Jump to content

War For The Planet Of The Apes


Recommended Posts

Saw WFTPOTA a few days ago and it wasn't a bad flick.

I personally liked the original more low budget sagas of the 60s and early 70s much better, but this modern trilogy wasn't too bad.

But I must say, there was so many subliminal messages in that movie it was disturbing.

Deray McKesson and Tariq Nasheed caught a little heat from saying that the movie had racist undertones in it but I have to agree with them whole heartedly that the movie was subtly racist.
My only issue with Deray and Tariq is that they used to weakest points to make their case like one of the characters wearing a blue vest.
Hell, there were about 10 or 15 stronger points in this movie that would support any claims of racism aimed at it.
We don't really need to grasp for straws.

Let's start with some of the soldiers wearing signs that read, "The only good ape is a dead ape".
That line was clearly lifted from older racist rhetoric from the Jim Crow era.

Or the fact that they kept the apes in concentration camps.
That wasn't a part of the original movie of the 70s, the apes had their own government.
In this one they basically make them slaves and holocaust victims giving it more racial undertones.

The female apes often wore beads in their hair for decoration.....and most of us know Black girls tend to wear beads in their hair for decoration.

There are so many subliminally racist messages in the movie it ain't even funny.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you know white folks really believe Black people are really a missing link between monkeys and themselves.

 

Again modern science explains that, genetically, white people are more different than each than we are from them.  But hey people like to feel superior to others and perpetuating these stereotypes plays well to and resonates with the white masses.  

 

I'll wait for it to be available online later this year...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This just goes back to the discussion we were having months ago about subtle racism and being able to recognize it.

I remember on an episode of The View a few weeks ago Whoopi Goldberg went off on Deray and others who accused the new Apes movie of subliminal racism and said they were crying wolf and grasping for straws.

Many of our people simply can't think "deep" enough to recognize how subliminal messages and subtle language as well as dog whistles are used to demean them and influence the image the public has about them.
They just can't see it......until someone points it out to them.

And even once it's pointed out many of our people are still not smart enough to recognize it and accept it.



Actually I believe that apes actually came FROM HUMANS...lol.


I can't really prove it but I have this idea that somehow when we were more scientifically advanced Africans mixed human genes with monkeys (the little simians with tails) and through that combination we made APES (gorillas, chimps, ect.....).

But when you really look at apes, you can find aspect of thier physique that can be applied to all races.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troy

Pioneer don't share that theory with anyone else


Wasn't planning to, lol.

My aim was to share it with YOU, and subsequently you'd start teaching it to your students as an actual science until or unless proven otherwise.

If you did me that one SOLID, I'd sure appreciated it....lol.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

"But since a Black man suggested it.....you find it ridiculous."

 

Uhhhhhh....NO! You being black has nothing to do with it. What evidence or research have you done to indicate that it is plausible? Where are your facts, data, research references and even  compelling scientific documents that support such a theory? Just saying you believe something does not make it true. Big difference between an opinion and intelligent plausible theory....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact of the matter Pioneer is that no scientist, Black or white, has proven that apes came from men.  In fact all the evidence points to the scenario Cynique described.  As Xeon, wrote simply saying something, or believing it to be true, does not make it true--but you know that.

 

Where did you get the idea that apes evolved from man anyway?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Cynique
 

Apes and humans probably share a common ancestor but somewhere along the evolutionary process, they veered off into separate species. Homo Sapiens and Simians may be cousins. But so what?
 

I was actually going to mention this but you beat me to it.

The "theory" of evolution teaches that both humans and apes broke off from the same species some time ago.
If that is the case, why is it so hard for so many people to believe that apes came from those early humans?

 

 

 

 



Troy

Where did you get the idea that apes evolved from man anyway?


Since being a kid and just looking at the similarities between humans and apes, especially chimps and gorillas and seeing the smaller tailed monkeys....apes pretty much look like a CROSS BREED between the two...lol.

Later as I got older and was introduced to the teachings of Elijah Muhammad, he also taught that apes came from human beings.

There used to be an old saying among White men and I'm sure you remember it,
"Well I'll be a monkey's uncle".

I'm not sure where they got that phrase from but there's probably more truth to that than we'll ever know...lol.

Man, it's just a consideration or a mild belief.
I'm not standing on the corner preaching it, but if I had to put money on who came from what....I'd put my money more on apes coming from a humans perhaps from some sort of ancient technological experiment with human DNA being cross bred with monkey DNA.

But again, I don't push it as fact because I simply don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Later as I got older and was introduced to the teachings of Elijah Muhammad, he also taught that apes came from human beings."

 

You learned that from Elijah Muhammad? Oh! Well, that explains everything. That was a very scholarly and well respected source of scientific information....Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with everything the man taught but I'll tell you this much.......
I've gotten more wisdom and have truth from his teachings that has been VERIFIED and PROVEN to my satisfaction than I've gotten from text books of White so-called "science".

Elijah Muhammad was teaching back in the 30s that the White race were genetically weaker than Black people years before White scientists either knew or admitted to such with thier recessive genes and alleles.

He also taught that the story of Moses found in the Bible didn't actualy happen but that the REAL Moses had an entirely different history.
He was teaching this back in the 1930s.
And sure enough in the late 40s Sigmund Freud comes along and writes "Moses and Monotheism" which basically says that the story of Moses in the Bible was indeed false.

He taught that the Black man was BILLIONS of years old during a time when most people still believed in The Flood and thought humanity was less than 6000 years old.

Again, I don't agree with everything he taught....but I certainly have found no fault in most of it.

You can put your faith in White science if you want to.

They can't even cure a damn cold but can tell you the origins of man....LOL.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1, when I was first exposed to the teachings of the NOI it was through their messenger Farrakhan.  This was over 30 years ago and Farrakhan was then a very charismatic figure his message resonated with me because he spoke about the strength of Black people about Black people being powerful.  It was a message that was new to me at the time.

 

Sure, when he said Black people are genetically superior, then one considered that most of the players  in the NFL and NBA are Black that would seem to make sense.  When he speaks about white people being devils and your think about all the mayhem Europeans have caused over the last 500 years across the globe that make sense too.  When you are beat down and someone gives you a message of strength pride and hope, that feels great.  Louis Farrakhan made me feel great about myself and the potential of Black people.

 

His message was catered to people outside the NOI, once you dig deep it is a different thing.  But for some people it works which is great.  Which is wonderful.  But religions often teach you things that run counter to science.  Personally, I draw the line there.  

 

Today we know humans are essentially identical genetically. Blacks dominate the NFL and NBA because they work much harder at doing it.  White folks dominate tennis and Ice Hockey; that does not mean they are genetically superior does it?

 

The fact that that flood myths predate the Bible and known across cultures was known before the NOI was created. Actually some people believe the flood myths results from the end of the ice ages when glaciers melted flooding many areas to be destroyed by flood, but that is another story... 

 

There is no scientific evidence than man is Billions of years old and that apes came from man.  Indeed all of what we know rejects that idea.  

 

Not all scientists are white.  Indeed many will argue the first scientist were Black.  In any case, white people do not own science.  In my mind saying "You can put your faith in White science if you want to." is the same thing as saying "talking white" or "school is for white people."

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I first came into contact with NOI teachings through PUBLIC ENEMY.

I was always conscious and racial....even as a little child.
So they did samples of Malcolm and Farrakhan and then I started studying both and I would go to Black book stores and read books by Chancellor Williams, Ivan Van Sertima, and ofcourse Elijah Muhammad.
But the books by Elijah and the NOI were more "readable" to me because they didn't have that scholarly feel like other more educated Black writers had.

But more important than the literature and doctrine alone, it was the RESULTS I saw in the men in the community that made me take more notice in the Nation of Islam.
Unlike many churches and neighborhood programs, I would see GENUINE CHANGE in most Black men who went to the Nation of Islam mosques.
They'd go in and out of jail gangster as hell but in a few months their skin would be shining, they'd be dressed up, and they'd be holding doors open for women and smiling at other Black men calling them brother.....lol.





Not all scientists are white. Indeed many will argue the first scientist were Black. In any case, white people do not own science. In my mind saying "You can put your faith in White science if you want to." is the same thing as saying "talking white" or "school is for white people."


Not all scientists are White, but MOST of them are eiter White or Asian.
Only a small percentage of them are Black or Native American and that only has me suspicious of the "scientific community".

My suspicion of what I call "White science" isn't based on incompitence or believing that they are in error.
My suspicion is based on my belief that they are decieving the public.

I suspect there are very smart White scientists who are covering up a lot of truth and only letting SOME of it come out whether it has to do with health, history, ect....


For example, I believe the cure for cancer and AIDS not only exist but is known among SOME scientists but that knowledge is being held from the most of the public.



In my mind saying "You can put your faith in White science if you want to." is the same thing as saying "talking white" or "school is for white people."


Well, BOTH statements would be correct.
The "science" of this society IS White because it was founded by and for White people to advance themselves with.
And the school system was also founded by and for White people to advance themselves with.

Most of the discoveries were by White people or by Black people living INSIDE White societies using White tools and methods.
So whateve benefit those discoveries have.....White society still gets the credit.


We had our own methods of what would be called science today.....voodoo and other traditional religions are an example of this ancient science and medical system we practices since before recorded history.
We also have schools in which we passed along those traditions....and still do in some cases.
But it doesn't seem to be as sophisticated and developed as Western/White science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure capitalism and the profit motive which is designed to reward the most greedy has screwed up all types of things including medicine and science.

 

But that doesn't make science bad; it doesn't make science White; it's just perverted, in much the same way greedy ministers have perverted Christianity.

 

I don't think there is a cure for cancer if there was, Steve Jobs would be alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“I've gotten more wisdom and have truth from his teachings that has been VERIFIED and PROVEN to my satisfaction than I've gotten from text books of White so-called "science".

 

Really? That’s interesting. Can you detail what exactly what the Elijah Muhammad Institute of Technology and Science teach you that clearly demonstrated the inferiority and fallacy of “so-called white science”? Can you give us details about the flaws of white science that was exposed at EMITS? Was it physics? Chemistry? Engineering? Medicine? And for the record -I never knew science was race based. The same mathematical conclusions and computations used by the Chinese, Arabs, Aztecs, Egyptians, et al, were the same. And if memory serves me correct, all the chemistry, physics and math used by all people –regardless of race or ethnicity yield the same results. I’ve never heard of "non-white science" (whatever that means) and math proving totally contradictory findings to so-called "white science". I’m very interested in your documentation and verifiable data. Please enlighten me….

“Elijah Muhammad was teaching back in the 30s that the White race were genetically weaker than Black people years before White scientists either knew or admitted to such with thier recessive genes and alleles.

 

Whites are genetically inferior to black people? Really? You sound like the black version of William Shockley or Arthur Jenson. Interesting. But just exactly how are they inferior? Intellectually? Biologically? Physically? What studies and research was done at EMITS that can prove this? And when were these studies done? Please provide scholarly research references. I would really like to read them. I’ll wait for your response….

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say Whites were inferior to Blacks, I said they were genetically weaker.

This is a scientific fact that most learned Whites will readily admit.

We care more of the dominate genes such as for curly hair, dark skin, dark eyes, more taste buds, dark hair, ect.......

Take a look at this chart that shows you the different physical traits based on which is dominant (strong) and which is recessive (weak) and you tell me which race holds the most dominant genes for the most dominant traits:



Image result for dominant and recessive traits

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pioneer when you say one race is "genetically weaker" than the other, you are actually saying one race is inferior than the other-- that is what your statement means.

 

But again, since there is only one race the premise of the statement is flawed anyway.

 

The chart showing the different traits as being dominant or recessive does not mean stronger or weaker it just indicates how the traits are inherited.

 

For example, an order for child to be born with blue eyes both parents have to have blue eyes or the trait for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troy
 

Pioneer when you say one race is "genetically weaker" than the other, you are actually saying one race is inferior than the other-- that is what your statement means.


Well if that's what it means, then it's not what I'M saying but it's what White/Western scientists are saying.


Western science makes it clear that blonde hair, fair skin, and blue eyes are RECESSIVE traits while dark hair, skin, and eyes are DOMINANT.
 


 

The chart showing the different traits as being dominant or recessive does not mean stronger or weaker it just indicates how the traits are inherited.


Dominant = strong or dominating
Recessive = weak or passive

That's why I said they were genetically weaker.
Because they carry more genes for the blue eyes, fair skin, and blonde hair than any other group of people on the planet.

However if you or anyone else says weakness means inferiority then I'm not saying it but YOU and SCIENCE are whether you recognize it or not because recessive is just another term for weak or passive.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pioneer repeating a faulty statement will not make it true.

 

Look up punnet squares for an explanation.  Below is an example. Lets replace "disorder" with "blue eyes."  In the example below neither parent has blue eyes, but the both carry the recessive trait (lowercase a).  There offspring would a 50% change of carrying the trait for blue eyes, but they would not have blue eyes. 25% would not carry the trait and could not have a blue eye child, and 25% would have blue eyes.

 

Now these are probabilities, so at the risk of running a foul of the probability po-po (i.e. @Delano), I will say that it is possible for these parents to have 10 kids all with blue eyes. It is highly unlikely but it is possible.  

 

punnett_square.png

 

Now if you want to call blue eyes weaker, as if they are inherently inferior than brown eyes, go ahead but know that is not what dominantinant means here.

 

Did you not learn this in high school?

 

Most human characteristics are far more complex and can not be explained with punnett squares. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troy
 

I already have a BASIC (very basic) understanding of how genes and alleles work.

I know why dominant genes are called dominant.
But again, what you just said doesn't negate or invalidate my point.
It just re-enforces it.

DOMINANT MEANS STRONGER.

Also, what you said about dominant genes being able to produce BOTH dominant and recessive traits while recessive genes can ONLY produce recessive traits is exactly in line with what Elijah Muhammad and the Nation of Islam taught even as far back as the 1930s.

They taught that Black people are dominant with dominant genes.
He taught that WE are the first people on the planet and that everyone else came FROM us in recessive stages.
The last stage would be the most recessive people with the most recessive genes....being the White race.

Just like dominant genes can produce both dominant AND recessive, while recessive genes can only produce that which is recessive......

Elijah Muhammad taught....again back in the 30s that Black people can produce people of ALL colors; while white people can produce only other White people.


 

BTW....

No, I didn't learn this in school....lol.

I forgot much of what I was taught in school but I know they didn't each us about this.
I learned it on my own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is hard to debate this without a comon framework. You believe there are several races. The fact is there is only one.

 

 The fact you can have more in common, genetically, with a so called white person than you do with anone on this board does not give you pause to reconsider your position.

 

The fact that the determination of one's race is purely subjective does not mean anything to you either. Surely there is nothing I can say to you that will convince you otherwise...youngin' ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troy,

I believe Galton did work with genetic probabilility. I don't know enough about genetics to refute your statement. For example if your mother has Blue eyes is it the same probability as if your Grandmother has blue eyes. My gut says probably not but you wouldn't just post some statistics without knowing what your talking and mentioning me at the same time. I could look it up but

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was teasing you Del.  I did not expect you to prove of disprove what I wrote. Genetics is indeed a complex subject and I don't know much more than Pioneer.  I would consider my job done if he brought into the fact there was just one race.  I used to teach punnet square to adult learners to help them get their GED.  I usually used Sickle Cell as an example.

 

Carriers of the trait are less likely to get Malaria, than people without it, but Pioneer would consider that "weak" since the trait is recessive? Did I explain your position correctly @Pioneer1?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troy

Carriers of the trait are less likely to get Malaria, than people without it, but Pioneer would consider that "weak" since the trait is recessive? Did I explain your position correctly


Not really.

First of all keep in mind that I didn't say White people were just weak period.
There are a lot of strong White people who lift weights or run or are strong intellectually.

I said GENETICALLY weak/recessive.
Meaning they had weaker genetics.

But more to my point.....

Having one or two weak or recessive genes doesn't necessarily make a person weak.
Having a preponderance or overwhelming number of them would.

For example......
There are Black people with ligh skin, but their hair and eyes are brown and curly.
There are Black people with green eyes, but they may have dark skin, dark hair.
As opposed to someone with white skin, green eyes, and blonde hair having a prepoderance of recessive genes.

White people have known this about themselves for a MUCH longer time that most Black people have about them.
Why do you think they came up with the "one drop" rule that makes anyone with any Black ancestry "Black"?
I don't agree with that rule......but they came up with that rule in part because of knowing how strong Black genes were and how weak their own genes were in comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK Pioneer I guess I'm getting caught up on your equating "weak" with "recessive." 

 

Pioneer what is the difference between a light skinned Black person and a dark skinned white person?

 

Again because "race" itself is arbitrary rules like "one drop" are perfect valid, even though you don't personally like it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troy

OK Pioneer I guess I'm getting caught up on your equating "weak" with "recessive."

Well Webster's dictionary defines recessive as:

producing little or no phenotypic effect when occurring in heterozygous condition with a contrasting allele


One of the definition of "weak" is having no effect....no power.

But you can just look at recessive's antonym "dominant" which obviously means strong and conclude that it's opposite has to mean weak.

 

 

 

Pioneer what is the difference between a light skinned Black person and a dark skinned white person?

Technically, the only "light skinned" Black people are those who happen to be albinos.
Other than them, the light skinned people we usually CALL Black are those who actually have some White ancestry whose particular genes have influenced their skin color.

I'm not sure what you mean about a "dark skinned" White person.

There are White people with what are considered dark features like dark hair and eyes that often make THEM appear darker, but if you just look at their skin it's usually just as White as any other White person.

But perhaps you can post a few pictures of who you're talking about and I can then eleborate more.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...