Why Marcus Garvey Wouldn't Support the M.S.T.of A (Part 2)

The push for Asiatics in America to have a nationality is most necessary. However, just what nationality would be appropriate is a perplexing philosophical conversation. In all respect, I admired Drew Ali's attempt to give Asiatics a nationality. However, it proved futile and this is nothing less than a fact. Only the smallest percentage of Asiatics refer to themselves as "Moorish-Americans" and I believe the cause of that is because the term simply does not fit the match.

The African scholar, Wayne B. Chandler, states that the term Moor can be traced to 46 B.C. Herein, we have a Roman army that entered West Africa referring to black Africans they encountered as Maures from the Greek adjective "mauros," which simply meant dark or black. Meanwhile, the Greeks who approached east Africa called the black Africans they encountered Ethiops. Ethiop is inherently Greek and stems from the words aithein {to burn} and ops {face}, i.e. burnt face. However, these are simply terms that ancient Europeans labeled Africans, and they simply were NOT nationalities. It should be mentioned that there were all kinds of different ethnic groups of Africans stemming from different places. They merely were adjectives that described the physical nature of the humans they saw {black or dark skinned}.

"The broad use of the term Moor begs the question: Who were the real Moors? Or as Chancellor Williams queried with a recognizable tinge of frustration, "Now, again, just who were the Moors?" He continues, " the original Moors, like the original Egyptians, were black Africans [emphasis added]. As amalgamation became more and more widespread, only the Berbers, Arabs and coloureds in the Moroccan territories were called Moors." -Source- African Presence in Early Europe

If one reads between the aforesaid lines, he would learn that the term Moor was NEVER a nationality. It was given to us by a foreign race for lack of a better classification. Herein lies the problem in Moor being used as the modern day nationality for displaced Africans in America.

Now to place it even more clear cut, lets use an example. An Irish-American can trace himself back to Ireland. An Italian can trace his bloodline directly to Italy. In contrast, can African-Americans trace their lineage to Morocco? By in large, the answer is no. A nationality connects a citizen of a nation and the nation itself, customarily involving allegiance by the citizen and protection by the state. With this comes things such as a common language, traditions, religion, etc. Bluntly put, the term Moorish-American does not embody those principles.

From the M.S.T of A's Koran Questionaire: "Why are we Moorish Americans?" "Because we are descendants of Moroccans and born in America." However, today's Asiatics don't necessarily come from descendants of Moroccans, especially when history notes that there were many tribes originating from many different parts of Africa when the term Moor was coined. In other words, there were Africans that lived in Western Africa who weren't necessarily Moroccans then.

Now if you want to be a Moorish-American, be that. But it strikes me odd that the top African scholars of our time never confirmed Drew Ali's notion or idea. This is not to say the term is a bad thing, but it indeed divides Asiatics even more than we already are. To that degree, it's no different than a West Indian Asiatic shunning blacks in America. It is no different than an African from Africa looking down on a African American. This is real talk, and as my previous blog mentioned, Garvey would have despised this notion. He mission was to inform us that AFRICA is our birthplace and ALL of us should be united.

Again, this is not to offend Moors, but man knows not by being told, and at some point, you have to ask yourself why the M.S.T.of A often is associated with more drama and conflict than anything else. National membership is low in all branches and branches bicker with each other so much, you often wonder will they simply fall off the tree. This is factual, coming from yours truly because like Dr. Dre said, I've been there, done that.

Learn the history of the Moors, see the potential in what we are capable of and apply that to the now. But, in my opinion, the term Moorish-American holds know weight at all. Based on the number of Moorish-Americans in America, it looks like I'm not the only one who feels that way.

*Picture Courtesy of www.killingthebuddha.com

Why Marcus Garvey Wouldn't Support the M.S.T.A? (Part 1)

*This blog is not intended to create confusion amongst members of the M.S.T.of A nor give the M.S.T.of A, a bad reputation. This blog's purpose is to invoke critical thinking and upstanding interpersonal relations between all who might comment or take something away from the knowledge concealed. I encourage all Moors to comment and defend your square, as this is merely my opinion---and as you know, everybody has one.

Question: If Marcus Garvey was the "John the Baptist," or the forerunner of the so called prophet Noble Drew Ali (founder of the Moorish Science Temple of America), why do they have conflicting messages? Show me were John the Baptist said something contrary to what Jesus brought. And after all, I didn't choose those words, Noble Drew Ali did. In chapter 48 of the Circle 7 Koran, we read:

"In these modern days there came a forerunner of Jesus, who was divinely prepared by the great God-Allah and his name is Marcus Garvey, who did teach and warn the nations of the earth to prepare to meet the coming Prophet..."

BUT, while reading"Selected Writings and Speeches of Marcus Garvey," something struck me as odd.

In "The Philosophy and Opinions of Marcus Garvey Volume 2 (speech entitled Who and What is a Negro)," Garvey speaks against the very philosophy that Drew Ali brought to Asiatics. More specifically, I believe that Garvey would refute the term "Moorish American." Allow me to present some evidence from Garvey himself:

"If we were Negroes when we were down under the heel of oppression then we will be Negroes when we are up and liberated from such thralldom." -Marcus Garvey

In short, in this speech, Garvey notes that European scholars often isolate groups of blacks [Africans] because of some accomplishment they have achieved and classify them as non-negro. On the flip side, if Drew Ali was the prophet all our people had hoped for, a nationality better than "Moorish-American" should have been revealed. The term in itself is simply not accurate, and on it's face, Ali did a poor job of explaining the details of why we are Moorish Americans. Moreover, it is divisive. When people become members of the M.S.T. of A, they are no longer black. Ali taught Asiatics that black means death (he also taught that white means God). Subsequently, you have "Moors" who attempt to convert "blacks" to Moorish Americans. See how confusing this gets?

"Imagine a dark colored man in the middle of Africa being anything else but a negro." -Marcus Garvey

Undoubtedly, the Moors would have to admit that the forerunner sought to unite ALL Asiatics, and sought to include no division thereof. However, when Drew Ali appeared, he brought MORE confusion to the condition of the black man, women and child, in the sense of nationality.

" That is why the nationality of the Moors was taken away from them in 1774 and the word negro, black and colored, was given to the Asiatics of America who were of Moorish descent, because they honored not the principles of their mother and father, and strayed after the gods of Europe of whom they knew nothing. (Circle 7 42:17)"

But is the term Moor a nationality? In part two, I will explore the term Moor (and prove that the term is extremely ambiguos), and prove it is not a concise enough word to be classified as a competent nationality.

*pictures courtesy of nessence.com and whitescarver.com

If It Were My World...

I play Civilization, a strategy game where the goal is to build an empire, and I enjoy playing it very much. In the game I'm currently playing, I am overseeing an Ethiopian empire. The thing I like about Civilization is you get to rewrite history, as it has real leaders, real technology and so forth.

Anyway, my goal in this game is to AVOID war at all costs. I have quite an empire right now, and there is a small portion of the map owned by Indians. It would be nothing for me to make a military campaign to conquer their territory. However, at the end of the night, it's more rewarding to trade with them and allow them to retain their land, traditions, customs, etc.

My point is though American History did the opposite of how I am playing the game (we know the story of the "Native Americans"), I can relate to the struggles that a race goes through when they are conquered or taken away from their land. If we are to truly let love save the day, then we submit to universal principles that hinges off:

"That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another".
"Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you. "


If we could pound this theory into our mind, we would live in an almost perfect world. The Brotherhood and Sisterhood of all citizens of the globe would be united. Prisons would not be infested with criminals. Love would be the King or Savior of the day (which is the inherent nature of all upstanding religions anyway).

I want to encourage you and let you know that it starts with me. It starts with you. Really sit and think about the power one has when he lives by the Golden Rule. Look in the nooks and crannies of your life and see where you can apply the Golden Rule more. Then, sit back and watch the universe become your biggest ally in uplifting your sisters and brothers. Don't believe me? Try it out. I bet you I'm right.