Humanities desk
< February 2	<< Jan | February | Mar >>	February 4 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 3 Information

i am looking for a poem that has the line : from whence we came. i think it is from yates or keats and was used in a documentary some yrs ago done by peter graves in reference to all of life coming from the sea. any help is appreciated. thanks

Garryowen by W.B. Yeats? You can see it on this page, a little way down, to see if it's what you're looking for. I found it by putting "from whence we came" Poem Yeats into Google, but it also turned up without using the word Yeats in the sear

thanks but that's not it as it referred to the ocean any other ideas?

It's possible that you are thinking of a quote by John Kennedy:

"I really don't know why it is that all of us are so committed to the sea, except I think it is because in addition to the fact that the sea changes and the light changes, and ships change, it is because we all came from the sea. And it is an interesting biological fact that all of us have, in our veins the exact same percentage of salt in our blood that exists in the ocean, and, therefore, we have salt in our blood, in our sweat, in our tears. We are tied to the ocean. And when we go back to the sea, whether it is to sail or to watch it we are going back from whence we came."

You can find the entire speech here. Carom 02:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply

The pedant in me most point out that the word "from" is needless in the phrase "from whence". "Whence we came" says as much. Pfly 07:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I applied to an M.Sc. at a Dutch university but one of my three references hasn't been sent in. I was already aware of this when I sent my application in but expected my application would not be processed until after all my rerefences has been recieved. What I wasn't counting on is that the deadline is earlier than I expected (due to an error on the university's website. I want to ask if you would check these two paragraphs that I was planning on sending to the admissions person that has just contacted me:

Dear Mrs. Anonymous,

Thank you for your letter regarding my application to the Biomolecular Science M.Sc. course, dated 2 February 2007. Unfortunately, my third referee, Ms. Anonymous, has not yet completed my reference on account of the fact that I gave her an incorrect deadline. The University of Anonymous webpage, http://www.anonymous.nl/prospectiveStudents/degreeProgrammes/mastersProgrammes/masters/croho60616 gives the application deadline for EU/EEA citizens as 1 May and thus I was unaware that the correct deadline is in fact, 1 February.

I have already emailed Ms. Anonymous, to alert her to the situation. Would it be possible to delay the processing of my application until my third reference arrives? Of course I understand if this simply is not possible.

Yours sincerely,

Sean Smith

I've replaced any (albeit remotely) sensitive information with anonymous. Should I send this or just let it go? If you go deeply enough into the website, you descover their "alternative" deadline, 1 February, but I only discovered this today and kinda feel (or at least would like to) that it's not really my fault. -- Seans Potato Business 01:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I am an American. It sounds as though it is a good try to me. I don't know how competitive the program is. The worst that they can do is to say no. You can apply again next year. 75Janice 02:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)75Janice 3 february 2007 reply

I agree, go ahead and send the letter. Either it will make no diff or it will help, I can't see how it could possibly hurt. StuRat 03:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Okay, I've sent it. Thanks for the advice. :) -- Seans Potato Business 04:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply

75Janice 01:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)I use the terms black or African-American interchangeably. NPR, National Public Radio, programs dealing with black culture appear to also use the terms interchangeably. I could not discern any particular pattern but I am a Northern-European American. My nephew has been reprimanded several times for using the term "black." The school district has a policy. The New York Times also appears to use both terms. Am I not seeing a pattern? My sister could not tell me the school district's reasoning or even who decided the policy. 75Janice 01:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)75Janice 2 February 2006 reply

I happen to edit social studies textbooks professionally. We use both "black" and "African American", but we probably use the latter more often. Both, to my knowledge, are acceptable. The company's goal is to maximize sales, so we certainly wouldn't use a term that would cost us a sale. Are you sure it's the school district's policy? Marco polo 02:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes. When the teacher admonishes him, the teacher states it is the official policy. The teacher further states that it is racist to use the term black. My sister would speak to the teacher if it were the teacher's policy. If it were my child, I would want the transcript of the board meeting at the very least. I am an extremely "blue" person. Manhattan is my home. I practiced civil rights law. I am afraid I am misusing the terms.

This question comes up periodically. The primary difficulty in answering is the assumption that there *is* such a thing as a "proper term." The very notion that an arbitrary subset of the human population has a 'clinically sanctioned appropriate name' could be considered offensive by some, or at least simplistic. Therefore, no matter what "term" you may choose, it won't please everyone. For example, what about someone who is half African descent and half French Candadian descent? What is the "proper term" for that, African-French-Canadian-American? And how are you supposed to know this in advance? It's definitely a sensitive issue for some people, and a non-issue for others, but unlikely to be resolved with a trite answer from any single source. In fact, the only "simple" answer I have heard that ever made sense was "treat other people as you'd want to be treated yourself." Best wishes to you and your nephew. dr.ef.tymac 02:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I agree with the above comments. Also note that it has recently become fashionable to claim that races don't exist. This, of course, makes discussing things like Affirmative Action programs with quotas based on race quite impossible, if one accepts that races don't exist. Another problem with the term "African-American" is that not everybody who comes from Africa is black. There are many Arab nations in North Africa, for example, such as Egypt, Libya, Algeria, etc., so is it proper to call an Egyptian-American an African-American ? Perhaps we could come up with a new term, such as "of Sub-Saharan African descent" (OSSAD) ? StuRat 02:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I love these policies. Wait until the day they have someone who is black but not American; they'll find that "African-American" can actually itself be considered racist. -- Charlene 03:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply

The word "Negro" is used by the United Negro College Fund ("A mind is a terrible thing to waste") [1] and the term "colored people" is still used by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People [2], so those terms must still be acceptable. Some American blacks have claimed that to be a "African American" you must be dark skinned and have ancestors who came from the West Coast of Africa and were slaves in the U.S., thereby excluding caucasians born in Africa who moved to the U.S., recent immigrants from Africa, and Barack Obama, whose father came from Eastern Africa and who had no slave ancestors [3]. A white boy at a U.S. high school who was born in Africa was suspended after nominating himself for a "Distinguished African-American Student of the Year" prize, and his friends who put up campaign posters for him were also suspended, per the Telegraph. [4]. Edison 03:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply

The Wikipedia Signpost story from 2004 also mentions that he was expelled per policy WP:POINT. Mαc Δαvιs X ( How's my driving?) ❖ 05:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I once actually saw an advertisement for a G.I. Joe doll of an SAS trooper. You could buy it in either "white" or "African-American"! Obviously in their efforts to be politically correct the company hadn't realised that black British people are not generally referred to as "African-American". -- Necrothesp 14:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I suppose that it all depends upon your tone of voice, the relationship between you and the subject, and 'the strength' of political correctness in your social environment. If you using the word "African American" with a sarcastic tone of voice, it becomes an insult. If you are a true friend you can use the "Nigger" (notice, in a joking tone of voice with a fast old friend). In the presence of a large group strangers you are basicly screwed because whatever word you care to use, someone is going to take insult regardless. Flamarande 16:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Is it only me who see the distinction between "nigga" and "nigger"? 惑乱 分からん 19:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Since perhaps the late 1960's, "black" was generally considered the appropriate term in the United States. Since the mid-1990's, "African-American" has pulled up alongside "black" as the term in common use. See African American#The term "African American". But as noted above, "African American" can never completely supersede "black" because are people of African descent from many places besides the United States; to pick a random example, Oona King is not an African American. (I remember a reviewer's description of a Star Trek:Voyager character as "the first African American Vulcan", which was ludicrous, although the actor who portrayed the character could properly have been described as the first African-American to portray a Vulcan.) Newyorkbrad 19:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Your sister needs to ask for a copy of the policy in writing. If the teacher cannot provide it, she should tell her to stop making things up. If such a policy does exist she should contact the school board. Obviosuly the school district idiots don't know that Black is Beautiful. --Nelson Ricardo 21:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I'd just like to note that the term "African-American" seems to be largely a "White" invention. Between the Black people and the Whites I know, it's the Whites that are far more prone to use the term "African-American" than the Blacks, who seem to be completely comfortable with the term "Black". Very similarly, the term "Oriental", which is simply the Latin for "Eastern", seems to be shunned by "Whites" as shameful and derogatory, preferring the term "East Asian". Yet when I explain this to my Oriental friends, they're bewildered by the whole thing. "Oriental is Latin for Eastern, right"? "Yes, it is". "So why do White people think it's so insulting to call us "Oriental"?

In fact, I'd say it's rather condescending and patronizing to Black people for Whites to determine the proper term for them. To expand on Nelson's point, during the civil rights movement of the '60s, the Black people of the US made it as clear as possible that "Black" was their term of choice. Phrases like "Black Power" and "Black is Beautiful" were in abundance. Black people have clearly decided on the term "Black" to identify themselves. I actually find it rather shameful for Whites to so paternalistically reject their term of choice, and replace it with the geographically ridiculous "African-American" designation. I'd say the school district's "policy" of discouraging the term "Black" is a pathetic cop-out on the part of the school district designed to satisfy their consciences and feel that they're somehow doing their fair share to eliminate racism, by means of an overly simplistic, ridiculous, terminological policy. The elimination of racism is far more complicated and requires far more effort than a silly name-change. Loomis 01:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply

hai wikipedians im a tamilian and im eager to learn about G.U.POPE, who had written tamil literature and wished to be buried with the words:"this man learnt tamil"—Preceding unsigned comment added by Veekayvee ( talk • contribs)

Hello, Veekayvee. Wikipedia's article on George Uglow Pope is rather short, and I wasn't able to access the first external link. The second link gives quite a bit more information, and the third link is A Letter to the Tranquebar missionaries, Regarding "Their Position, Their Proceedings and Their Doctrine." by Rev. G. U. Pope., published in 1853 --- Sluzzelin 09:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm writing a story set in Italy in 1240 AD, and in my total ignorance have had included an affable meeting between a Persian astrologer and a Franciscan Friar - how likely was this to have happened? What with the Crusades and all, were Persians allowed to wander Europe on, say, diplomatic missions, or am I totally reaching here?

Thanks Adambrowne666 11:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Does it have to be a Persian, or would others from the Muslim World do? I'm not sure how common it was for Persians or Muslims to be in Italy in the 13th century, but it probably not totally unheard of. THe Republic of Venice and the Republic of Genoa were doing brisk trade with the eastern Mediterranean world. Moorish Spain still held on in Granada. Marco Polo made his journey across Asia in the late 1200s (he was from Venice). I couldn't find much on a quick look for Persians scientists traveling in Europe, but some did apparently travel quite a bite. The 13th century Persian poet Saadi (poet) went to Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and Turkey, and could have easily encountered Italians there. The Arab astronomer Ibn al-Banna live in Morroco. Maybe some of those links will lead to a definite answer. Pfly 16:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I think it's quite within the realms of possibilty - if I read such a book (a historical novel I suspect) - such a meeting wouldn't raise any eyebrows - as long as both were 'clerics' or similar - given that such people often had the role of ambassador/travelling scientist in those days.. As to the question of being allowed to wander - I'm not sure - I think such meetings may have been by invitation to a royal court or papal palace - but there's no reason why a person might not meet various other people - by chance or otherwise on the way to their audience... 213.249.232.136 20:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply

The story of Fibonacci might be of help here. His businessman dad took him to Persia, where he met this girl .. and they tested themselves at math ;)

Also, you might look into the true elements of Michael Chrichton's 13th Warrior. It is based on the true account of a muslim scholar meeting some Vikings, and liveing a year with them. It provided the only written account of Norse lifestyle from a viewpoint of someone liveing among them. Vikings didn't write much. DDB 22:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks, all, for the very prompt and extremely useful answers. Adambrowne666 23:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply

If a man born near the Alps can turn up at Stonehenge in 2600 BC, you may plausibly have a great many Persians in Italy in the 13th century AD. Edison 05:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Your Persian may have been visiting Moorish Spain. Where does this meeting take place? Corvus cornix 18:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply

how many countries went to world war one? who was Germanys leader in world war one? why did world war one start?

Those are simple questions, so I suggest you to search first. Our article World War I provides all the answers you need. -- Taraborn 12:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply

This article may provide you with a more complete answer to your first question. Carom 17:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply

May I assume that this user is from the USA? Just because he or she wrote "went to war". Believe it or not, some countries are actually attacked (on their very own soil) when war breaks out and they don't go to war, they get pulled in... Evilbu 00:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC) reply

The terminology "went to war" is common in the English language to describe soldiers leaving their homes (or bases) to go to the front, regardless of where, precisely, the fighting is taking place. Incidentally, the IP address appears to belong to a user in the UK, although I'm not entirely sure that this is relevant. Carom 01:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Sometimes those who are attacked are in countries which have mobilized and are preparing to attack the neighbor who atacked tham preemptively. Edison 05:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I would like to know what's the relation between Florentine and spinach dishes. I've been told it has to do with a woman named Florentine, whom I find no relationship with spinach, and the city of Florentia, which isn't exactly known for it's spinach. Thanks----—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.224.139.247 ( talk • contribs)

This very question has intrigued the reference desk before Wikipedia:Reference_desk_archive/Language/May_2006#The_word_.22florentine.22 meltBanana 19:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Thomas Jefferson is said to have suggested that interracial marriage ( American Indians and newcomers from Europe) could break down the interracial barier through marrigage. Does this apply to having offspring only and could this be a solution for reducing if not eliminating political and religious differences represented by different cultures? For example could Brits and Americans, each descented from their respective groups of soldiers who fought on opposite sides during the American Revolution marry or just have offspring to help reduce, if not eliminate, any remaining differences between the two sides? -- Barringa 18:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Do you have brothers or sisters? Do they share the same political and religious views as you? Human nature being what it is, people will always find ways to differentiate themselves from each other. Just guessing, but it may even be some sort of evolutionary trait. Clarityfiend 18:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Brothers and sisters are restricted from marrying each other in most cultures with few exceptions ( Hawaians). Brits and American already pride themselves on the different starting point of their respective heritages since the Revolutionary War, not the evolutionary war. -- Barringa 19:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't think Clarityfiend was suggesting you marry your brother or sister. He was merely pointing out that many brothers and sisters, although descended from the same parents, have radically different beliefs than one another. Thus, having children with your spouse does not guarantee that there will not be important differences between them. GreatManTheory 20:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for clarifying my response. Hmmm...I may have to change my name. Clarityfiend 20:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Since brother and sister can not marry legally as a way to test whether their descendents would from their biological descendency represent both biologically and psychologically by their inherent melding of both sides of the arguement be able to resolve any political or nationality difference their parents had (unless of course you might be thinking of inlaw brothers and sisters or adopted males and females who have no parents in common and can legally marry or have offspring) then it is a special case and does not answer the question I am asking. Putting it another way...would you be able to completely take one side over the other if you regarded both parents with equal esteem regarding any national or political difference either might have or would you find taking only one side impossible? -- Barringa 21:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply

It's also important to keep in mind that there is a great deal of regional variance within a country - cultural practices are not uniform throughout either the United States or Great Britain. Additionally, proposals to intermarry white Americans and various indigenous persons were intended not simply to "break down racial barriers," but to assimilate the indigenous persons into "white" American culture by "civilizing" them. If you're interested, Jim Fergus has written a well-recieved novel on the idea of white women marrying Cheyenne men under a (fictional) US government program; the title is One Thousand White Women, although it appears that we don't have an article... Carom 20:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Familial groupings have diversity as well as similarity. Any group tends to throw up certain characters, so that there is an over achiever, and an underachiever, or a giver and a taker or any of many demarcation styles. One interesting fact is that a father of daughters is more likely to vote for leftwing political parties than a father of sons, or a man with no children.

What many fail to appreciate is that skin color is an environmental thing. There is some reason why Sub Arctic peoples are white/pink, but tropical peoples black. There have been white families living in South Africa for some five hundred years, but they aren't getting more dusky. What might happen is that environmental factors favor skin colors for survival, but don't change genetic determinations. If that is so, then Thomas Jefferson's theory fails. We can best become good corporate citizens not by being like everyone else, but by sharing corporate values. It may well be that family is the key, but not in the way Jefferson envisioned, but Adams. Maybe we can't change our families, but improve them. Morally.

I recently heard the difference between a moral man and an ethical man described as:"The ethical man knows it is wrong to cheat on his wife. The moral man won't do it." Thomas Jefferson achieved great heights in wisdom, but at times, he was as a thoughtless child. DDB 22:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Where is it said that Jefferson suggested marriage between European immigrants and Native Americans? The wikipedia article on Jefferson has info on his apparent condemnation of miscegenation, at least between whites and blacks. It is hard to answer this question without a source for what Jefferson actually said.

For what it is worth, there were many marriages between Euro-Americans and Native Americans long before Jefferson was born. The people who married generally got along and liked each other, having broken through cultural and racial barriers to that degree at least. Often the marriages were between white men trading with and living with Indians, and Indian women. Indian children take the clan of their mother, so such children would, by Indian culture, be Indian. A great many Euro-American frontiermen "turned Indian". A famous example is Sam Houston, who was adopted by a Cherokee chief, married into the tribe, and lived among them for years.

By Jefferson's time, many Indians had rather non-Indian names like Alexander McGillivray, William McIntosh, William Weatherford (all Creek leaders), John Ross (Cherokee chief), Elias Boudinot (Cherokee), James Vann, George Gist (Cherokees), Joseph Brant, and John Norton (Mohawk chief) (Mohawks). Jefferson's suggestion thus sounds more like an observation. The offspring of Euro-American and Indian parents often became diplomats and leaders in US-Indian political issues. It wouldn't be hard to argue that these intermarriages and children did in fact reduce differences. The Cherokee famously adopted many Euro-American practices before the Trail of Tears. The mixed-blood Cherokee were often the strongest advocates of adopting these new ways. Of course the imbalance was far too great to avoid calamity in the end.

Also, what is the "interracial barrier" that Jefferson suggested could be broken down through marriage? He apparently didn't think this about white and black relationships. And on whites and Indians, there were plenty of people crossing the barrier already. Perhaps more Euro-Americans "became" Indians than vice versa -- but then again, every other American family with roots in the south has some story or other about Cherokee ancestors. If a mixed family was "American" rather than "Indian", it would behoove them and their children to downplay their Indian ancestry, especially when, for example, voting or responding to a census. Indians were not citizens.

It seems to me that cultural barriers were the trouble with Euro-American and Native American relations. I'm sure there was racism as well, but if you look at, say, John Ross, the Cherokee leader before the Trail of Tears, he was 1/8th Indian descent and 7/8ths European. It wasn't the color of his skin that was the problem. Pfly 05:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I think we may be taking the OP's assertion a bit too far. I doubt s/he was speaking in any sort of "genetic" sense, but far more likely in a "sociological" sense. In the Americas, countries like Canada, the US, and perhaps Argentina actually stand out with regards to the whole "white/black/red" racial issue. Many if not most other American countries hold a rather opposite view. Now this is purely anecdotal, but I have a certain Brazilian friend. She happens to be pretty much exclusively of European descent and therefore "white". Now this may sound odd to the rest of us, but from what she told me, Brazil prides itself on its tri-racialism on the individual level (i.e., the fact that the vast majority of the population, as individuals, can claim part African, part European, and part Aboriginal American descent), to such an extent, that being of tri-racial ancenstry is actually an asset, in the sense that you're regarded as more truly "Brazilian". Of course that's just her take, and shouldn't be taken as absolute fact. Loomis 22:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I´m Brazilian and I have one Russian grandparent, one Polish, one Portuguese and one Italian. The Italian one is half Jewish. The Portuguese one is most likely descendent from Portuguese Muslims, which occupied the Iberic Peninsula for more than seven centuries. In Brazil we always talk about how almost no one can claim to be belong to any particular "people" or "race". Everyone has multiple genetic and cultural backgrounds in their families, as I do. This miscigenation, however, has not put an end to discrimination against black people. The census has the categories white, black, yellow, red and "pardo", and people choose to which they belong. People who are "pardos" tend to say they are white and people who are black tend to say they are "pardos". Even people who are clearly not white and don´t regard themselves as being white treat white people as if they were superior and treat people like their own like inferior people. Of course this is just my point of view and I am making extreme generalizations. Nonetheless, it happens, and shows that miscigenation alone doesn´t make a difference when it comes to discrimination. A.Z. 08:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the elaboration on the situation in Brazil, AZ. To be honest, after submitting my above post I had second thoughts about whether an anecdotal reference from a single Brazilian friend of mine had enough validity to be posted here. Thanks again for the elaboration. Loomis 17:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Why is the Drawing Room called a Drawing Room?--- Tim 84.70.39.40

If you take a look at the article drawing room, it says "the name is derived from withdrawing room." Chickenflicker--- ♣ 19:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply

And, although it doesn't say so in the article, the room was called the "withdrawing room" not because the lord or lady of the house would withdraw there to get some privacy, but because that's where the ladies went after leaving the dinner table. It used to be that after the last course of a formal dinner was over the women would rise and withdraw from the dining area, and after they left the men would bring out the cigars and brandy. The women would meanwhile sit in the drawing room and chat; after a suitable interval, the men would join them.

One of the great scandals of pre-World War I society was that the ladies stopped withdrawing. Some older people were shocked, shocked! but nobody else paid much attention. -- Charlene 01:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC) reply

...post-World War II society, actually. -- Wetman 04:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC) reply

What is the most widely accepted scientific theory for how the Great Pyramid of Kafre was robbed? And when did this robbery occur? I am sorry to ask an obvious question, but I can't find any information on this, and I have been searching for about an hour and a half. Can anyone give me a website which treats this subject? Thanks plenty! David G Brault 17:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Regarding Khafre's Pyramid, apart from modern archeological investigations, most of the pyramid robberies took place many hundreds, if not thousands, of years ago, and I doubt whether anyone knows the details. I don't believe any scientific theory is required; brute force would have sufficed. And they wouldn't even have had to keep it secret: what few local people there were could have organized quite a systematic operation. They probably didn't even think of it as robbery any more than modern archeologists do.-- Shantavira 11:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I remember reading that somehow the robbery was accomplished in the pharonic era, less than a hundred years after the treasure had been placed in the pyramid, with the help of priests or former workers. I don't know how they would know this, but somehow they seemed to. I just want to know, where did they make the hole to get in? David G Brault 17:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I realize Cornelius is a name most commonly found in Ancient Roman history, but was it actually used in the Middle East some 2000 years ago? -- Doug ^talk 22:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC): reply

Very possibly - the Romans had a presence in Syria and Judaea from the early 1st century BC. -- Nicknack009 12:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia and numerous websites state that the nation of islam believes that whotes were created by Yakub. Are there any primary sources from the NOI themselves where they explicity state this? -- Dinotro 23:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Elijah Muhammad's book http://www.amazon.com/Yakub-Father-Mankind-Elijah-Muhammad/dp/1884855342 and a transcript of an interview with Louis Farrakhan where he is asked about the subject http://www.finalcall.com/national/mlf-mtp5-13-97.html meltBanana 00:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC) reply