The Commercialization Of Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday

1495521_517357568379714_570746776_nThis is a (UPDATED POST) from last year that I originally posted on my Facebook page on January 20, 2014.

As the saying goes you can always tell when a Holiday or Festival has become mainstream or commercialized, because the name changes to something it wasn’t originally which is the case with what happen with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Which later was shortened to ‘MLK’ over the years due to its commercialization. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday has become commercialize since it was first celebrated in January 1986 as a federal holiday. Dr. Martin Luther King Day, basically has become commercialize just like all the Cauc-Asians (Caucasians) holidays are. So really in actuality what is known now to most people as ‘MLK’ Day is just another Euro-Asian (Eur-Asian) holiday. This is why no African here in America should ever want their name observed for a National holiday, because all it’s going to become eventually is commercialize and disrespected and not represented and respected in the way it should be. Because Cave people  i.e. Caucasians sole purpose is to make money from it for their own personal gain and agenda. That’s where the King family and others went wrong in wanting the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. name observed for a National holiday.

Now mind you I don’t celebrate Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (Holiday), and I haven’t in a long time, because as I begin to see over the years ‘Martin Luther King Jr. Day’ as a contradiction for what it was, along with the propaganda that came with it and with the consequences that follow that further hurt African Americans. As a result of so-called Integration that became legalized 51 years ago when the (Civil Rights) act was signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. In legally making integration national, it did not benefit or stop the further suffering, mistreatment and disrespect of African Americans in the United States and or the humiliation, embarrassment, and the constant terrorizing of African Americans and murder, which basically just came with having overall injustice period. Also at the end of the day integration only made things worser for us as African people here in America, especially when it came from an economic and wealth stand point. I posted this post to make a point that this is what happens when African Americans demand to have one of their own prominent figures name observed as a National holiday in order to be accepted and acknowledge by European Americans, which only later becomes assimilate into their society and culture. Which many African Americans fail to realize is when you ask for this ? and get this. It eventually becomes Americanized, water down and Commercialized into something European and it is no longer seen at least in my eyes ever again as an African holiday or apart of your culture, but as someone else’s holiday and culture, but then again really in actuality ‘Martin Luther King Jr. Day,’ was never really an African holiday but an American holiday.


Martin Luther King Jr. was born on January 15, 1929 in Atlanta, Georgia. But the King holiday is marked on the third Monday in January.

Representative John Conyers introduced the first motion to make Dr. King’s birthday a federal holiday in 1968, just four days after Dr. King’s assassination in Memphis.

It took another 11 years to the federal holiday to come up for a vote on the House of Representative’s floor in 1979. The bill needed a two-thirds majority to pass, but it fell five votes short with a 252-133 count, despite a strong organizational effort from the King Center, and support from Congress members and President Jimmy Carter.

The holiday’s supporters regrouped and intensified their efforts. Musician Stevie Wonder helped in 1981 by releasing the song “Happy Birthday” to promote the holiday. (He would later sing it at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial dedication in 2011).)

The King Center kept up its efforts. It organized a march on Washington that included an estimated 500,000 people. Coretta Scott King, along with Wonder, presented a petition signed by 6 million people to House leader Tip O’Neill.

The House took up the bill in 1983 and it passed by 53 votes. Democrats O’Neill and Jim Wright, along with Republicans Jack Kemp and Newt Gingrich, gave speeches supporting the King holiday.

But getting the bill passed in the Senate would be contentious. Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina openly opposed it. At first, Helms introduced a filibuster, and then he presented a 400-page file that accused Dr. King of being a communist.

Senator Ted Kennedy criticized Helms and Senator Daniel Moynihan called the document “filth” and threw it on the Senate floor.

Despite Helms, the bill passed the Senate by 12 votes–even South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond voted in favor of the King holiday.

President Ronald Reagan signed the bill in November 1983. The first federal King holiday was celebrated in 1986.

It took longer for the 50 states to adopt the holiday. By 1986, 17 states had already adopted it. But there was strong resistance in Arizona to passing a state holiday.

The fight between state legislators came to a head when the King holiday was put up for an Arizona voter referendum in November 1990.

At that point, entertainers had started boycotting the state in protest, and the National Football League threatened to move the 1993 Super Bowl from Tempe if the holiday was defeated at the polls.

The King holiday lost in a two-part voter referendum and the NFL made good on its threat, taking the Super Bowl to Southern California and costing the state an estimated $500 million in revenue.

Arizona voters approved the King holiday two years later.

There was also a fight in South Carolina over the holiday. It was one of the last states to approve a paid King holiday for state employees in 2000.

The state’s governor had tried to link the holiday to a commitment to allow the state house to fly the Confederate battle flag. Instead, he signed a bill that approved the King holiday along with a Confederate Memorial Day celebrated in May.

By 2000, all 50 states recognized the King birthday as a government holiday.


These are some of the examples above that I spoke about in another post, when having a ‘Negro Mentality.’ (Foxy White Liberals And Token Negro Leaders) (What Does The Word Yurugu Mean ?) (Euroasia) (Eurasian) (This ad comes from HSN (Home Shopping Network)

Foxy White Liberals And Token Negro Leaders



hist_us_20_civil_rights_pic_mlk_colorPhoto courtesy of Life


I will be using many excerpts from the speech ‘God’s Judgement of White America’ (December 4, 1963) by Malcolm X in this post to correlate with the title of my post. One thing for sure the late Malcolm X was ahead of his time with this speech, because the same words he spoke in the speech ‘God’s Judgement of White America’ in 1963, are still so prevalent and true today with the social and political issues effecting Black people as it did 51 years earlier.

In this deceitful American game of power politics, the Negroes (i.e., the race problem, the integration and civil rights issues) are nothing but tools, used by one group of whites called Liberals against another group of whites called Conservatives, either to get into power or to remain in power. Among whites here in America, the political teams are no longer divided into Democrats and Republicans. The whites who are now struggling for control of the American political throne are divided into “liberal” and “conservative” camps. The white liberals from both parties cross party lines to work together toward the same goal, and white conservatives from both parties do likewise.

The white liberal differs from the white conservative only in one way: the liberal is more deceitful than the conservative. The liberal is more hypocritical than the conservative. Both want power, but the white liberal is the one who has perfected the art of posing as the Negro’s friend and benefactor; and by winning the friendship, allegiance, and support of the Negro, the white liberal is able to use the Negro as a pawn or tool in this political “football game” that is constantly raging between the white liberals and white conservatives.

Politically the American Negro is nothing but a football and the white liberals control this mentally dead ball through tricks of tokenism: false promises of integration and civil rights. In this profitable game of deceiving and exploiting the political politician of the American Negro, those white liberals have the willing cooperation of the Negro civil rights leaders. These “leaders” sell out our people for just a few crumbs of token recognition and token gains. These “leaders” are satisfied with token victories and token progress because they themselves are nothing but token leaders.

According to a New York Herald-Tribune editorial dated February 5, 1960, out of eleven million qualified Negro voters, only 2,700,000 actually took time to vote. This means that, roughly speaking, only three million of the eleven million Negroes who are qualified to vote actually take an active part. The remaining eight million remain voluntarily inactive…and yet this small—three million—minority of Negro voters hold the decisive edge in determining who will be the next President.

If who will be the next President is influenced by only three million Negro voters, it is easy to understand why the presidential candidates of both political parties put on such a false show with the Civil Rights Bill and with false promises of integration. They must impress the three million voting Negroes who are the actual “integration seekers.” If such a fuss is made over these three million “integration seekers,” what would presidential candidates have to do to appease the eight million non-voting Negroes, if they ever decide to become politically active? Who are the eight million non-voting Negroes; what do they want, and why don’t they vote?

The three million Negro voters are the so-called middle-class Negroes, referred to by the late Howard University sociologist, E. Franklin Frazier, as the “black bourgeoisie,” who have been educated to think as patriotic “individualists,” with no racial pride, and who therefore look forward hopefully to the future “integrated-intermarried” society promised them by the white liberals and the Negro “leaders.” It is with this hope that the “integration-minded” three million remain an active part of the white-controlled political parties. But it must never be overlooked that these three million “integration seekers” are only a small minority of the eleven million potential Negro voters.

The eight million non-voting Negroes are in the majority; they are the downtrodden black masses. The black masses have refused to vote, or to take part in politics, because they reject the Uncle Tom approach of the Negro leadership that has been handpicked for them by the white man. These Uncle Tom leaders do not speak for the Negro majority; they don’t speak for the black masses. They speak for the “black bourgeoisie,” the brainwashed, white-minded, middle-class minority who are ashamed of being black, and don’t want to be identified with the black masses, and are therefore seeking to lose their “black identity” by mixing, mingling, intermarrying, and integrating with the white man.

If the three million white-minded Negroes are casting their ballots for integration and intermarriage, what do the nonvoting black masses want? Find out what the black masses want, and then perhaps America’s grave race problem can be solved.

Think how the late President himself got into office by only scant margin which was “donated” to him by Negro voters, and think how many governors and other white politicians hold their seats (some by less than five thousand votes). Only then can you understand the importance of these white liberals place on their control of the Negro vote!

Let us examine briefly some of the tricky strategy used by white liberals to harness and exploit the political energies of the Negro. The crooked politicians in Washington, D.C., purposely make a big noise over the proposed civil rights legislation. By blowing up the civil rights issue they skillfully add false importance to the Negro civil rights “leaders.” Once the image of these Negro civil rights “leaders” has been blown up way beyond its proper proportion, these same Negro civil rights “leaders” are then used by white liberals to influence and control the Negro voters, all for the benefit of the white politicians who pose as liberals, who pose as friends of the Negro.

The white conservatives aren’t friends of the Negro either, but they at least don’t try to hide it. They are like wolves; they show their teeth in a snarl that keeps the Negro always aware of where he stands with them. But the white liberals are foxes, who also show their teeth to the Negro but pretend that they are smiling. The white liberals are more dangerous than the conservatives; they lure the Negro, and as the Negro runs from the growling wolf, he flees into the open jaws of the “smiling” fox. The job of the Negro civil rights leader is to make the Negro forget that the wolf and the fox both belong to the (same) family. Both are canines; and no matter which one of them the Negro places his trust in, he never ends up in the White House, but always in the dog house.

The white liberals control the Negro and the Negro vote by controlling the Negro civil rights leaders. As long as they control the Negro civil rights leaders, they can also control and contain the Negro’s struggle, and they can control the Negro’s so-called revolt. The Negro “revolution” is controlled by these foxy white liberals, by the government itself. But the black revolution is controlled only by God.

Can we prove that the Negro revolution is controlled by white liberals? Certainly!

Right after the Birmingham demonstrations, when the entire world had seen on television screens the police dogs, police clubs, and fire hoses brutalizing defenseless black women, children, and even babies, it was reported on page twenty-six in the May 15 issue of The New York Times, that the late President Kennedy and his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, during a luncheon conference with several newspaper editors from the State of Alabama, had warned these editors that they must give at least some token gains to the moderate Negro leaders in order to enhance the image of these moderate Negro leaders in the eyesight of the black masses; otherwise the masses of Negroes might turn in the direction of Negro extremists.

Martin Luther King’s image had been shattered the previous year when he failed to bring about desegregation in Albany, Georgia. The other civil rights leaders had also become fallen idols. The black masses across the country at the grass roots level had already begun to take their cases to the streets on their own. The government in Washington knew that something had to be done to get the rampaging Negroes back into the corral, back under the control of the white liberals.

The government propaganda machine began encouraging Negroes to follow only what it called “responsible” Negro leaders. The government actually meant Negro leaders who were responsible to the government, and who could therefore by controlled by the government, and be used by that same government to control their impatient people.

Let us review briefly what happened last spring: In May in Birmingham, Negroes erupted and retaliated against the whites. During the many long weeks when the police dogs and police clubs and the high-pressure water hoses were brutalizing black women and children and babies, and the Birmingham Negroes had called for the government to intervene with Federal troops, the late President did nothing but sit on his hands. He said there was nothing he could do. But when Negroes in Birmingham exploded and began to defend themselves, the late President then sent in Federal troops, not to defend the Negroes, but to defend the whites against whom the Negroes had finally retaliated.

At this point, spontaneous demonstrations began taking place all over the country. At the grass roots level Negroes began to talk about marching on Washington, tying up the Congress, the Senate, the White House, and even the airport. They threatened to bring this government to a halt. This frightened the entire white power structure. The late President called in the Negro civil rights leaders and told them to bring this “march” to a halt. The Negro civil rights leaders were forced to tell the late President that they couldn’t stop the march because they hadn’t started it. It was spontaneous, at the grass roots level across the country, and it had no leadership whatsoever. When the late President saw that he couldn’t stop the march, he joined; he endorsed it; he welcomed it; he became a part of it; and it was he who put the six Negro civil rights leaders at the head of it. It was he who made them the Big Six.

How did he do it? How did he gain control of the March on Washington? A study of his shrewd strategy will give you a glimpse of the political genius with which the Kennedy family was ruling this country from the White House, and how they used the America Negro in all of their schemes. The late President endorsed the march; that should have been the tip-off. A few days later in New York City, at the Carlyle Hotel, a philanthropic society known as the Taconic Foundation, headed by a shrewd white liberal named Stephen Currier, called a meeting of the six civil rights leaders in an effort to bring unity of action and purpose among all the civil rights groups.

After Martin Luther King had been released from his Birmingham jail cell in May, he traveled from coast to coast in a fund-raising campaign for his Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Roy Wilkins then began to attack King, accusing him of stirring up trouble, saying that after the NAACP would bail out King and the other demonstrators, then King would capitalize on the trouble by taking up all the money for his own organization, leaving the NAACP to hold the bag at a great financial loss.

As King, Wilkins, and the other civil rights leaders began to fight publicly among themselves over the money they were trying to get from the white liberals, they were destroying their own leadership “image.”

The white liberal, Stephen Currier, showed them how they were destroying themselves by attacks upon each other, and it was suggested that, since most of their divisions and disagreements stemmed from competition for funds from white liberals, they should unite their fund raising efforts. Then they formed the Council for the United Civil Rights Leadership, under the pretext that it would be for fund-raising purposes. They chose the Urban League’s Whitney Young as the chairman, and the white liberal Stephen Currier became the co-chairman.

It took the white man to bring those Negro leaders together and to unite them into one group. He let them select their own chairman, but he himself became the co-chairman. This shrewd maneuver placed the white liberal and the Taconic Foundation in the position to exercise influence and control over the six civil rights leaders and, by working through them, to control the entire civil rights movement, including the March on Washington. (It also put the white liberals in a position to force the Big Six to come out against the recently proposed Christmas boycott by threatening to withdraw their financial support from the civil rights drive.)

According to the August 4 edition of The New York Times, $800,000 was split up between these six Negro civil rights leaders on June 19 at the Carlyle Hotel, and another $700,000 was promised to be given to them at a later date after the march was over, if everything went well with the march.
Public relations experts were made available to these “Six Big Negroes,” and they were given access to the news media throughout the country. The press skillfully projected them as the leaders of the March on Washington, and as soon as the Big Six were looked upon in the public eye as the organizers of the march, and their first step was to invite four white “leaders” to become a part of the march “godhead.” This group of leaders would supposedly okay all the plans and thereby control the “direction and the mood” of the march.

These four white “leaders” represented the same factions that had put the late President in the White House: Catholics, Jews, Labor, and Protestant liberals. When the late President had learned that he couldn’t stop the march, he not only joined it himself but he encouraged all of his political bedfellows to join it. This is the way the white liberals took over the March on Washington, weakened its impact, and changed its course; by changing the participants and the contents, they were able to change the very nature of the march itself.

Example: If I have a cup of coffee that is too strong for me because it is too black, I weaken it by pouring cream into it, I integrate it with cream. If I keep pouring enough cream in the coffee, pretty soon the entire flavor of he coffee is changed; the very nature of the coffee is changed. If enough cream is poured in, eventually you don’t even know that I had coffee in this cup. This is what Happened with the March on Washington. The whites didn’t integrate it; they infiltrated it. Whites joined it; they engulfed it; they became so much a part of it, it lost its original flavor. It ceased to be a black march; it ceased to be militant; it ceased to be angry; it ceased to be impatient. In fact, it ceased to be a march. It became a picnic, an outing with a festive, circus-like atmosphere…clowns and all.

The government had learned that in cases where the demonstrators are predominantly black, they are extremely militant, and ofttimes very violent. But to the same degree that whites participate, violence most times is decreased. The government knew that in cases wherein blacks were demonstrating all by themselves, those blacks are so dissatisfied, disenchanted, and angry at the white man that they will ofttimes strike back violently regardless of the odds or the consequences. The white government had learned that the only way to hold these black people in check is by joining them, by infiltrating their ranks disguised as integrationist; by integrating their marches and all their demonstrations, and weakening them: in this way only could they be held in check.

The government told the marchers what time to arrive in Washington, where to arrive, and how to arrive. The government then channeled them from the arrival point to the feet of a dead President, George Washington, and then let them march from there to the feet of another dead President, Abraham Lincoln.

The original black militants had planned to march on the White House, the Senate, and the Congress and to bring all political traffic on Capitol Hill to a halt, but the shrewd politicians in Washington, realizing that those original black militants could not be stopped, joined them. By joining the marchers, the white liberals were able to lead the marchers away from the White House, the Senate, the Congress, Capitol Hill, and away from victory. By keeping them marching from the Washington Monument to the Lincoln Monument, marching between the feet of two dead Presidents, they never reached the White House to see the then living President.

The entire march was controlled by the late president. The government in Washington had told the marchers what signs to carry, what songs to sing, what speeches to make, and what speeches not to make, and then told the marchers to be sure to get out of town by sundown.

One of the Big Six leaders, John Lewis, chairman of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, was prevented from making a very militant speech. He wanted to attack the Kennedy administration for its hypocrisy on civil rights. The speech was censored by the Rt. Rev. Patrick O’Boyle, the Catholic Archbishop of Washington, D.C.. This was a case in which the Catholic Church itself, for whom Rev. O’Boyle speaks, put itself in the position of censoring the legitimate opinion of one of the Big Six Negro civil rights leaders.

The late President’s shrewd strategy was: If you can’t beat them, join them. The Catholic President placed his Catholic bishop in a strategic position to exercise censorship over any one of the Big Six Negro leaders who tried to deviate from the script in this great “extravaganza” called the March on Washington, which the government had controlled right from the very beginning.

So, in the final analysis of the march: It would have to be classified as the best performance of the year; in fact it was the greatest performance of this century. It topped anything that Hollywood could have produced. If we were going to give out Academy Awards in 1963, we would have to give the late President an Oscar for the “Best Producer of the Year”; and to the four white liberals who participated should get an Oscar as the “Best Actors of the Year,” because they really acted like sincere liberals and fooled many Negroes. And to the six Negro civil rights leaders should go and Oscar for the “Best Supporting Cast,” because they supported the late President in his entire act, and in his entire program.

Now that the show is over, the black masses are still without land, without jobs, and without homes…their Christian churches are still being bombed, their innocent little girls murdered. So what did the March on Washington accomplish? Nothing!

The late President has a bigger image as a liberal, the other whites who participated have bigger liberal images also, and the Negro civil rights leaders have now been permanently named the Big Six (because of their participation in the Big Fix?)…but the black masses are still unemployed, still starving, and still living in the slums…and, I might add, getting angrier and more explosive every day.

Note: It was not until the 1940s that term “Uncle Tom” acquired its current derogatory meaning of a fawning, submissive, compromising black man.(‘Dirty Little Secrets: About Black History, Its Heroes, And Other Troublemakers’, by Claud Anderson, Ed.D.) p.91

Note: Based on Harriet Beecher Stowe’s novel, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, in which the name ‘Uncle Tom’ originated, black people who intentionally place the welfare of the dominant white race above that of their own race more closely resemble Sambo, not Uncle Tom. Sambo was the character whose commitment to his white master was exercised even at the expense of his fellow slaves. In fact, it was Sambo who beat Uncle Tom to death for refusing to whip a black female. (Introduction~ of ‘Dirty Little Secrets: About Black History, Its Heroes, And Other Troublemakers’, by Claud Anderson, Ed.D.)

Note: Notice how the word ‘Negro’ was used a lot in this speech by Malcolm X ? Because the word ‘Negro’ was still commonly use back in the 1960s where Black people refer to themselves as such. However it’s more of a derogatory term to use to call oneself a Negro, if you’re a person of African descent. Because when a Black person call themselves a ‘Negro’ you basically are saying you’re someone who’s ‘dead mentally,’ because the word ‘Negro’ is synonymous with and derives from the words ‘Nekros/Necro’ meaning ‘dead, death, dead body, or corpse.’ Basically being call a ‘Negro’ sums up having a negative mentality of oneself and other Black people or thinking in a negative way that does not benefit oneself in a positive way or Black people in general. For example the following terms and summary sums up having a ‘Negro mentality’ examples such as, self-hatred, color-ism, tokenism, cognitive dissonance, cooning, bed wench (when a Black female who sleeps with a Caucasian male who was used for sexual pleasure during slavery by force due to the fact because she was property, and even currently today you can make the case for some Black females who willing sleeps with a Caucasian male who would be consider a bed wench.), the big strong Black buck (and who was also known as the ‘Mandingo’ who was always admire for his beautiful athletic body and hard work, and used also for sexual pleasure to breed more children with enslaved African women and in many cases being sexually seduce by the slave owner’s wife or girlfriend, which lead to sometimes breeding children with her, you can still see many examples of the ‘Mandingo’ Black male today.), mammy (who loves catering to Caucasians at any giving moment, taking care of her children, taking care of Caucasian children, who’s the cook of the house and or maid, mammy was often found on the plantation during slavery as the house slave. (i.e. Oprah Winfrey comes to mind who would be consider as a modern day Mammy.)

More examples of a ‘Negro mentality’ would consist of miscegenation (i.e. so-called interracial dating, intermarrying, mixing, promoting and supporting miscegenation relations), going all out of your way to defend Caucasians at any giving moment even when they’re wrong, and or to be accepted and love by them, and belittling and disrespecting other Black people when engaged in conversations with Caucasians friends, relatives, and or co-workers, or to berate other Black people who are beneath you social class wise, or if their not College educated and with (Academic degrees and Masters), thinking inferior of one self, and continuing to perpetuate in thinking and seeing Caucasians as superior, or just being plain ignorant willing or not and arrogant of Euro-Asian History & Culture and of ones own African True~story & Culture and of other issues effecting African people around the world, and finally promoting, supporting, celebrating, and practicing anything that’s non-African would consist of a ‘Negro mentality.’

Note: The term nigger, said to be derived through negro, necro from the proto-indo-european root nekwt or nek referencing ‘dead, dark, night’ etc.,

actually has its origins in the terms Neq, Neqr, Neqau, Nek and related terms in Kamit (Egypt):

The Caucasians trace the terms necro, negro, night to the roots ‘nekwt’ and ‘nek’ yet are unsure of their etymological origins. This is because they have stolen terms which have no roots in their culture and then relabeled them as ‘proto-indoeuropean’.

The root of these terms can be found in Khanit and Kamit, predating the existence of europeans upon Asaase (Earth). The association of negro, necro, night, negative (neg- meaning not, no, lack) with nekwt and nek is rooted in the terms:

neqan to be lacking, wanting (not having)

nega lack, want

neqn injury, affliction

neqaut foes crushed or beaten to death

nek to smite, to attack, to injure, outrage, crime, and murder.

These terms are related to the dead body, corpse, death, the treatment of the body in a negative fashion, etc.

 The related terms neqr, nuqr referencing sifting; dust, powder, what is sifted, etc. are related to that which is crushed, beaten, pounded. This is what happens in a negative sense to the body, corpse of a foe in Afurakani/Afuraitkaitnit (African) culture.

In a positive sense we do not crush, pound or cremate the body of the deceased. We engage the embalming and mummification process to preserve the body as an Ancestral shrine of the departed Ancestress or Ancestor. It is only in the negative sense that the body is treated otherwise, hence the related terms neqem and neqeb referencing mourning, afflicted, grieving and Neqaiu hatu the fiends who tear up hearts in the spirit realm after the person died.

The loss of the heart was a grievous possibility in the spirit-realm, rendering the deceased spirit vulnerable to the attacks of other negative discarnate entities. This is why there are numerous chapters in the Ru Nu Pert em Hru (Book of Coming Forth by Day) wherein the individual invokes the Ntorou/Ntorotu (Deities) to not allow his or her heart to be taken away from him or her or destroyed/torn up.

However, in the culture of the whites and their offspring, cremation was/is a central feature of their funerary practices. The destruction of the body was not a descration to them, but a common practice. Afurakanu/Afuraitkaitnut (Africans) always preserved the bodies of our deceased in sacred ceremonies, that they may become the most potent Ancestral shrines of the departed Honorable Ancestor or Ancestress for family members to communicate with at sacred burial sites during Ancestral observances. Since the whites and their offspring have no honorable ancestresses and ancestors, there was no ritual pracitce of preserving the melanin recessive, perverse bodies of their deceased. They only began practicing embalming, mummification and elaborate burial practices after observing and imitating Afurakanu/Afuraitkaitnut (Africans).

Yet, because the whites and their offspring observed the sanctity of preserving the body, burial and Ancestral Communication amongst Afurakanu/Afuraitkaitnut (Africans) they always sought to desecrate the bodies of our deceased whenever they could during warfare, invasions, etc. They would also eventually use terms to identify us with the dead, negative, afflicted, crushed, etc. in a pejorative sense. This is the origin of the roots of terms such as neqaut being used in later european dialects to refer to Black people in general. Black used in the sense of negative, not, lacking light (therefore dark, black, gloomy), lacking life (dead), etc. [night, negro, necro, neg, naught, etc.] The neqau became the nekwt, nekus, nekros, necro, nigrum, niger, negre, negro, negroes, nigras, niggers, niggas, etc:

nigger (n.) Look up nigger at Dictionary.com1786, earlier neger (1568, Scottish and northern England dialect), from French nègre, from Spanish negro (see Negro).

Negro (n.) Look up Negro at“member of a black-skinned race of Africa,” 1550s, from Spanish or Portuguese negro “black,” from Latin nigrum (nominative niger) “black, dark, sable, dusky,” figuratively “gloomy, unlucky, bad, wicked,” of unknown origin (perhaps from PIE *nekw-t- “night;” see Watkins). As an adjective from 1590s. Use with a capital N- became general early 20c. (e.g. 1930 in “New York Times” stylebook) in reference to U.S. citizens of African descent, but because of its perceived association with white-imposed attitudes and roles the word was ousted late 1960s in this sense by Black (q.v.).

Professor Booker T. Washington, being politely interrogated … as to whether negroes ought to be called ‘negroes’ or ‘members of the colored race’ has replied that it has long been his own practice to write and speak of members of his race as negroes, and when using the term ‘negro’ as a race designation to employ the capital ‘N’ [“Harper’s Weekly,” June 2, 1906]

Meaning “English language as spoken by U.S. blacks” is from 1704. French nègre is a 16c. borrowing from Spanish negro.

necro- Look up necro- at Dictionary.combefore vowels, necr-, word-forming element meaning “death, corpse, dead tissue,” from comb. form of Greek nekros “dead body, corpse, dead person,” from PIE *nek- (1) “death, natural death” (cognates: Sanskrit nasyati “disappears, perishes,” Avestan nasyeiti “disappears,” nasu- “corpse,” Old Persian vi-nathayatiy “he injures;” Latin nex, genitive necis “violent death, murder” (as opposed to mors), nocere “to harm, hurt,” noxius “harmful;” Greek nekus “dead” (adj.), nekros “dead body, corpse;” Old Irish ec, Breton ankou, Welsh angeu “death”).

night (n.) Look up night at Dictionary.comOld English niht (West Saxon neaht, Anglian næht, neht) “night, darkness;” the vowel indicating that the modern word derives from oblique cases (genitive nihte, dative niht), from Proto-Germanic *nakht- (cognates: Old Saxon and Old High German naht, Old Frisian and Dutch nacht, German Nacht, Old Norse natt, Gothic nahts).

The Germanic words are from PIE *nekwt- “night” (cognates: Greek nuks “a night,” Latin nox, Old Irish nochd, Sanskrit naktam “at night,” Lithuanian naktis “night,” Old Church Slavonic nosti, Russian noch’, Welsh henoid “tonight”), according to Watkins, probably from a verbal root *neg- “to be dark, be night.”

deny (v.) Look up deny at Dictionary.comearly 14c., from Old French denoiir “deny, repudiate, withhold,” from Latin denegare “to deny, reject, refuse” (source of Italian dinegarre, Spanish denegar), from de- “away” (see de-) + negare “refuse, say ‘no,’ ” from Old Latin nec “not,” from Italic base *nek- “not,” from PIE root *ne- “no, not” (see un-). Related: Denied; denying.


* I also want to add as African people we suffer mentally from something that is known as ‘Post Traumatic Slave Syndrome’ especially throughout the African diaspora.

Post Traumatic Slave Syndrome

As a result of twelve years of quantitative and qualitative research Dr. DeGruy has developed her theory of Post Traumatic Slave Syndrome, and published her findings in the book Post Traumatic Slave Syndrome – America’s Legacy of Enduring Injury and Healing”. The book addresses the residual impacts of generations of slavery and opens up the discussion of how the black community can use the strengths we have gained in the past to heal in the present.

P.T.S.S. is a theory that explains the etiology of many of the adaptive survival behaviors in African American communities throughout the United States and the Diaspora. It is a condition that exists as a consequence of multigenerational oppression of Africans and their descendants resulting from centuries of chattel slavery. A form of slavery which was predicated on the belief that African Americans were inherently/genetically inferior to whites. This was then followed by institutionalized racism which continues to perpetuate injury.

Thus, resulting in M.A.P.:

M: Multigenerational trauma together with continued oppression;

A: Absence of opportunity to heal or access the benefits available in the society; leads to

P: Post Traumatic Slave Syndrome.

Under such circumstances these are some of the predictable patterns of behavior that tend to occur:


Vacant Esteem
Insufficient development of what Dr. DeGruy refers to as primary esteem, along with feelings of hopelessness, depression and a general self destructive outlook.
Marked Propensity for Anger and Violence
Extreme feelings of suspicion perceived negative motivations of others. Violence against self, property and others, including the members of one’s own group, i.e. friends, relatives, or acquaintances.
Racist Socialization and (internalized racism)
Learned Helplessness, literacy deprivation, distorted self-concept, antipathy or aversion for the following:

  • The members of ones own identified cultural/ethnic group,
  • The mores and customs associated ones own identified cultural/ethnic heritage,
  • The physical characteristics of ones own identified cultural/ethnic group. (ANIDAHO ~NOTE ON THE TERM NGG WR OR NGNG WR IN KAMIT NGG UR IS NOT ‘NIGGERPART 1), pages 8 & 10. ( THE ORIGIN OF THE TERM ‘GODNOTE ON THE TERM NGG WR OR NGNG WR IN KAMIT NGG UR IS NOT NIGGA’ – PART 2), pages 23, 25 & 26. (Photo courtesy of picsndquotes)