This post is written by blogger Lumumba Afrika. He makes a very strong argument about why the “one drop rule” is outdated. This is a belief that is catching on as many black people realize that they are not benefitting from this belief. A belief that was started by white people during slavery. We have accepted their pseudoscience as though it is the gospel truth. Is the one drip rule outdated? Is this pseudoscience? Do you think it’s a form of colorism? The video is by YouTube/blogger Bhekizitha. Read the post and watch the video and let me know your thoughts.
It took me a year to finally accept this conclusion. I had an argument with a YouTuber concerning this issue in reference to a video he posted entitled “Just because you got black in you.” He proceeded to say that racially mixed people (i.e. people with parents from two distinctly different racial groups with one being Black/Afrikan) are not Afrikan and I predictably had an emotional argument referencing the systematic rape that occurred to Afrikans perpetrated by whites (Europeans) in the USA which resulted in the wider spectrum of skin colour seen in the Afrikan population in the US today. However, after failing to convince him and unsubscribing from his channel, I had several months to listen to interviews and read a lot of material, historical, biological, sociological, and political. I eventually reached the conclusion that indeed he is correct. Hybridized people are not Afrikan and should not be accepted as such.
Before you throw around the term “racist”, let me define the term as per my understanding, The terms “racism” and “racist” are actually misnomers. The phenomena should more accurately be termed “ethnocentric economic protectionism for the purposes of seeking, securing and wielding wealth and power”. Understandably, with this more accurate term, it is more convenient for the “racists” to use the former terminology because it deftly conceals the true nature of the phenomenon and makes confused, naive, and unsuspecting people believe that “anyone can be racist” because they treat someone of another race or more appropriately termed “geno-cultural group” (Baruti, 2006), rudely or make disparaging comments about them. Moreover, the more academically accepted terms “white supremacists” and “white supremacy” are actually not a correct terms either, although from a eurocentric point of view these terms do surreptitiously stimulate the “utamaroho” (Ani, 1994), of Europeans and people classified as white, these terms are nevertheless used to describe the phenomenon in critical race theory and other fields of study. The appropriate terms are actually either “white world domination by terror” (Kambon, 2006) or “white hegemony”. This is an ideology that holds that whites are better, smarter, and more capable producers and managers of wealth than non-white people, and specifically those categorized as black. Hence it justifies by any means necessary the total destruction of any successful model of development independent of whites or without white people leading, organizing and directing it. The logic of this racial hierarchical model proceeds downward with each racial group being more adept at this activity than the lower caste. This ideology informs the system of “white supremacy” that is presently masquerading as globalism. Therefore, it is impossible for a non-white victim (and especially Afrikans) of this system to be a racist, practice racism, be a white supremacist, white hegemonist, or participate in white ethnocentric economic protectionism or “white world domination by terror” in any way that ultimately benefits his or her existence within his or her geno-cultural group and the group as a whole entity as such.
So back to why mulattoes are not Afrikan. Firstly, I would like to posit the view that mulattoes are genome terminator entities, meaning that they can’t reproduce themselves like their respective parents can if they had have mated with one of their own geno-cultural group. A mulatto must mate with another mulatto to reproduce themselves or else their offspring reverts back towards whichever geno-cultural group they have chosen to mate with or they create another hybridised offspring should they decide to mate with another hybridised person or someone from a geno-cultural group which is not one of their parents. Hence their genome pattern cannot maintain structural integrity and they terminate. This is actually the strongest argument for why mulattoes are not Afrikan. Every other geno-cultural group on the planet knows this including the hybridised groups such as the Arabs. The Hispanic/Latinos are another matter which I will address later. I won’t discuss the Indians of South Asia (see the talk by Dr. Velu Annamalai – “Dali: The Black Untouchables of India” on YouTube) but one could reasonably compare my discussion below of the Hispanic/Latinos with that of the Indians, although it is not entirely the same. Other geno-cultural groups never accept a hybrid as one of them. This DOES NOT mean that they treat the hybrid unkindly or should do so in all cases, nor does it mean that the hybrid cannot participate in economic or educational opportunities. However, at the level of strategic power in which the lives and destiny of the geno-cultural group are at stake, hybrids have no place, no relevant voice in matters such as these as they are not part of the geno-cultural group’s GENETIC survival. This is an error that Afrikan people have made. They have assumed that because of “racist” practices of other geno-cultural groups to cast off their hybrids among us, even when they have been created but not fully accepted among the ranks of others, and furthermore the other groups made rules about why they have done so, (i.e. the one drop rule), we have felt an obligation to accept them which has resulted in a non-exclusive preachment befalling the Afrikan geno-cultural group. This failure to address who is Afrikan and who is not has left us vulnerable to infiltration, not only by hybrids, but by non-Afrikans under the false claim that they are too Afrikan because they were either born on the Afrikan continent, they have some distant ancestor who participated in or was raped into producing a hybrid, or they cling to an as yet unproven theory of the “out of Afrika hypothesis” of human origin founded with the propagation of Darwin’s THEORY of evolution. This has left Afrikan people without a codified set of standards, rules and regulations about who is an Afrikan and has exposed us to confused mulattoes seeking a constituency and other unscrupulous interlopers seeking to dominate us.
It was part of racist practices of our enemies to create a one-drop rule. White men did it so they wouldn’t have to legally and formally acknowledge the offspring they had as a result of raping Afrikan women and mulattoes. In fact, I would submit that non-Afrikans who pursue sexual relations with Afrikan people are practicing ethnocentric economic protectionism by way of furthering the social hegemonic aspect of this system, albeit it in a vulgar, perverted, and insidiously biologically destructive way. These people know full well that at present Afrikan people are the least respected geno-cultural group on the planet, so they are seeking to fulfill a need to feel superior to someone through a sexual encounter (which is one of the most vulnerable situations, psychologically and spiritually, a victim of this assault can engage in) which is done most likely due to a sense of inferiority in the non-Afrikan’s own geno-cultural group, or the perpetrators are inherently lustful and perverted and seek to satisfy carnal sexual fetishes at the expense of the non-geno-cultural other, in this case the Afrikan.
The Afrikan geno-cultural group is under no obligation through this behaviour to “accept” mulatto offspring as part of our geno-cultural group anymore than other geno-cultures. It is due to our relative powerlessness and refusal to strictly define who is an Afrikan that has lead to this confusion. Afrikans as part of our liberation and industrial renaissance of Afrikan civilisation, must codify and institutionalise a valid definition of who is an Afrikan. I would suggest reading Chinweizu’s discussion of the “mirror test” for some insight into this matter (Chinweizu, 2006).
Now concerning the so-called Hispanics or Latinos. The term Hispanic simply means a person who speaks Spanish. It is not a racial classification. Therefore, since Spain is in Europe, Hispanics are primarily European white people. The victims of the conquistadors, who were forced to speak the language are largely the remnants of the indigenous nations which were extant in the Americas prior to invasion from Europe. There has been massive hybridization due to the forced rape practiced by the Europeans and the voluntary rape that results from having been conquered wherein both women and men seek to relate in an intimate way with the geno-cultural group that represents power and control in the imposed society. Latino is a Spanish word that means Latin. Latin is another now defunct language that was spoken in Europe. So the two terms to refer to this group are European languages in origin which have nothing to do with the heritage culture of the preponderance of people in the Americas that these terms indicate. Latin or Latino is used because that was the language of the political theological institution (the Catholic Church) used to repress the minds and cultural rituals of the victims of the colonial enterprise in order to make a more docile population able to be exploited efficiently. Detractors or rebels of the theological doctrine were tortured or killed, so this created a fervent adherence to the religion closely intertwined with one’s own survival which we still see presently. Today in this population, since those people who speak Spanish in the Americas are from various origins (i.e. Afrika, Europe, and indigenous American nations), it cannot be said that these people are a distinct race. In fact the archetypical “Latino” or “Hispanic” is actually a hybridised person who is conditioned in a false consciousness to identify with the colonial culture that was cultivated by European settler-conquerors. Within this group there are still enclaves that have retained their indigenous language and cultural practices, but for racist reasons they are labeled as “Latino/Hispanic” to again stimulate the utamaroho of the European descendants and immigrants that are interspersed in this population, so that they feel a sense of comfort knowing that the language still reflects their own worldview and identity. The majority of the hybrids in this population are victims, and some have reproduced to the degree that they can be considered a distinct geno-cultural group or race, but they have not as yet organized themselves in such a manner mainly because they are still prisoners of the European colonial social construct. Additionally, given the imperial reliance on their economic activity as a source for raw materials, cheap labor, and consumption markets, they are victimized economically and therefore cannot undertake the necessary steps to develop themselves in this way. Moreover, they still have confused Afrikans (who are decedents of enslaved Afrikans and are still repressed by both the hybrids, and Europeans) suffering from a false consciousness within their midst, as well as Europeans that are desperately trying to maintain their colonial relationship and keep enact their white hegemonist system of exploitation. Therefore, the people known as “Hispanic/Latinos” contain people on the spectrum of hybridised individuals, culturally mis-oriented Afrikans, indigenous nationals, and criminal Europeans attempting to persist in the maintenance of the monstrosity they have created.
On the other hand the Arabs have been able to organize themselves into a geno-cultural group. This was largely done 1400 years ago through the development of their own political theological institution known as Islam which is simply Arab Christianity (Popp, 2010). Even though there are hybrids contained in the Arab population, they are either historical hybrids produced in antiquity when these white groups invaded Kemet (Egypt) and created offspring with Afrikan women, or they are offspring of the degenerate Arabs that have kidnapped Afrikan women in the present era and used them for their perverted pleasure as sex slaves. The hybrids they create are used to oppress Afrikans in Afrika and promote the expansion of Arab nationalism (i.e. Islam), even though these hybrids are repressed and discriminated as not really being Arabs themselves. It is a psychological phenomenon that is a result of both hybridization and power relationships being enforced by the Arabs on their Black Afrikan victims which compels the hybrids’ fealty to the white Arab dominators. The hybrids see the true Afrikans as powerless so even though they are mistreated by their fathers’ geno-cultural group, they feel the power that is available and the superior social and economic position they have as Arab identified hybrids, gives them the motivation to mistreat the Afrikans in a brutal way for their fathers’ people. So since these two groups, the Arabs and Hispanic/Latinos, are organised for white power and whites have used sexual predatory practices to attack their victims and consolidate their control, it does not mean that the hybrids are white, nor does it mean that their non-white status is a basis of solidarity with Afrikans. This is a MAJOR historical point that Afrikans have missed, refuse to accept, or have been deliberately mis-educated from knowing. The multiplicity of these factors has brought about the MASSIVE confusion about this matter. The subject is so sensitive that to even broach the topic with many Afrikans will result in emotional outbursts and vicious name-calling instead of calm deliberation and effective implementation of the proper provisions that would protect Afrikans from being used as the world’s sexual toilet and dumping ground.
Lastly, and this is a radical position, I don’t think that Afrikans and Europeans, or for that matter other geno-cultural groups, are the same “species”. Now before you levy a charge of “Eugenics”, I am arguing that the criteria and hence the definition of “THE human species” is incorrect and specifically culturally derived from European culturally structured thought (Ani, 1994) to serve political purposes and a quest for power. One of the main criterion for Europeans arguing that now (after several previous theories about the sub-human status of Afrikans and other races) humans are one species and there is “no such thing as race” is that different geno-cultural groups or these “non-existent races” can breed with one another, hence if two biological entities can procreate together it supports the likelihood that they are part of the same species, whereas if two biological entities cannot breed, for example a cat and a bird, then they are two different species. This notion is absolutely absurd. I think far too much emphasis has been placed on the breeding criterion and fact that whites and blacks for instance can have hybrid children and therefore, there is no difference other than skin colour between us and subsequently, we should then “not see colour” and accept all as human. This directive notwithstanding, in the Afrikan worldview and traditional Afrikan societies, Afrikans never posited the idea that people were “born human”. Human beings had to be developed through education and socialisation, and upon successful completion of this process, then the status of human was imparted upon an individual within the Afrikan socio-cultural context. (Baruti, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2009) It was not simply bestowed because one was born of a homo sapiens male and female. This is a distinct difference that exposes the cultural nature of Europeans’ scientific classification and purposes. Basically, I am arguing that Afrikans, Europeans, Asians, Amerindians, and other hybridised people constitute different species of the human “family”. The word “family” in this sense is of a biological grouping, not the emotionally laden image of mom and hugs from your grandmother that the colloquial use of the term “family” generates. I am not arguing for some “shiny happy people” view of humans on earth or that we should all start holding hands and be blind to the different interests of these geno-cultural groups and their different destinies. It is quite obvious that the Amerindian nation of North America had a decidedly different destiny than say the “Sinic” East Asians, so I purport that this fact is still present today, although hidden under universalist and globalist rhetoric. The main point is that if two species or types of humans from two separate and distant geno-cultural groups procreate, it stands to logic that the offspring is neither one or the other geno-cultural group, and thereby constitutes a new geno-cultural entity that must proceed to either develop a cohesive group with other hybrids, or must “disappear” back into one or the other parent’s geno-cultural group. Azania and its “coloured” population is a stark example of this phenomenon, as are the Arabs and Hispanic/Latinos, although to a lesser degree, that I mentioned before. Nevertheless, I will not take time now to argue whether or not the Afrikan parentage of humanity is valid, but suffice it to say that the present definitive difference in geno-cultures will remain until one or more are exterminated by another (which I am not advocating, but is nonetheless a possibility). So, under these conditions, for Afrikans to help promote and accelerate this process by claiming that all hybrids with one Afrikan parent are Afrikan and are not either a separate geno-cultural group, or are not Afrikan and are part of the other parent’s geno-cultural group, (because hopefully at some point we will have the consciousness and power of definition to codify and implement this idea into reality) is a recipe for extinction and assisted genocide.
Article written by Lumumba Afrika