The Isis Papers: The Keys to the Colors

I must indicate my probable bias - I'm an African American male however the intent of author and my goal in reading this work is truth and justice so it spite of our probable phenotypic biases we must attempt to reach the truth. That said these are my viewpoints of this book and its conclusions.

1.Prior to reading this book I was unaware of the most basic fact of what is known as race,
that the biochemical pigment melanin is what gives skin or the epidermis its appearance /color
and the absence of the pigment melanin is what white skin is and white skin is due to the biological phenomena of albinism.

While not having read every other work on race/phenotype, of the many I have read none with the exception of A.J.Rogers even begin to focus on this basic fact.

Or the genetic facts of dominance and (recessive or subordinate) traits for melanin are dominate and traits for albinism are subordinate. Therefore the African phenotype is the most dominant and the European phenotype is the most Subordinate these are the scientific facts behind the one drop rule as in one drop of black(melanin) blood(actually the offspring of any reproduction between a African / melanin male or female
and a albinic/European) makes you black

Ugliness
Currently great expense and a large profit is made from convincing everyone but especially
African/black people that every aspect of their phenotype - hair ,skin color ,features ,shape and size are ugly and inferior, yet after reading the Isis papers and other works and doing some of my own research
it appears to me that albinic people are aesthetically subordinate just as the traits of their phenotype is genetically subordinate (and I use the term/word subordinate instead of recessive because I think it is used in place of subordinate because its meaning and implications would be more obvious)

And these factors may be an explain the apparent difference Of motive/drive for dominance between Albinics /Whites and Melaninates /Blacks.

Also terminology and range; yes most "white" people still have melanin in their epidermis and in other parts of the body , but primarily the skin part of the epidermis is deficient of melanin.
They are not albino but albinic "partial albinism". But there is no word for partial albinism - albinic and who decides what and when a new word is used?
All the known dictionaries are owned and controlled by albinic people , no wonder most all of the meanings for the word black are negative and those for white are positive.

Dr.welsing names her work a thesis but the correct term is hypothesis.
Can a text about a controversial subject be made acceptable to everyone?
Can a hypothesis be objectively validated/or invalidated amongst conflicting sapiens
conflicting as in - lying , competing violently and error prone?

I have chosen and decided that science and its methodology is the most reliable, fair and
trustworthy means to comprehending reality and finding truth.

So I consider That in Evaluating Dr.welsing Hypothesis ,as well as anyone else's Hypothesis,statements and conculsions The Scientific Method is the best guide.

A lie can run for a whole year but the truth will catch it in a single day :African Proverb
- Mbeti The scholar -

It's quite interesting that some say that the material within this book is "absurd." Actually, this should be expected. I understand this dynamic because under the system of white supremacy, usually, the non-whites, when discussing race, are perceived as to always be complaining about their condition, for which many whites believe, is ultimately their own fault. Power always marginalizes opposition. This is why many of the books on race, if written by non-whites, aren't really given any degree of accreditation.If whites give their blessing, then an analysis, sush as The Isis Papers, is perceived to be okay.

What some people don't realize, however, is that many of the concepts, as asserted by Dr. Welsing, are also expressed in many books by "white" authors. Here are a few that either directly or indirectly express the fear of genetic annihilation as asserted by the Isis Papers:

1) The Passing of the Great Race, or the Racial Basis for European History (Madison Grant)

2) The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy (Lothrop Stoddard)

3) TAKE YOUR CHOICE: Separation or Mongrelization (Theodore G. Bilbo)

4) White America: The American Racial Problem as Seen in a Worldwide Perspective (Earnest Sevier Cox)

5) Mein Kampf (Adolf Hitler)

These few books, in a addition to others, talks, specifically, about the so-called dangers of mixing blood and the governmental policies that should help to prevent such activity. Many of these books, in addition, also talk about how non-white immigration will bring genetic destruction to the so-called white race. Understanding the fear of genetic annihilation should help to explain why there were once laws "against" the marriage of a white person with "ANY" non-white, the argument against the abortion of "white" babies, but virtually ignoring the fact that 80% of all abortion clinics are in predominately non-white neighborhoods, and why so many are ARDENTLY against "non-white" immigration. There's all types of material on this stuff. Pat Buchanan has similar ideas, although his are more subtle. Instead of talking about the "rising tide of color," he simply says that the "West,"--for which he means the "white" west--is experiencing dying populations. This is the same reason why many white european governments are offering incentives for their (white) citizens to have babies.

Simply put this is a good read. Although the basic understanding of the concepts therein are interesting, non-whites SHOULD NOT DWELL ON THEM. Why? Because white supremacy still exists. Dwelling on the "why" will not help to replace white supremacy with justice. Non-whites need to change what they do in response to racism (white supremacy). Therefore, to supplement this, i would suggest Neely Fuller's, "United Independent Compmensatory Concept."

As an African American woman who has been raised and inundated with the "historical facts" presented by my White Brothers and Sisters, I can empathize with those who are Eurocentric enough to want to believe that everyone and everything of importance emanated from the White race. Even conjecture that people of color might have had a larger role in the development of our world cultures, seems to be abhorrent. For African Americans who unquestioningly buy into the Eurocentric views of history, I am sure narratives such as this one are ludicrous.

However, women have been standing up to the version of "his"tory that exists, because women are either ignored or subjugated in one form or another. It seems reasonable to me that if White male historians omitted or subjugated women in their version of "his"tory, why would it be so unseemly that those same White men would omit and subjugate the role of Africans in the origins and development of the world. Especially since one major blemish on Eurocentrism is the deplorable practice of slavery. In order to keep Africans and African-descended peoples in their places (beneath the place of "decent White people"), I presume it would be necessary to blindly perpetuate the vulgar myth that Africans are ignorant, backward and worthy of enslavement; or at least, that they cannot possibly have been the original peoples of Egypt (Egypt is NOT an extension of the Middle East and was originally inhabited by dark-skinned people, just like the other indigenous peoples of Africa prior to the extensive European colonization that took place over the centuries.

I truly believe that if the tables were turned, more individuals would be willing to ignore the status quo and the accepted myths of our current culture, and would be interested in learning whether or not accepted "his"tory is really plausible. If Eurocentric people were conditioned to believe that they were not as important as African-descendants and that all of literature, education, art, language, religion, science, history and civilization in general was acquired through the brilliance of the Africans and that Whites were only good for being chattel, there would likely be serious investigations into the "truth."

Bear in mind that even in Eurocentric "his"tory, when one culture conquered another, most of the remnants of the previous culture were destroyed. To me, it makes sense that when the Greeks decided to conquer Egypt, they would especially want to destroy anything that would attribute brilliance or intelligence to such "dark savages." And, thus, just as Eurocentric people who believed in justice, freedom and uniting for the common good, those very people nearly exterminated the Native peoples of what we call the United States. Native peoples were driven from their own lands and their holy places were desecrated and used for Eurocentric purposes (for instance, Mt. Rushmore). To me, this is an example of how Eurocentrism operates and I don't believe it started first in the New World. I believe that same fear, dread and dislike of others who are different has prevailed over centuries and cost Native Americans, Mayans, Africans, and other cultures much pain and degradation.

Rather than following in the footsteps of those "who protest too much" as the great writer suggested, why not be mature enough to consider the mindsets of those who came before: people who were fearful of being over-run, people who were attempting to build their own self-esteem by putting down others who didn't look enough like them. Prejudice and racism will ALWAYS exist as long as White is Right and everyone else is wrong! Rather than focusing on how you can "tolerate" others who don't look exactly like you, why not consider that maybe White people don't know everything! Maybe the self-esteem of my White Brothers and Sisters doesn't have to be built upon negating, denigrating and exterminating people of color, and in this instance, Africans and African descendants. Especially because we are not the ignorant, talentless, chattel the Eurocentric believe us to be.

How can I possibly be sure of this? Look at how Africans were stolen from their homeland, sent to various parts of the world, stacked like sardines in a can in the bowels of ships where they involuntarily urinated and defecated upon those below them, tossed overboard if diseased, sick or "defective" in any way, separated from fellow tribesmen, fellow villagers, family members, and those with a common language, sold on auction blocks (whether men, women, or children}, raped, forced to "mate" with strangers so that they would produce brawny slave stock, denied decent food, wages, respect and even common decency, were beaten, tortured, murdered, burned with huge audiences as though it was a picnic (there are postcards that prove this!), denied the benefits of the majority culture in this country, segregated into unfunded schools, neighborhoods, denied jobs, clean water fountains, hospitals and public restrooms, lynched, burned on crosses, terrorized, secretly experimented upon, you name it.

More recently, the racism is more underground and shows up in movie stereotypes, the disproportional number of Black men in prison and on death row, denial of decent jobs, harassment at work and by the police, denial of appropriate housing and medical care. Yet, like Maya Angelou says in her poem, "Yet, still I rise." We must be a very special people to be able to withstand such torment. We do have our own fair share of problems, some of which involve institutional racism: deny us jobs, force us to live in squalor, and then, call us "dirty" and "smelly." Denying us medical care is akin to slow extermination.

I urge you to keep reading and challenge the status quo. You may find that there may be more truth to this book and many others that American culture is blind to. Take college courses, talk to African Americans and Africans, read between the lines when you read a news story about African Americans, you might just be amazed and fascinated by the caliber of this strong, spiritual people. I know I am and I am proud and grateful that Black scholars and, gratefully, Eurocentric scholars are beginning to discover things that have been kept hidden for many, many ages. Think outside the box and have an open mind: you might be surprised by what you learn.

I could relate to a lot of what is in the book. I understand the pathology and immaturity of whiteness. If the theory doesn't fall or support whiteness white people become offended and virulent towards the people who can relate to all or part of the book. It's a fight to regain psychic control over the so-called inferior class to keep power. The curious thing is that whites since the inception of this country have posited theories/hypotheses and used Afroasiatics to experiment on to prove their points. No one then said it was outrageous or pseudoscience! That would have been a great time to speak up and use your voice then but many did not. Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment,James Marion Sims, the white supremacist father of gynecology tried to solve the problems fellow rapists were having with slave women by dissecting their babies and mutilating their bodies. Carl Von Linnaeus created the taxony of race which gave scientists then and now the pass to experiment on blacks/africans without fear of answering for their crimes. The list goes on but still in 2008 whites support and laude these creatures for their excellence? But, here is a woman who has not experimented on whites or blacks, is in the field and knows the environment and whites and blacks alike (haven't broke the psychological chains of slavery) whine about her theory.
It doesn't make sense to me but here in america her disease is the patholgoy of whiteness. Most don't know what they're arguing about and will use the same arguement their white supremacist forefathers sat around their tables and conjured up in an attempt to trigger a genetically passed fear of speaking up and telling the truth about their experiences with whites. But these people claim to be intelligent and not racist.
I agree with majority of the book because of my own knowingness. It clicks. Some I've never thought about but it still fits. I don't agree with some of her statements on homosexuality but that doesn't mean I'm going to use that as an excuse to not understand the rest of the book as most white people do.

This is a great book for any one that is on a path of enlightening oneself.It is a must read.