ANALYZING THE “BLACK” IDENTITY (A SOCIOPOLITICAL CONSTRUCT). WE ARE NOT BLACK PEOPLE.
A SUMMARY EXCERPT FROM AN UPCOMING BOOK.
By Sheik Way-El, Grand Sheik & Divine Minister of the Moorish Science Temple of America
I rise giving all praise to Allah and the highest honors to Holy and Divine Prophet Noble Drew Ali. I extend those honors to the Harbinger and forerunner Marcus Mosiah Garvey. I extend honors to all True and Divine Prophets. I extend honors to all of the Messengers sent to us in the West; And I extend honors to you all for when, Man honors Man, he honors his Father God-Allah.
The matter of the various names given to our ancestors of Moorish descent, a people representing skin tones of every race of the globe, was an act of European psychology. They gave our ancestors the slave labels of Negro, Black, Colored and Ethiopians (African American replaces this term today), these brands were then defined as something inferior to theirs. They took on the title “White” because it represents purity and God and it was opposite of black, but when you observe the skin tone of a European, you will see that it is not white at all, it is pale, genetically faded down over thousands of years from the brown skin tone that we, the Moorish progenitors of humanity have now. After the last of the slaves were freed in 1865 (slavery was abolished in many northern states well before 1865), the acceptance of these slave labels (Negro, Black, Colored) solidified the mental grip upon our people that persists until this day as there are no black or white people and yet, this notion, enforced by the European who created a caste system from the times of the first “color coded” classifications, creating a condition called doublethink even among some of our best and brightest minds, believe it or not, is at the forefront of our problems today because you cannot think past what you think you are. The “Negro/Black” people as they were called in this nation, have no nation to which they might look with pride. Their history starts with the close of the Civil war or more properly with his being forced to serve some one else. Because of his not knowing his true history and the religion of his forefathers, he is separated from the illustrious history of his forefathers who were the founders of the first civilization of the Old World. Proof of this can be seen in February which is called “Black History Month.” Every year since the inception of what I have to call a “mental slavery enforcing program”, stories are told about slave times and the tumultuous times there after; but never is the history about the people who built the great and wonderful edifices of the old world documented or discussed via the public outlet. Today, you have many groups who fight for being black more than they will fight for anything else. These people are what the Koran of Mohammed call the deaf, dumb, and blind for they have ears to hear the truth but they reject it; they have a mind to discern the information that proves that we are not a black people, and that this title was given us by the pale skin nations of Europe but they refuse to analyze it or reason it out; and they have eyes to simply look at their own skin and see that it is not black and that they are not a black people and yet, they refuse to look. For a defintion of sociopolitical click here.
Now, I want to bring you to Federal Directive 15 which was adopted on May 12, 1977.
This Directive provides standard classifications for record keeping, collection, and presentation of data on race and ethnicity in Federal program administrative reporting and statistical activities. These classifications should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature, nor should they be viewed as determinants of eligibility for participation in any Federal program. They have been developed in response to needs expressed by both the executive branch and the Congress to provide for the collection and use of compatible, nonduplicated, exchangeable racial and ethnic data by Federal agencies.<br></br>
DefinitionsThe basic racial and ethnic categories for Federal statistics and program administrative reporting are defined as follows:
- American Indian or Alaskan Native. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North America, and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition.
- Asian or Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands. This area includes, for example, China, India, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands, and Samoa.
- Black. A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.
- Hispanic. A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.
- White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East.1
In the above definitions, there are many different things to point out that I will not fully delve into for this summary. But here is something to note; notice that it says “These classifications should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature.“ Well if they are not using science or anthropology to determine racial classifications, then what exactly are they using? Think my people, think… Look at the definition of “White” for instance which says “A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East.“ History and anthropology will show us that the first peoples of Europe were Moors or what you would falsely call black people. That the first people of North Africa were Moors or what you would falsely call black people. That the first people of the Middle East (Arabia generally) were in fact Moors, or what you would call black people.
These are the definitions used for determining classifications of human beings into separate groups. But notice, they only use Black for those of Moorish descent, and White for those of European descent. Why is this? Why not use Red for the American Indians, Or Yellow for the Asians? Why is that black and white are the only two colors (if you will) used by these classifiers of human beings? You ever overhear, have been a part of, or said during a conversation:
“Man, it was a lot of different people there. You had Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, Chinese, Koreans, White people and Black people…”
Did you notice it? When naming peoples, everyone always says the nation of the people except when it comes to those people of Moorish descent and those people of European descent. People of America who call themselves “Blacks” will see people from Haiti or Jamaica and call them Haitian or Jamaican before they call them black. They will see themselves as “blacks” who live in America however. For these Americans, Black and White are always used. Why? This is why we call this labeling system an act of “European psychology”. Now today, you have the Mexicans and Puerto Ricans actually being called “Brown” people when their skin tones are not brown (moreno) at all. If you cannot see this, it is because you refuse to take the chunk of wood out of your eyes. To read further into how “Brown” people like “Black” and “White” are merely racial classifications and not actual people, click Here.
The color coded system we use today is based on the likes of racist Europeans like François Bernier (1620 – 1688), Carl Linnaeus (1707 – 1778), and Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752 – 1840). In their creation of the color coded race hierarchy, White was placed as the Superior and Black was placed as the inferior. Instead of correcting this act of European psychology, certain groups decided to put Black as the Superior, and White as the inferior. All this did was add to the confusion and created a false sense of pride based on a paradigm that was created solely for the denationalizing of a certain group of humans, e.g. us, the Moors! Let us look at these colors that we have accepted, that has been assigned to men and how truly asinine they are to our eye sights.
|The people called “black” are actually DARK BROWN and the people that are SUPPOSED TO BE “brown” (Mexicans, etc.) look like everyone else in complexion besides the Moors.
If you see this and still call people by these colors, then you are in fact blinded and because you cannot see, the European remains on top and you give him the superior position by calling his rule “White Supremacy” as opposed to what it truly is “European psychology”. WAKE UP AND OPEN YOUR EYES!
You are not black people
The craziest and most head scratching concept of all is this color coded system currently used to identify and classify human beings as we detailed above; but especially in the United States. What really gets me is that most of our thinking men and woman who are of Moorish descent who are in positions of power, in higher education, scholars, professors etc., simply cannot see that we are not a black people by using their eye sight alone. The Cable News Network (CNN) airs a documentary every so often called “Black in America”. What you all do not realize is that, such programs while successfully depicting the plight of our people here in the West (good and/or bad), it also reinforces the false belief that the people themselves are actually “black” and does far more damage than good. No doubt, this is by design.
Some prefer not to use “Black” or “Negro” but “Colored”. Now what type of sense does that make? Who colored you? To be colored means that you were either painted, stained, varnished, or dyed. It is without doubt that this type of name-classification can be found in Europe where the Moors were called “painted men” by the pale skinned Europeans because of their sable swarthy brown olive-toned skins.2 What this psychologically implies is that all men were once of pale skin and that somewhere, during some time, these men were “colored in” by some event. What event? Who knows, possibly the hot sun when people of Moorish ancestry first inhabited Africa from the east hundreds of thousands of years ago. Yeah that’s what happened. Right? We started off pale then got darkened or “colored in”. Right? Of course not.
This false term “black” dates back farther than we think. This author is going to piece together something that has never been penned in literary or historical history. Prophet Noble Drew Ali teaches us about a time when a man named Joshua ran our people from among the ancient Holy Lands. Many people falsely believe that because a name or a people appear in the Bible, that it automatically originates with the Bible and that most of these characters and peoples are fictional. This shows the shallowness of our research and our blind deference to our Afrocentric scholars who for the most part, were the proponents for most of these theories.
This author strongly believes that the labeling of our people as black comes from the “Yahwist” (also called Judaic) school of thought. Consider this; at one point in time, the Hellenes (Greeks) and the people called Jews today, met up with each other and intermingled. One people, the Joshuaites (so-called Jews), had already conquered our people in the eastern lands by sheer force. This historical event is captured in the book of Joshua of the bible. Historical records found proves that this was not like some of the biblical events which were either made up or grossly exaggerated to fit the biblical narrative, but that instead, it was an actual event. A Greek historian named Procopius of Caesarea wrote in the sixth century AD which was subsequently cited by modern scholars that:
They [the Canaanites] also built a fortress in Numidia, where now is the city called Tigisis [probably in Algeria]. In that place are two columns made of white stone near by the great spring, having Phoenician letters cut in them which say in the Phoenician tongue:“We are they who fled from before the face of Joshua, the robber, the son of Nun”3
“these Canaanites of Africa were driven out of the land of Canaan by Joshua. About 332 B.C. Alexander conquered Palestine. As stated above, the Africans came to Alexander claiming that the land of Canaan belonged to them. The point that I want to elucidate is that these Canaanites considered themselves Africans. We can correctly say that the Hebrew-Canaanite language is one of the African languages.”4[emphasis mines]
These people of Joshua with ruthless barbarity, came and conquered the old countries of the Moors of the ancient Holy Lands of the Levant and drove them out. Enter the Hellenes. These were another group of pale skinned people who by sheer and utter dominance, wiped out whole civilizations and if they did not wipe them out, they replaced the imagery and iconography of the people with imagery more favorable to the Hellenes. At some point, these two forces (Hellenes and Yahwists (Jews)) met and at some point, these two forces co-mingle with each other. This relationship is important in understanding the reason why this researcher believes we have this label “black” for the dark brown skinned nations of the earth.
Let us examine something critical in this regard. According to the online etymological dictionary, we find the trace of the word Moor as such:
“North African, Berber,” late 14c., from Old French More, from Medieval Latin Morus, from Latin Maurus “inhabitant of Mauritania” (northwest Africa, a region now corresponding to northern Algeria and Morocco), from Greek Mauros, perhaps a native name, or else cognate with mauros “black” (but this adjective only appears in late Greek and may as well be from the people’s name as the reverse). Being a dark people in relation to Europeans, their name in the Middle Ages was a synonym for “Negro;” later (16c.-17c.) used indiscriminately of Muslims (Persians, Arabs, etc.) but especially those in India.
Lets pull out a section of this definition because it is vital to our Hellenistic-Judaic connection,“from Greek Mauros, perhaps a native name, or else cognate with mauros “black” (but this adjective only appears in late Greek and may as well be from the people’s name as the reverse).” By reading this portion of the etymological breakdown isolated, four critical things become clear and that is:
- Mauros is thought to be a native name of people already existent
- It shows only the possible connection with the word “maurus” (notice the letter “M” is not capitalized) which became one of the Greek words for black (More distant cognates include Latin flagrare (“to blaze, glow, burn”), and Ancient Greek phlegein (“to burn, scorch”). The Ancient Greeks sometimes used the same word to name different colors, if they had the same intensity. Kuanos’ could mean both dark blue and black.)5
- That this Mauros or mauros only appears in a later form of the Greek language
- And just to add, it states that the name Moor also became “indiscriminately” used for Moslems who were “Persians, Arabs, etc. but especially those in India.”
In tracing earlier etymological breakdowns of the word Moor, we find that it does not at all define the word Moor to mean “black” but “dark.”6 This is critical on so many levels. At first, the Europeans would simply refer to us (so-called “black” people) as “Moors” because that is the historical ethnic name for our people meaning, it is the name we called ourselves; however, as the Mohammedan religion spread, they (The Europeans) modified the application of this name and began to call our people “Black-a-Moors”. Now here is a question of logic; if Moor means black which so many have falsely intimated but have never proven, why would they call us “Black-a-Black” if Moor already means black? Think people, your scholars cannot reason a thing out for you, you must do that on your own. Next, we have to find the Greek word for black being that the professional etymologists who have 74 sources at their disposal, could not prove at all that Moor means black and if it meant black, then why in the world would it be used indiscriminately for Persians, Arabs Hindu’s etc?
One of the earliest Greek words for black is melanos. We use this meaning because it does mean black and Moors claim that melanin is what makes their skin black. Let us look at what melanos says in this same online etymological dictionary and follow the trace to the word melanin.
melano-meaning “black,” from Greek melano-, comb. form of melas (genitive melanos) “black, dark, murky” (see melanin).
melanin (n.)dark brown or black pigment found in animal bodies, 1832, Modern Latin, with chemical suffix -in (2); first element from Greek melas (genitive melanos) “black,” from PIE root *mel- (2) “of darkish color” (cognates: Sanskrit malinah “dirty, stained, black,” Lithuanian melynas “blue,” Latin mulleus “reddish”). Related: Melanism; melanistic.
There are several things to note here; in the definition of melano- there are three different aspects given and they are “black, dark, murky”. This means that any of these definitions can apply to someone who is dark skinned however, being that no man is actually black, by process of elimination we eliminate the black portion of the definition and stick with dark and murky. Now anything can be dark; you can have dark blue, dark red, dark green etc., however, in this case, because “murky” is used, we get a clearer conception of what is being relayed. If you review the melanin of human beings under a microscope, it is a murky dark brown that appears to give a darkish murky appearance. Melanin itself is defined as a “dark brown or black pigment.” In the image below, we match up the dark brown skin of this tribes man of one of the countries of Africa (lost my source for the image), with a melanin sample taken from a melanoma specimen.
|Melanin pigment (light refracting granular material – center of image) in a pigmented melanoma. Courtesy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanin
So the Greek word melanos when it applies “murky” is in fact more suitable than using “black” and because the man in the picture is a dark brown, murky is a suitable description. Contrast that with the images of the light skinned entertainers in image 3 and it becomes evident that we are dealing with a psychological issue and not anything based on a scientific or an anthropological model of which we have shown already in the beginning of this treatise.
This is important because the “Alexandrian tongue” sprung from the “Koine” Greek and developed after the conquests of Alexander of Macedonia whom Europeans call “great” (roughly 336-323 BCE) and this form of the language had underwent far-reaching changes.7 Ironically, this is the same exact period that the people of Joshua who are called Jews today (Yahwists), came in contact with the Hellenes. The Hellenes and those who became Jews developed a strong relationship and did trade and commercial business together. The two cultures basically became merged8, which gives us a clue as to the racial identity of those Joshuaites whom we call Jews today and the ethnicity of the Hellenes is obvious. Christianity today is a remixed, monotheistic version of Hellenism and these two systems are still connected till this day. From this relationship, Ptolemy II had the Septuagint (meaning “70” interpreters of the Hebrew Bible written in Koine Greek) penned based on this relationship. From the descendants of Joshua (so-called Jews today) came the racists provisions of the Torah with the Canaanites who were in fact the peoples that became the Africans and it is from the Yahwists (called Jews today) that this author strongly feels that the Hellenes adopted how the people who composed the Torah saw the Moor (black and evil) and became the driving force behind racist Christianity and its wars with the Moabites or the Moors of North Africa and subsequently Mohammedanism (Islam) in general. Dark brown skin was called black and blackness was always associated with evil and death. Proof is truth:
Jeremiah 13:23 Taken from the 1599 Geneva Bible (GNV) (That is, before the King James Version)
“Can the black Moor change his skin? or the leopard his spots, then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil?“
Black as a noun and an adjective.
We were all taught in public school the eight parts of speech. Most of us forget these aspects of the English language when we reach adulthood (This author had to actually look them up) and so we sort of forget their functions in our daily discourse. The three parts of speech that most people do remember however are nouns, verbs, and adjectives. We know that verbs usually describes actions; run, walk, talk, something happening, etc. We know that nouns represents persons, places, and things; and we know that an adjective describes a noun. For instance: Cynthia (noun) has black hair and long legs (adjective=describing Cynthia). With this fresh on your mind, let’s review the definition of the word “black” according to Dictionary.com:
1. lacking hue and brightness; absorbing light without reflecting any of the rays composing it.
2. characterized by absence of light; enveloped in darkness:
a black night.
3. (sometimes initial capital letter)
a. pertaining or belonging to any of the various populations characterized by dark skin pigmentation, specifically the dark-skinned peoples of Africa, Oceania, and Australia.
b. African American.
4. soiled or stained with dirt:
That shirt was black within an hour.
5. gloomy; pessimistic; dismal:
a black outlook.
6. deliberately; harmful; inexcusable:
a black lie.
7. boding ill; sullen or hostile; threatening:
black words; black looks.
1. dark, dusky; sooty, inky; swart, swarthy; sable, ebony. 4. dirty, dingy.5. sad, depressing, somber, doleful, mournful, funereal. 7. disastrous, calamitous. 9. sinful, inhuman, fiendish, devilish, infernal, monstrous; atrocious, horrible; nefarious, treacherous, traitorous, villainous.
1. white. 4. clean. 5. hopeful, cheerful.
As a noun, it says the same exact thing on this particular website which matches up with just about every other online dictionary and every physical dictionaries that you will peruse pertaining to the definition for the word black:
noun 20. the color at one extreme end of the scale of grays, opposite to white, absorbing all light incident upon it.
Compare white (def 19).
21. (sometimes initial capital letter)
- a member of any of various dark-skinned peoples, especially those of Africa, Oceania, and Australia.
- Often Offensive. African American.
22. black clothing, especially as a sign of mourning:
He wore black at the funeral.
In this summary, we will not detail all of the attributes attributed black, made famous by the scene in the Malcom X movie, but clearly, anyone can see that black in this instance is being described as both a person (noun) and describing the person (adjective). How can this be? If a Moor, who is being called “black” was truly that, then his/her skin would no doubt be black, right? How could a light skinned person adjectively (descriptively) be called black? Remember growing up, if a brother or sister was light skinned, sometimes depending on their hair color etc, we would describe that person as either “high yellow” and “red boned.” Now, think of the psychology, those of you who are reading this exposition, how do we use the same noun to call a people black while at the same time an adjective to describe the same exact people, and then blindly look at lighter skinned peoples of our ethnicity and use terms like “high yellow” and “red boned”? European psychology, that’s how. Let us look at the images of some famous light skinned “black” people to see if this makes any sense:
|Do these people have ACTUAL black skin?
|Also, if you noticed for the noun aspect of the definition black, “they” put “Often Offensive. African American” in the same exact meaning. They did not even try to separate the two. If you cannot see the mental “duping” going here, it is because you choose not to because you are beholden to an ideology that dictates that you are “black” all because your leader guy or scholar or movement said so. If this is so, then we cannot be mad at those of our people who worship an image of a European Jesus for the same hand wields both, the “black” identity and the Euro-Jesus.
” Let us revisit a part of the definition pertaining to black when it says “the color at one extreme end of the scale of grays, opposite to white, absorbing all light incident upon it.” Below is an image of two things, a black square and a gray scale image spoken about in the aforementioned definition of black.
By looking at the black square above and comparing it with the images of the light skinned entertainers in the image prior, we can, without a shadow of a doubt conclude that the use of the term black as an adjective is wrong! Now look at the grayscale image above and then go back and look at the image of the light skinned entertainers again. Where would they fit in on this scale? If you thought to yourself “nowhere” then you are correct. This grayscale is a natural image of white either darkening or black either fading in the same spectrum of which these two extremes exist. A European person would not match any of the “white” swatches either so this brings us to the most interesting of questions, so simple that an insightful third grader would conjure it up and that is; if a so-called “black” man had a baby with a so-called “white” woman (or vice versa) wouldn’t the baby produced by such a mixture be “gray” like the same gray shown in the middle of the gray scale image above? Black and white when mixed makes gray; we learned this probably in the 1st or 2nd grade. The grayscale image above proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Understand the simple psychological process that we have been fooled by. This author proves that “White Supremacy” is a myth and that “European psychology” is what we are dealing with. No one is black, so adjectively, you cannot describe them as such and being that no one is black, we cannot say that black is a noun insofar as persons are concerned. If you are saying you are a “black man” you are saying “a devil”, or more aptly, the living dead and no man can be living and dead at the same time; however, a person can be living and mentally dead at the same time. Also, process this simple use of logic; most trees have green leaves and brown bark; and yet, we call it a “tree” and not a “green-brown”. The notion that humans are described in such a way is absolutely absurd and highlights unequivocally what we call “European psychology”.
|Imagine calling a tree a “green-brown” instead of a “tree.”
These descriptions that we use for ourselves, and the Europeans, and other nations, come directly from racist Europeans and I will give the most exemplary of examples that I can give. Now I want to show you all how the European psychology works insofar as literary works are concerned. The citation below is taken from a book entitled “Researches Into the Physical History of Mankind: Physical ethnography of the African races” By James Cowles Prichard. Pay attention:
SECTION I. – Of the Barábra or Berberins.* “THE people who inhabit the valley of the Nile above Egypt, and from that country to Senaan, give themselves the appellation of Berberi. By the Arabs they are termed Núba. The same people in Egypt, where they are well known, are called Berberins.”
“Denon has thus described them : he says, “their skin is of a shining and jet-black, exactly similar to that of antique bronzes. They have not the smallest resemblance to the Negroes in the western parts of Africa. Their eyes are deep set, and sparkling, with the browns hanging over, the nose pointed; the nostrils are large, the mouth wide, the lips of moderate thickness and the hair and beard in small quantity, and hanging in little locks.”[emphasis mines]
When the author of the above works cites a man named “Denon”, he is speaking about Baron Dominique Vivant Denon (1747-1825) who was a French artist, writer, diplomat, author, and archaeologist. I am not sure if you caught what he said in giving a description of the people being analyzed when he said that these people are “jet-black” but describes their skin as “exactly similar to that of antique bronzes.” My question to everyone reading this treatise is this; how can something that is bronze, be jet-black at the same exact time? Do you not see the trickery that has been played upon you? Most people would have read right past this particular description because the European psychology has worked on them so well that it has become embedded within their psyche insofar that they have accepted something that is clearly brownish as black. Look at your skin again. If you look below you will see images of antique bronzes (and you can google them yourself) which will give you all an example of what Denon described as was cited by Pritchard.
|This is how “jet black” looks? Would you still deny your eyes based on someone else’s definition of you?
Are not the images above closely similar to the skin tone of those whom are called “black” people? How then can one with bronze colored (brownish) skin be black? Nouns and adjectives are thrown out of the window when it comes to defining and describing you Moors. Yes, your proper ethnic name is MOOR. “They” have defined your existence. Your leaders and learned men, your men of letters, your activists and scholars, they by proxy of mere belief, keep the grip of European psychology on the minds of the Moors of America. They admit it ever so boldly when they call what is clearly “European psychology” by the grandiose title of “White Supremacy”. “The only form of slavery that you have now is mental slavery” said our Prophet Noble Drew Ali.
Do you have this shade of skin? Do you know anyone who has?
Well what about “African American”? Surely this is a much better term, right? Wrong! How can one in their right mind call themselves an “African American”? Which part of Africa do you come from? Africa has over fifty four (54) distinct nations with dozens of langauges and tribes dotted within those nations and in between. Did you take a DNA test to determine exactly which geographical or tribal peoples you specifically descend from, that’s if you prefer the term African American? If you descended from Nigeria for instance, wouldn’t it be more proper to call yourself a “Nigerian American”? Do you believe if you walked up to a man in Mozambique for instance, and asked him his nationality that he would say “African”? Does this make sense to you and do you see the point? Africa is a continent. The Americas is a continent. People from Brazil or Chile or Portugal do not identify themselves as Americans, they identify themselves by their nationality and wave the flag of their respective country to show nationalistic pride. Its your turn. We have a flag and we have a nation right here within the nation of the United States of America.
This concludes this brief summary which is a part of a larger book that is being written for the solutions that our people need for their resurrection. I welcome all SERIOUS rebuttals to this tract only. I will not entertain the oft-quoted pseudoscience like “black is the combination of all colors in existence” or “black is the supreme state of being” etc., etc., etc. If you are coming to rebut this piece, simply prove that you are a black person by using your own self as the proof. Time to wake up my people. Please share with a friend.
Grand Sheik & Divine Minister
Moorish Science Temple of America
 DIRECTIVE NO. 15 RACE AND ETHNIC STANDARDS FOR FEDERAL STATISTICS AND ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTING
(as adopted on May 12, 1977) http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/help/populations/bridged-race/directive15.html
 Wars 4.10.21–22, By Procopius of Caesarea (Even the critique of Procopius finds yields extra-biblical sources, although Christian. See “Procopius’ Phoenician Inscriptions: Never Lost, Not Found.” Palestine Excavation Quarterly (London) 139, no. 2 (2007): 99-104, with a rejoinder by Anthony Frendo.”
 From Babylon to Timbuktu: A History of Ancient Black Races Including the Black Hebrews By Rudolph R. Windsor (2011, Author House, first published in 1969), pg. 28
 New international encyclopædia, Second edition, Volume 16, published 1918
 History of the Greek Language http://www.greek-language.com/History.html
 The unedited full-text of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7535-hellenism