Welcome to EarthColoney.Net: “…IF ONLY THEY KNEW THEY WERE SLAVES”, by Dr. Steven Nur Ahmed

 Book Cover Earthcolony

Traceable through the history of western and middle-eastern intellectual work  is a particular line of reasoning about humanity based upon race.  That line of reasoning stems from a set of assumptions about humanity and social hierarchy. They have been and are destructive to the inherent dignity and rights of all human beings.

In this book I will, in the following order, cover its ancient historical roots in Torah mythology, Platonic mythology and philosophy, Aristotelian anthropology and philosophy, and Enlightenment anthropology.

All four of those sources and the hinge assumptions they turn on have turned into powerful modern theories which have become inextricably embedded into our modern social structures, statutes, court decisions, social policies, and individual and collective subconscious.  Indeed, those assumptions are the skeletal system of our society while government is the muscle.

harriet tubman

More specifically that particular line of reasoning has been both intentionally and collaterally expressed throughout our social  institutions because that particular line of reasoning was institutionalized as the ‘law of the land’ from the inception of the United States in its Constitution.[1]  It filters down all institutions and to every individual. Harriet Tubman once shared for us an insight of hers about the psychology of a slave. She said: “I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves.” Therein lies the problem at the heart of the issue.


Through educational and religious establishments the slave mentality has  been correspondingly embedded in the deepest recesses of our subconscious as a set of assumptions that are unquestionably valid. As such those assumptions have also served as a psychological defense mechanism used by Euro-Americans to effectively preempt human social inclusion and justice on a national scale.


That line of reasoning in fact describes a 2,400 year old downward spiral in relation to the quality of human reasoning about social justice. This is so because the few who do benefit from such a line of reasoning cannot benefit from it in the absence of extreme social injustice and its consequent unequal distribution of wealth.  Further, the few who benefit must also establish and maintain conditions of oppression to further  their world order.  It is like nuclear radioactive fall-out. You can’t see it, you can’t smell it, you can’t touch it, but it permeates everything and destroys all living creatures.


The ‘fall-out’ from their line of reasoning describes a global canopy of  assumptions  above and beyond which few are able, daring enough, or willing to rise up to challenge.  As such, it has caused a narrowing of the mindscape and thus our field of vision. It even causes African-Americans to frame their social justice movements upon the same set of assumptions which are used to maintain social injustice.  So, the vernacular of our civil rights movements has not been truly antithetical to the white supremacist assumptions which cause injustice.

 Malcolm X

The welding together of such glaring contrarieties as the appeal for justice in the language of injustice has doomed every social justice movement from the turn of the 20th century to the civil rights movement of the 1940s, 50s, and 60s. That is why the socio-economic conditions of African Americans are worse today than they were 60 years ago.  That is echoed in what Malcolm X said:     

“It is incorrect to classify the revolt of the Negro as simply a radical conflict of black against white or as purely [an] American problem. Rather, we are today seeing a global rebellion of the oppressed against the oppressor, the exploited against the exploiter.”

White supremacist assumptions about race gird up a definition which is today the dominant force shaping what we know about the origin, history, statuses, roles, social rights and obligations expected by and of every person on earth.  It also serves the manifest function of maintaining the economic status quo.

“As a man thinketh, so shall it be”

Our language frames our  thoughts. Pictures are embedded in the words as metaphors.  Language is also laden with metaphorical assumptions about other people. Most of us never dig deeply into the etiology or nature of the words we use in everyday speech to help us comprehend those assumptions. We are casual in our use of such words, in our reasoning with them, and on the sentences we make up by such words. That means we’re ignorant about how words work on our collective sentiment and the collective sentiment of all.

Words and sentences merge with the natural world and have a powerful descriptive effect on our mindscape and social relations. They are forms and sound embedded with assumptions.  They are linked together and  through categorizations are welded together into real actions. They come alive such that we participate a social construction foundationally set to make us closer to or farther from  ethnic groups different from our own. We pass that meaning on from one generation to another usually subconsciously but also consciously. That is the purpose of culture.  It engenders casual habitual behaviors.

We are verbally casual in our interpersonal interactions but we can also be very logically fallacious in our reasoning, too, because we don’t scrutinize the nature of what we say. Neither do we scrutinize the classical literature which still makes up our popular  religious and liberal arts education and which shapes our world view.

Further, those same religious and liberal arts world views  dominate our substantive and procedural law as well as scientific bodies of knowledge. If we were to become more conscious and critical of our language, then we would discover those bedrock assumptions which drive both the rationalizations of oppressors as well as oppressed persons as they are actively and or passively concretized into political policy, social classes, castes, roles, rights, obligations, and statuses.

 digging into the mind


Whether or not we do ‘dig deeply’ into our subconscious to question those bedrock assumptions, which trigger our social responses to others who are ethnically different, depends in part upon the amount of advantage one gains in society or our lack of competing on a level playing field.  The assumptions I  explore do give advantage to some groups and do make other groups socially disadvantaged.


The ruling classes or castes never question the ‘bed-rock’ assumptions as long as those assumptions as applied in society have worked to get them a disproportionate share of social benefits. For them it’s the proverbial saying which rings true: ‘if it works, don’t fix it.’ In the Americas, it works for ‘White’ people, so they don’t fix it and as long as it does work for them they don’t intend to fix it.  The white supremacist’ world view has been and is very effective on maintaining the order they want.


During the twentieth century circa 1930, a sociologist by the name of Emory Bogardus did a study called the ‘Social Distance Scale’. His bipolar questionnaire asked persons specific questions about how they would feel working with, living near, or marrying into other ethnic groups. What resulted from his study was a ranking of social distance determined by individual’s preferences and between different ethnic groups. In short, most persons ranked English and American ‘Whites’ as the most acceptable groups to work with, be ‘near’ socially and marry within while at the bottom were conspicuously non-Caucasian ethnic groups such as Indians (India) and Africans.


I posit in this book that the subconscious assumptions for making social distance real is an ‘offense’ mechanism as well as defense mechanism for plutocrats.  Whether one is offensive or defensive depends upon the circumstances. For example, the institution of slavery was purely offensive in nature whereas affirmative action law instigated defensive reactions to subconscious assumptions held by racist Caucasians.


Some persons are true believers in the ideology of race and so rationalize ‘racism’. In that case those persons evaluate and judge according to their assumptions about others and in so doing convert their beliefs into a ‘state of mind’  which is then acted out as discrimination.


That discrimination is the social distance in real space and time between one person or group and another. Persons acting affirmatively on their prejudice and by the distance they cause by their prejudice they stigmatize and criminalize, i.e., discriminate (krima: to condemn-Greek) other persons and ethnic groups. Such is what we mean by social marginalization, segregation isolation, and poverty.


All of these mental mechanisms condition a knee-jerk reflex by individuals and  have both the psychological and social effect of lowering the esteem of some persons in society at large.  By these mental mechanisms, the bedrock subconscious assumptions are consciously rationalized as cult, ideology, or belief and even ‘pseudo-science’.


One of my other premises is that no understanding of the ‘race’ problem can be had without a knowledge of the history of its development in Western culture.  Exactly, what is ‘Race’? In order to answer that question I shall critically examine that idea and how it has been rationalized as ideology and ‘pseudo-science’.  Furthermore, I shall examine how the idea of race was intended to be used as a social construct to further the aims of economic, cultic, and political repression and exploitation.


Another premise of my book is that no solution to the so-called ‘race’ problem can be had through conversation using the very categorical concepts and words which carry stigmata and krimata onto other groups and which are the cutting edge of fallacious racial assumptions.  What simply happens during intellectual discussions which employ terms like ‘black people’ and ‘white people’ is that everyone is reinforced in their ideology of race.  In such circles, the expectation of a race premised conversation to end the disastrous effects of racism on our society is a logical reduction to absurdity.





[1] United States Constitution: Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3

Welcome to Earth Colony: REALITY CHECK AHEAD, by Dr. Steven Nur Ahmed

reality check 2

We have a place in the world like every other creature.  Though the place of human experience has a greater range than any other known creature, humans like every other animal have their limits, too. Our habitat defines the unique or specialized organic and social characteristics we have in relation to the world.


Yet, at another level the evidence of human genetic relatedness to all other creatures is incontrovertible and demonstrates that human beings are but roommates with all other creatures in a biochemical apartment.  All life is connected to a common stem growing out of a single root which in turn is sustained by doses of solids, liquids, and gases.


How we perceive the world is of special importance here.  Most human knowledge has been determined and guided by general practical needs.  However, over the course of many centuries various kinds of specialized perceptions of existence have come to define the nature of human life.


Thomas S. Kuhn identified specialized perceptions of some aspect of nature as a ‘paradigm’.[1] A paradigm is an abstraction or definition of reality characterized by a set of assumptions which taken as a whole is a theory or hypothesis. At its best a paradigm has descriptive, explanatory, evaluative, and predictive power.  At its worst it is mythology and is to the mind what junk food is to the body.


Kuhn adapted a metaphor from Charles Darwin. It is ‘struggle of the fit’. He used it to explain how paradigms come to be accepted and how other paradigms lose acceptance of critical thinkers based upon evidence or the lack of evidence. But also there is an antithesis in the very definition of ‘paradigm’ because a paradigm aims to define a snap shot of reality it consequently cannot define an ever changing reality.


Naturalists such as Charles Darwin, Alfred Wallace, Gregor Mendal, Richard Dawkins, Robert Trivers, and Edward O. Wilson have made very strong and cogent arguments affirming the conformity of the organism to its habitat and the organism’s origin in and the emergence out of a material sphere.  Its’ emergence is analogous to the embryonic attachment to the nutrient rich uterine lining of a woman’s womb.


What follows by their induction is that human social organization in all of its facets is probably a byproduct of specific material processes determined by specific relations between properties of matter. These mechanical and/or biological processes are denoted under the concept of ‘evolution’.


One important assumption of the above naturalists is that of the non-purposeful nature of organic substances.  This assumption of course fits perfectly with the more general assumption of the non-purposeful nature of matter.  They argue that matter is not innately directed to some end or goal; that material things operate according to very definite patterns of relations, but all that matter ever really does is operate and at most by cause and effect and at least by correlation.


From that logical error their reasoning then proceeds down a slippery slope.  For if matter is the sphere out of which organic activity emerges, then organic activity cannot be purposeful activity either because organic activity is but a characteristic of matter.  This is a fit of convenience and is analogous to the convenience afforded to mathematicians by establishing that  ‘0 to the first power = 1’ which of course is impossible because ‘0 to any power = 0’.


Another contradiction which inheres in the materialist’s paradigm identified above can be expressed in two statements: 1) all human knowledge stems from a finite field of experience, and 2) some forms of human knowledge are not finite.  For example and regarding (1), the range of visible light, the range of audible sound, the range of tactile and olfactory sensations limit our quality of sensations and thus the intelligible images received by our imagination on the one hand and ideas to our intellect on the other.  Regarding (2) they claim their assumptions to be natural law and thus true everywhere in the universe. However, that cannot be demonstrated as true with finite experience.


Neither of these two assumptions can be proven but what we do know is that there is a limit to our bubble shaped universe at about 15 billion years out to the edge and the past of it. What lies beyond that point and which preceded it? Obviously, not a limit at all and something wholly different.  Could it be that here we are embryonic? Hanging as it were and attached to the lining of this bubble we call the universe later to be born?


Granted that technologies such as the microscope, telescope, etc, do expand the field of human experience somewhat, the fact remains that what we abstract from our sense experience is more appropriately called a ‘distortion’ of reality but not reality. Therefore, we neither have finite knowledge nor a grasp of natural law.


To think that all human social structures and infrastructures rest upon a distorted idea of reality is a sobering thought.  It means that even our technologies are necessarily defective having been developed from distorted conceptions of reality.


For these and other reasons both the soundness and cogency of conclusions drawn from premises presumed to be true by some must be critically questioned and understood as being distortions of reality not accurate statements of reality.  For example in England on April 4, 2000, cloning for body parts was approved.  What this means is that zygotes will be allowed to develop to fetal and or embryonic stages so that body parts can be harvested for implantation onto other bodies.


Besides the fact that this is a form of cannibalism and slavery, no one can identify with certainty what kinds of social, psychological, and spiritual collateral damage will follow from these actions anymore than we could foresee the collateral damage of the industrial revolution on the quality of the environment in the 20th and 21st centuries.


What we do know for certain, however, is that in the short run a powerful market will develop resulting in billions of dollars worth of profits for cloning technocrats and corporate shareholders as was the case with the great bankers and industrialists of the 19th century.








[1] Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolution, The University of Chicago Press, Pub. 1962


Malcolm X


Bimbi operated a machine that stamped a different identification number onto each license plate that rolled down the conveyer belt in the prison factory. Each number was unique even though it was stamped upon the same kind of state plate. Eventually, each number would come to be identified with the characteristics of a car and its owner.

Day after day, as he worked on the conveyer belt line Malcolm would listen to Bimbi. He would wonder to himself about the strange man speaking on “odd subjects.” He was awed by what he described as Bimbi’s mastery of words and the total respect his intelligence commanded from everyone.

The conveyer belt would stop sometimes. Then inmates and even guards would gather around Bimbi’s dimly lighted station. Each would listen intently to Bimbi to discern the words and statements he expressed to them.

Malcolm would listen attentively, too. He watched as others put focused attention upon Bimbi. But while watching he came to understand that each man perceived Bimbi’s speech differently. Though each word Bimbi uttered made identical percussions upon their ears, those same discrete sounds when strung together into statements and then set down side by side to each other became step planks, or were like fine tones fleeing the constraints of their bars and notes. One after the other they would spiral upward to a dizzying height and took each listener on a different trip far away from prison.  Was this simply music he heard? Or was it what thought is?

But Malcolm wondered how could this be? How could Bimbi speak to all and yet at the same time to each man each of whom spoke a different dialect? It was like seeing a bright beam of light refracted through a prism into countless colors. Each color suited to the particular mind it penetrated. Bimbi then turned and looked at Malcolm face to face and spoke to him. He spoke to Malcolm the atheist. Bug-eyed, Malcolm listened.

Bimbi was free in his speech. This was so even though his free speech flowed forth and out of a sequestered body. But there, in prison, it was a true paradox for this man to be so free in his speech yet bound and gagged by society.  Yet, it was not an incomprehensible paradox for it was because Bimbi’s mind was free. Thus what gave his words freedom of flight were the fine unfettered logical threads which wove them together in a mind undaunted by incarceration.  His was a mind in negation. Malcolm must have pondered whether negation was that mysterious power in the mind which like some kind of dark energy levitates consciousness beyond its natural context? A mind in negation is what makes a person free.

There was such clarity of meaning and graphic imagery incased in each sound.  But Bimbi was not religious. He was not a Pagan, a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, a Buddhist, a Hindu, or an animist. But neither is God religious. God does not pray; God does not seek himself in the confines of a building; God does not do ritual; in fact God is unlisted. But given all that God is not, God is freedom and so too was Bimbi free.  And in that unspoken relation of negation and freedom there was an odd relation to that which Bimbi had.

Malcolm wanted to be free too and if there was a way out of the box he wanted out. He understood that it would have to be by negation not affirmation. He thought then and there that it had to be the way to freedom expounded upon by Bimbi. Malcolm knew that if he could be free there in prison then he could be truly free everywhere and at all times.

Every person is inherently rational and perceives through the agency of their mind and by the exercise of some degree of reason what reality is not.  The problem of knowledge is to eliminate perception and in so doing disappear false assumptions and the shallow frivolous thoughts out of which our perceptions are born. We can see reality as it is in itself by negation so that we can be propelled into the depths of our mind to affirm our true self. That is difficult to do for many reasons. For example, within the context of our human life, we perceive God as a problem to be solved. But what if God is not contextual?  If that be so, then it is not God that is the problem; so, the problem is us.