to be composed of only the marginal and basal cells, intermediate cells are missing [emphasis added]. An unequivocal identification of melanocytes is possible by demonstration of tyrosinase, the enzyme which is essentially responsible for the synthesis of melanin from Tyrosin and Dopa (Dihydroxyphenylalanin). We found tyrosinase-positive reactions in the golgi apparatus of intermediate cells of normal inbred mice (C57BL/6 and C3H/He), guinea pigs, cats and humans proving that intermediate cells are really melanocytes [emphasis added]. ... vimentin was seen to stain only the basal cells in the mutants, confirming our previous finding, that intermediate cells are lacking in this case of hereditary deafness [emphasis added].

The article also makes reference to similar findings with regard to intermediate cells and melanin in guinea pigs, cats and humans. And lest you be tempted to say this is some "crackpot" publication, the newsletter is published by the Royal National Institute for the Deaf (105 Gower Street, London, WC1E 6AH).

Thanks for the "dominant white syndrome" terminology. I googled it. According to this article, dominant white syndrome is directly related to melanin deficiency/absence. In "COLOR AND PATTERN ASSOCIATED DISORDERS IN THE GREAT DANE, by JP Yousha (August 2000), this:

...problems that are pigment related have to do with harlequin family breedings, and generally fall into two genetic categories, but both are associated with lack of pigment and a predominately white dog [emphasis added]. The first is color-related problems associated with the dominant Merle allele, and the second is color-related problems associated with the recessive Piebald allele(s). Both are spotting genes that increase the white on a dog-that is they both reduce the amount of pigment that dog has.

The Merle allele is an autosomal incomplete dominant mutation and a pleitropic allele that is believed to irregularly disrupt the maturation of the melanocytes, thus resulting in the typical "mottled" or "patched" appearance. Like von Waardenburg's Syndrome in humans, and various other "lethal dominant white genes" found in a wide variety of mammals, the Merle allele also can adversely affect various other bodily systems, most particularly the sensory system (i.e. eyes and ears), along with the integumentary system (i.e. skin and haircoat). Homozygous (MM)"double merle" or "white" Danes are usually deaf and may suffer from a variety of skin problems and eye anomalies, all associated with the general lack of pigment that results when the dog has two "doses" of the merle gene. This association is directly related to the lack of pigment, rather than having an absolutely straight-line association with the Merle allele. Any harlequin or merle (Mm) animal with the pigment severely reduced (less than 15% pigmented as a rule of thumb), or any animal lacking head pigment may very well also suffer from any of the problems listed below.

...with any predominately white animal, it would seem generally best for breeders to avoid producing and rearing such pups whenever possible, rather than face a situation requiring some time to pass for a complete and appropriate diagnosis, and likely requiring special training and/or special medical treatment [emphasis added].

Here's another article you may find interesting, a recapitulation of a presentation by George M. Strain, "Hereditary Deafness in Dogs and Cats: Causes, Prevalence, and Current Research," presented at the Tufts' Canine & Feline Breeding and Genetics Conference, October 2-4, 2003. Strain is with the Department of Comparative Biomedical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, Louisiana State University:

Strain writes in "Pigment Genes and Hereditary Congenital Sensorineural Deafness":

An association between deafness and blue-eyed white cats was noted as early as 1828, and Darwin commented on it in his famous publication The Origin of Species in 1859. Blue-eyed Dalmatians were noted for having deafness as early as 1896. So, the existence of a relationship between white pigmentation and deafness in dogs and cats is not new, and there is an extensive bibliography on the subject (Refs 6-12), but the mechanism behind the relationship has only recently begun to be understood.

It seems your entire approach to this section is based on an assumption that I subscribe to the Melanin Theory and that I have set about finding isolated examples to bolster that hypothesis. Nothing could be further from the truth with regard to my research. In fact, that I can readily find so many references that state essentially the same thing would seem to indicate that selective reading has been your approach to this subject -- not mine.

The fact is I find the subject intriguing -- enough to do quite a bit of reading on the subject before attempting to write anything at all about it. I certainly do not consider myself to be an authority on melanin at all -- not in semiconductors or plastic eletronics research. And because I am not, I've read numerous articles online regarding the subject where melanin research figures prominently -- including in research regarding deafness. I keep an open mind and find such things absolutely fascinating. What I contributed to this piece I see as objective fact. Melanin Theory exists; that's a fact. That melanin is an organic semiconductor currently being widely researched in a number of fields, including plastic electronics, is fact. (The 2000 Nobel Prize for Chemistry was awarded to a trio of scientists involved in such research.) That melanin deficits are linked to deafness and to Parkinson's is fact. That Melanin Theory is generally discounted outright by the scientific community is also fact. The business about melanin potentially replacing gallium arsenide and silicon in microchips is also something I got directly off a credible scientific site on the web. Melanin has been proven to be a natural electrical "switch" of sorts -- that emits a flash of light when it switches on, for God's sake. Modern-day scientists would have to be plain stupid not to study its application in such electronics applications as microchips (it's lighter, less bulky and a hell of a lot cheaper in its synthetic form than other materials currently in use) and other applications.

It makes perfect sense that beause melanin conducts neuronal impulses, loss of melanin and or/damage to melanocytes can result in hearing impairment. The same with Parkinson's disease and other disease states with Parkinsonian symptoms characterized by loss of neuromoter control related to dopamine and dopaminurgic production of melanin.

Now, how all that relates to theories, beliefs, lore about presumed black supremacy is, obviously, a matter of contention. Again, the article as I wrote it made no statement about the validity or fallacy of Melanin Theory -- except that the scientific community generally regards it as less than worthy of addressing. But the facts are the facts.

I'm back to work. I'll tend to this article at a later date. deeceevoice 22:25, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are you aware that all mainstream scientists consider all this talk about "Melanin science" to be nonsense, and many scientists consider it to be racist nonsense? What you are decribing are less than fringe views. They are better described as views that do not exist within the scientific community at all'. RK 00:05, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Incorporate teachings not as science, but as part of black supremacist doctrine

Im not a specialist in genetics or genetical diseases, but if those informations are accurate, you might want to include them into the article about Albinism.

Since this article is about Black supremacy, it might be more appropriate to elaborate the melanin theories in context of black supremacist doctrines.

I think some people generally use tags like "bizarre" because most black supremacist doctrines are indeed based on bizarre theories. For one, many melanin theorists continuously imply that melatonin or neuromelanin are responsible for skin color.

Second, many Black supremacists strongly believe in a strict black/white dichotomy and equate the Caucasian/white race with Albinino. Most prominent example is probably Frances Cress Welsing, and her therories about the origin of the "albino mutants with defective skins" (white people), and her doctrine that whiteness is a "disease".

"The quality of whiteness is a genetic inadequacy or a relative genetic-deficiency state or disease upon the genetic inability to produce the skin pigments of melanin which are responsible for all skin coloration. The psychological reaction of whites has been directed toward all people with the capacity to produce the melanin skin pigments. However, the most profound aggressions have been directed toward the Black, `nonwhite' peoples who have the greatest potential and therefore are the most envied and the most feared in genetic competition." (The Cress Theory of Color-Confrontation and Racism" by Dr. Frances Cress Welsing)

"The original rejection by, the Black mothers and Black fathers in Africa of the albino, white, mutant offspring, were forced to try to love themselves if they were to survive; but they could not arrive at a point of true self-acceptance and self-esteem because there was never parental and group acceptance or validation at the time whites mutated from the Black parents.
The failure, if not refusal, to perceive, the repressed conceptualization of the white self as, the albino offspring from Black progenitors, is an inability to place the "white self" in the total perspective of the "hue-man" family and the totality of the Universe, without admission of the genetic defective status of skin whiteness." (The Isis Papers - the Keys to the Colors," by Dr. Frances Cress Welsing)
"It talks about people migrating north and therefore losing color. I maintain that’s not at all what happened. They lost the color through a genetic mutation to albinism, which genetics defines as a genetic deficiency state and they were forced out of Africa into Europe. Scientists who classify themselves as White don’t want to say [this]. You can’t simultaneously think White is superior and then say that White is a genetic deficiency state" (An interview with Dr. Francis Cress Welsing published by News)

She even states that male homosexuality is an "attempt to incorporate into the white male body more black substance by either sucking the penis of another male and orally ingesting the semen" while he "may fantasize that he can produce a product of color" which would make him "genetically equal to the Black male".

If all that is not "bizarre", then I honestly don't know what it is. Pharlap 01:30, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pharlap, you are correct. Among scientists who know about this issue, they do not consider it merely incorrect. They consider it racist pseudoscience. These views, fortunately, do not exist within the scientific community. RK 00:05, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

A response:

The information I presented in my original additions on melanin belongs here, because such information forms the foundations of Melanin Theory, which is an element of black supremacy. I mean if I were reading this article and thought the notion of black supremacy was "bizarre," I'd certainly be interested in how the hell anyone could possibly believe such nonsense, what the foundational knowledge or premises were and whether there was any truth in such claims. I also briefly introduced this information (in a primarily scientific context) a segment in melanin. You didn't object to it before on the basis that it was irrelevant -- because it is not. You simply said it wasn't factual -- but now I've proven that it, in fact, most certainly is. And, because it belongs in this piece and because I've provided more than sufficient documentation regarding the scientific facts in discusses, it should, and will be, restored.

I likely will do a completely separate article on Melanin Theory (as indicated in the "see also" section. As well, I've stated my intention to do a piece on Frances Cress Welsing's Theory of Color Confrontation -- one of these days. Perhaps, since you've followed the "see also" list to info on the ToCC, you will share what you've learned in such an article -- or begin one yourself. It's been a while since I've read anything of hers, but she still lectures regularly on white supremacy, and her ideas are still being disseminated; so, folks should know something of the subject. (I don't know if her book is still in print.) Finally and again, regardless of what you or I (or others) think of these ideas, labeling them in such a way adds nothing to the discussion or the information; it is POV. It's our responsibility to present the information -- and to let the reader come to his or her own conclusions about what is and what is not "bizarre." I don't believe I've read any reference on Wiki to white supremacy as "bizarre." It's kind of humorous -- and very telling -- that nonblacks are so accustomed to the notion of black inferiority, that the converse, which parallels such a pervasive notion as white supremacy, is "bizarre"; yet white supremacy -- even if considered aberrant -- is de rigueur. The very idea that black folks -- the "lowest of the low" -- to whom racist, soul-sick, pathetic mental cretins like Wareware refer using "ape," "savage" and "jungle" references would consider themselves superior to white folks just enrages and outrages them. I understand perfectly how it's a real mind blower. But when it comes right down to it, it really pulls the sheets off. 'S crackin' me up. Gosh, knowledge is fun -- iddinit? :-p deeceevoice 13:41, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're so pathetic deeceevoice. You're the one having all those arguments on edits and civility and you accuse me of being a racist. What's your evidence besides my mentioning of apes as an insult to your character and behavior not race. Is that any worse than your insults of other editors and me("mental cretins", "intentionally obtuse", "stupid or otherwise in denial", "remotely trainable"...etc etc)? Give me a break, you pathetic louse. Black supremacy, just like any kind of supremacy, should enrage people and not to be diminished by reverse racism and whitewashing. You gotta be a fucking racist if you think otherwise. Wareware 19:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Ape." "Savage." "Jungle." "Big black momma." Blatantly racist comments. And the pathetic thing is you hasn't even the good sense/common decency to be ashamed. Most animals who feel as you do at least have the good sense to say such things in private. ROTFLMBAO. What a sorry, sick, foolish, little excuse for a human being you are. *shakin' my head* Dang. I must really get to you. :-D deeceevoice 18:12, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Man, do you read anything I've written? Can you even read? So I guess it's perfectly okay for you to hurl extremely acerbic insults to me and others but not okay for me to say a few things back that are perceived racist by the overly sensitive. Why the double standard, little racist sister? You poor little pathetic thing! I guess next time I'll have to be a bit more creative and come up with some politically-correct comments to match yours won't I? Now I feel like that Daily Bruin editor who was censured for calling that some obstinate and stupid opinion just sticks on like the stink on a monkey. Here, have a banana, it'll make you feel better :) Wareware 19:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're even more pathetic than I thought. You don't even know what racism is, apparently. I've not once directed racist rhetoric at you or anyone on Wikipedia. I challenge you to find a single instance. You can't. What? Don't like being despicable and wretched all alone? You need company -- so much so you're trying to paint me a "racist"? Don't hurt yourself. Trip on over to Stormfront. I'm sure they'd love to have you. Oops! My bad. No, I guess not. I forgot. You're not a member of the great white race -- are ya? I'm done with you. *x* You're beneath me. deeceevoice 19:22, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're dumber than an ape really. Do you understand anything I wrote? The one about double standard? Or are you just in denial? You gotta be kidding me if you are delusional to believe that you haven't hurl one racist insult (among a great many "non-racist" insults). Why don't you check Talk:Racism a while back for your racist rhetorics on penis length and intelligence (LMAO)? Or do you think black people can't be racist because they're black. If that's not racist then I don't what else is. Wareware 20:00, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note: The reference to genitalia was regarding the presumed size of my "balls" -- and was one which Wareware initiated, ASS-uming I was a male; not I. And, no, there was no correlation drawn to anyone's intelligence. deeceevoice 20:09, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gawd, that's a pathetic excuse. I don't think most people would bother to read anyone's user page and find out your gender before making a comment. You might very well be a robot or a bag of feces for all I care. Plus the balls is a reference to one's confidence and self-worth, as the argument in particular was that Afrocentrism would make black people feel better through its "therapeutic" qualities. I guess for some people sex is always on their minds that they ASS-ume the argument was about genitals. And then deeceevoice goes on to make the racist statement that mongoloids have small dicks, so I play the game to say that black people compensate their lack of intelligence (in civilization and technological achievement terms) by showing off the length of genitals. Who made the first racist remark? Is anyone more racist than the other? Like I said, some people just think black people can't be racist by the token they're black. Despicable double standard. Wareware 20:18, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Liar, liar. Pants on fire!" LOL. You're hilarious. Such crude language is not my style. I said no such thing! Folks who really care (and I doubt that many do) can find the discussion thread. I myself don't care to look it up, but why don't you provide the link, Wareware, since you're so obsessed with the matter? Could it be you'll find it too embarrassing? (Is that why you twice reverted the bold font of my comments? You're hoping people won't see them? :-p Too late, fool. They're part of the cyber record for posterity.) After all, I'm not the one who made the comment about smelly apes' testicles. :-p LMAO What? Afraid people will wonder, as I did, how it is that you purport to know about such things? (Just what were you doing down there, anyway? :-p) That they'll find out what a pathetic, racist, spiteful, small-minded, soul-sick little creep you are? I made light of one of your stupid, racist remarks, and you wound up looking like the horse's ass you are. So now you stalk me from forum to forum taking pot shots. You repeatedly put your foot in your mouth. Don't you learn? Guess not, 'cause now you're trying to project your sickness on to me. Ha! You want readers to know who's the racist (presuming they care at all)? Provide the link and let them read for themselves. Go ahead. I dare you. Everyone can use a laugh once in a while -- and God knows your Wiki antics are just funny as hell. deeceevoice 06:27, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Race/Archive 14, everyone go on a have a laugh at the ape (scroll to the one about egyptians). Check out how deecee just leaves and calls me a racist when confronted with the cruel reality about africans. Pathetic Wareware 07:37, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gee, thanks. Now everyone can see you for the pathetic thing you are. "Leave?" I got bored with the hassle and blatant intellectual dishonesty. With all the photos available of bonafide Egyptian artifacts with indisputably black Africanoid images, the best you guys could come up with was some incredibly mediocre, cartoonish artist's rendering from the cover of The Crisis? Laughable -- and so obvious. deeceevoice 07:58, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)