Craig Collins
2014-11-08 09:48:18 UTC
In article <***@78.46.70.116>
"Enraged Apostate, World Citizen"
by Adam White; (1966)
Dedicated to pure-blooded white people, wherever they live.
The Negro ... Animal or Human? was originally written as a sixty-
four page book, but due to financial and other difficulties, it
could not be published. This small booklet has been produced as
the only possible alternative at the present time. If this
venture is financially successful, the larger book will be
produced and offered for sale very shortly. Other volumes may be
produced in the future, because the subject is quite large and
involves all of human existence.
The author acknowledges a great debt to Reverend H. H. Payne,
who wrote on this subject in 1867, and to Professor Charles
Carroll, who wrote two comprehensive books in 1900 and 1902. The
author of this present booklet is a former clergyman with a
rather broad education and experience. It is his opinion that
the correct knowledge that the negro is merely an animal and not
human, and that man, conversely, is human and is not an animal
is the most important information since the Bible itself was
written. Indeed, this information is contained in the Holy
Scriptures, but has not been recognized for many hundreds of
years. The implications of this doctrine are secondary, from a
theological standpoint, only to the doctrine of the Trinity. The
Bible clearly teaches that sexual relations between men and
animals are sinful. Such relations which result in living
offspring most likely also constitute the unpardonable sin, or
sin against the Holy Spirit.
From political and social standpoints, the implications of the
truth about human beings and negro animals are also extremely
important. The entire concept of civil rights for negroes
immediately is seen as completely insane from every angle. It
makes as much sense to give the vote to other animals as well as
to negroes; for instance, the dolphin, which may even have a
higher I.Q. The idea of any kind of intellectual education for
negroes, much less integrated education on the same level with
white human beings is senseless.
The excuses offered by liberals that negroes are backward only
because of lack of educational opportunity are untrue. The
evolutionary concept of the negro being some two-hundred-
thousand years behind the white man in development is also
untrue. Evolution is a false theory, therefore, no amount of
time considerations can account for the differences between men
and negroes. Neither will any amount of education or welfare
ever bridge the gap between the two. Almighty God made a
definite and permanent difference between man and the negro the
same as He made a definite gap between man and all other
animals. Man is a special creation on this earth, the only being
with an immortal soul.
Any attempts to integrate negroes with human beings have always
brought trouble in some form, usually in multitudinous ways.
Such is the case at present, and it will always be so. Anyone
will recognize that a situation where men are expected to exist
on terms of equality with animals in the same community can
never be satisfactory, at least to the humans. If we recognize
the negro as an animal through studying the biblical and
scientifuc evidence, then we shall readily understand the
impossibility of ever trying to make a man out of him. We may
further understand that the Bible, despite its many critics, is
the only authoritative source to define man and show that the
negro is an animal. The Bible, then, ought to be revered by
every sincere racist or segregationist.
Although the evidence offered in this booklet is very brief, it
ought to convince any reasonable person. Nonetheless, the author
recognizes that many points cannot be discussed due to lack of
space. It is his hope that readers will make their interest in a
larger book known through correspondence. Any questions or
comments will also be most welcome.
Adam White
The Negro ... Animal or Human?
The thesis of this booklet is that the negro is truely an animal
and not a human being. This is not meant in a figurative sense,
based on his behavior, which is often animalish in character. It
is based on Biblical, scientific and historical interpretation.
This viewpoint is not evolutionary, and holds that the Bible is
to be interpreted in its historical content as serious fact and
not as myth.
The writer's attitude on the Bible is that he regards it as the
holy word of God, and is willing to believe anything it truely
teaches. He is not, however, willing to believe every theory
based on the Bible no matter how venerated the theory might be.
One such theory is the supposed origin of the negro through the
line of Ham, Noah's son. The story (Genesis 9:20-27) tells of
Noah's curse spoken against Canaan, Ham's son, because of Ham's
unseemly behavior against Noah. The popular theory is that,
since Noah cursed Canaan by saying he would be a servant of
servants, Canaan and his descendants and possibly all of the
rest of Ham's descendants were turned into negroes or gradually
became negroes. Since negroes have often been servants to white
men, and, since negroes have largely inhabited Africa, the
theory is that they are servants due to Noah's curse and black
due to the heat of Africa.
Objections to the Hamitic theory of the origin of the negro are:
1) The Bible doesn't say that Canaan or his descendants, or
Ham's descendants, were turned into negroes immediately or at
any time. Nothing, in fact, is said about descendants of either
Ham or Canaan. 2) There is no indication anywhere in the Bible
that Noah had any right to pronounce such a curse on Canaan
(much less a curse that is completely distorted as to its
meaning) and make it stick as a divine curse of Almighty God.
The obvious reasons why the story was included in Holy
Scriptures are that we might see the dangers of losing self-
control through drunkeness, as Noah did, and that we might see
the sinfulness of displaying parental disrespect, as Ham did. 3)
There is nothing in the Bible showing any fulfillment of Noah's
curse.
On the contrary, the Egyptians, descendants of Ham (Ps. 105:23),
were masters instead of slaves of Israel. The Canaanites,
descendants of Canaan, were not enslaved, but were destroyed by
Israel, and not in consequence of Noah's curse, but for the
wickedness of those nations. (Deut. 9:4). 4) The flood,
according to Bible reckoning, occurred about 4400 years ago.
Negroes were known in Egypt at least 3400 years ago. Pictures of
negroes show them at that time to be essentially what they are
today and clearly distinguishable from the white Egyptians. The
Egyptian descendants of Ham were not negroes and, therefore,
contradict the Hamitic theory of the origin of the negro. 5) The
theory that intense heat in Africa is the cause of the negro's
color is not true. Many of the lightest negroes inhabit the
hottest areas, and some of the darkest live in the cool areas.
Also, the color of the negro's skin is only one of the many
important differences between him and the white man.
Another theory of the origin of the negro is that he developed
after the confusion of languages at the tower of Babel (Gen.
11:1-9). Objections are: 1) The Bible doesn't say that or even
hint at such a conclusion. 2) This theory would require a theory
of evolution to support it. The Hamitic theory, at least the
part based on a gradual change due to African heat, would also
require a theory of evolution.
The Bible does tell us considerable about the negro (even though
it doesn't use that word), but it does not support either of the
above theories. The negro is found in the Scriptures under the
terms "Beast of the Field" or "Beast of the Earth." These are
not general terms, but are terms used to designate a specific
animal as the evidence will show.
Some of the characteristics of this beast are demonstrated by
his eating habits. He is an eater of human flesh as shown by I
Sam. 17:46, Deut. 28:26, Jer. 7:33, 16:4, 19:7, 34:20; Ezek.
34:2-5, 29:2-5, and 39:4. He also, as shown by Exod. 23:10-11,
eats grain, grapes, and olives. No animal, except the negro,
eats in this fashion. Two other references to this beast show
him to have a hand, as able to talk, as involved in violence,
and as habitually clothed (Exod. 19:13 and Jonah 3:8).
The first reference to the beast of the field is in the creation
story, where they are mentioned in connection with the creation
of other animals. Genesis 3, the narrative of the temptation of
Eve, also mentions the beast of the field. Here he is called
"the serpent." That "the serpent" was not a snake will be shown
shortly. Adam gave names to "every beast of the field" (Gen.
2:20). To the particular beast of the field in Gen. 3:1, Adam
gave the name "nachash," the Hebrew word translated "serpent."
"Nachash" means 1) to view or observe attentively, 2) brass,
brazen and fetters of brass, and sometimes steel, 3) serpent.
Dr. Adam Clark, in his Commentary, Vol, 1, pp. 45 and following,
traces the word "nachash" through the Arabic to a root word that
means "ape." If, on the other hand, "serpent" is the actual
meaning intended in Gen. 3:1 for "nachash," then it must have
been a name applied by Adam to that beast of the field or negro,
because he reminded Adam of some characteristic of a snake.
The Bible-believing commentaries usually interpret the serpent
in the garden of Eden to be 1) Satan in the form of a snake, 2)
a real or literal snake, 3) a confusing combination of the two
above. The Bible, however, indicates only one interpretation.
Clearly, the correct interpretation is none of the three
mentioned above. The first objection to the idea that the
serpent was Satan is that the Bible text doesn't say that. Rev.
12:9 and 20:2 call the devil or Satan "that old serpent," but
they also call him "the dragon," The book of Revelation is
highly figurative, and its probable purpose in comparing Satan
to the dragon and serpent was to indicate his terrifying
loathsomeness, and not to refer back to Genesis 3. Secondly, if
the serpent were Satan, then Satan should be the individual
cursed to go on his belly and eat dust, and logically ought to
be plainly visible to man.
Thirdly, Satan would be required to have physical offspring,
because of the enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed
of the serpent (Gen. 3:15). The general, and I believe correct,
concept of Satan is that he is a fallen angel. According to
Matt. 22:30, angels do not marry. It seems safe to assume that
angels, including Satan, are incapable of procreation. Fourthly,
the description of the serpent as "more subtle than any beast of
the field" would be senseless if applied to Satan. Satan, as a
fallen angel, would possess more cunning than, not only any
animal, but more than any man.
Interpreting the serpent as a true snake also presents a number
of difficulties. 1) If Satan used a snake as his instrument,
then the snake was obviously not under its own control. To put a
curse on a helpless animal, especially a curse that is usually
assumed to cover all future time and all species of snakes, does
not seem in harmony with our knowledge of God. Such an
interpretation raises the question, too, as to whether God has
allowed Satan to manipulate animals. 2) If the serpent were a
true snake, then the description of his intelligence is false,
because snakes do not possess high intelligence. To assume that
the snake or serpent once had high intelligence and was deprived
of it is an assumption not based on Scripture. 3) The snake does
not have the power of speech, nor ears with which to hear, nor a
brain capable of either interpreting or conceiving ideas. If it
is claimed that the snake could speak at one time, he should be
able to now, because no curse was mentioned in that connection
in the Bible.
By the process of elimination, we will find that no other
animal, except the negro, fits the description of the animal
called "the serpent" in the garden of Eden. The evidence in
favor is as follows: 1) In regard to the serpent's power of
speech, we don't have to make up an additional story about Satan
having spoken through the serpent. We don't have to introduce a
fourth party (Satan) at all, which the Bible does not do. The
negro, however, fits the description as a "beast of the field"
able to speak, because the negro has always possessed the power
of speech. 2) The negro possesses a high degree of intelligence
in comparison with other animals. The description of "the
serpent" as "more subtle" or wiser is most appropriate in
conceiving of him as a negro. 3) According to the record, Eve
showed no surprise at the ability of the serpent to speak. If
the tempter were a familiarly known negro, obviously no surprise
would have been felt by Eve. 4) The curse pronounced on the
serpent to go on his belly has real meaning when applied to a
negro. He was cursed above all other beasts of the field (two-
legged animals) in being forced to crawl. Nothing is said about
the curse devolving upon the serpent's offspring. 5) The beast
of the field, as has been pointed out, was a man eater and
vegetable eater, and the serpent was a beast of the field. Such
eating habits fit the negro exactly, particularly in his wild or
natural state.
The negro is well known for his cannibalism, but he will also
eat anything that man will eat. 6) If the serpent were a negro,
we have a creature given over to the dominion of Adam which
explains how Adam was to keep the garden of Eden in a proper
condition. The description of the garden (Gen. 2:9-10) shows
that it was very large. With an estate that large, one man
couldn't possibly keep it in a high state of beauty and
cultivation. Only a few animals can be used for work, but the
negro is the only animal able to do small hand work requiring
tools. The negro is better able to follow spoken orders than
other animals and can also drive draft animals. The "beast of
the field" (negro) is specifically described in Jeremiah 27:6 as
given to King Nebuchadnezzar "to serve him." The negro was
clearly a servant to man from the beginning of God's design.
The negro, as we have seen, is a beast of the field and was the
tempter of Eve. The sin underlying the sin of eating the
forbidden fruit was rebellion against the authority of God. That
rebellion took the form of accepting the counsel of an animal,
the negro, by Eve and Adam. They were to have dominion over the
animals and not the opposite. Hardly anything could be more
revolting than to think of men, created in the image of Almighty
God, stooping to allow a lower form of life to advise them in
regard to their relationship to God. That, however, is exactly
what Adam and Eve did.
The sin of Adam and Eve in taking the counsel of a mere animal
above the direct commands of God was soon followed by the sin of
amalgamation (interbreeding between men and negroes).
Apparently, this sin was first committed by Cain, the first
murderer. There is not room here for all of the Biblical
information to prove this point. We simply point to the fact
that Cain had a wife before Adam and Eve had any daughters. The
only possibility left was for the wife of Cain to have been a
negress.
There is, also, not room in this pamphlet to continue the story
of the evidence of amalgamation between men and negro animals
found in the Bible. This information is contained, however, in
the writer's book. Most of the remainder of this pamphlet will
be devoted to scientific and historical material quoted from
Professor Charles Carroll's book, The Tempter of Eve, chapter
10, to show the tremendous physical, mental and sociological
differences between men and negroes.
"Mr. Morris says: 'It may be remarked that all the savage tribes
of the earth belong to the negro or Mongolian races .... On the
other hand, the Caucasian is pre-eminently the man of
civilization. No traveler or historian records a savage tribe of
Caucasian stock.' (The Aryan Race.) .... On the opposite, and
far distant shore of the great gulf, stands the ignorant, savage
negro, who mental indolence and incapacity accomplish nothing.
History records no achievements of his. His thousands of years
lived out upon the earth, are as barren of results as those of
the gorilla. Throughout his whole existence he figures only as a
savage or a servant. No 'woolly-haired nation has ever had an
important history.' (Haeckel.)
"The Bible teaches that man was created a single pair, 'in the
image of God.' And that the animal like the plant was made
'after his kind.' And we feel assured that after carefully
considering this most important subject, even the most skeptical
must admit that the white, with his exalted physical and mental
characters, and the negro with his degraded physical and mental
characters, are not the descendants of one primitive pair. This
conclusion has long since been reached by the closest observers
and the most profound thinkers of the age.
"In discussing this question, Professor Haeckel says: 'the
excellent paleontologist, Quenstedt, was right in maintaining
that "if negroes and Caucasians were snails, zoologists would
universally agree that they represented two very distinct
species which could never have originated from one pair by
gradual divergence." (History of Creation.)
"Thus, when viewed from a scriptual standpoint, it is evident
that, if the white is the being created 'in image of God,' the
negro is merely an animal ....
"Prof. Wyman says: 'It cannot be denied, however wide the
separation, that the negro and orang do afford the points where
man and brute, when the totality of their organization is
considered, most nearly approach each other.' Prof. Haeckel
quotes a great English traveler who lived a considerable time on
the west coast of Africa, who says: 'I consider the negro as a
lower species of man, and cannot make up my mind to look upon
him as a man and a brother, for the gorilla would then also have
to be admitted into the family ....'
"In explaining the true cause of the differences in complexion,
observable among the so-called 'races of men,' Topinard says:
'The color of the skin, hair, and eyes, is the result of a
general phenomenon in the organism, namely, the production and
distribution of the coloring matter.'
"It is thus shown by the highest scientific authorities, that
the black, colorless complexion of the negro, is not due to
climatic influences; but results solely from the black pigment
intervening between the dermis and the epidermis ....
"There seems to be a difference between the blood of the white
man and that of the negro, too subtle to be detected by
microscopic examination, but proved by experimental test. The
skin of the white man inserted in the flesh of the negro becomes
black, and the skin of the negro grafted on the white man turns
white. Nothing but the blood could produce this change.'
(Anthropology for the People.)
"The long, fine, silken hair of the white is in absolute
contrast to the short, coarse, woolly hair of the negro. Each
individual hair of the white is cylindrical. Hence, its section
is circular. In contrast to to this, each individual hair of the
negro 'is flattened like a tape.' Hence, 'its section is oval.'
(Haeckel, History of Creation.) The hair of the white is
inserted obliquely (at an angle) into the scalp; in contrast to
this, the hair of the negro 'is inserted vertically into the
scalp.' (Winchell.)
"The comparatively short, broad skull of the white is in
striking contrast to the long, narrow skull of the negro. The
length and narrowness of the negro skull is a character of the
ape. Prof. Winchell says: 'a certain relative width of skull
appears to be connected with energy, force and executive
ability. This explains the negro's lack of executive abilityGod
made him so. The significance of this is easily seen when we
pause to reflect that the task to which man was assigned in the
Creation required the highest executive ability ....
"The average weight of the European brain, males and females, is
1,340 grammes; that of the negro is 1,178; of the Hottentot,
974; and of the Australian, 907. The significance of these
comparisons appears when we learn that Broca, the most eminent
of French anthropologists, states that, when the European brain
falls below 978 grammes (mean of males and females), the result
is idiocy. In this opinion Thurman coincides. The color of the
negro brain is darker than that of the white, and its density
and the texture are inferior. The convolutions are fewer and
more simple, and, as Agassiz and others long ago pointed out,
approximate those of the quadruma (primates not including man).'
(Preadamites.)
"The relatively short, narrow jaw of the whites is in striking
contrast to the long, broad jaw of the negro. The length and
breadth of the negro's jaw is a character of the ape. The jaws
of the negro, like those of the other apes, 'extend forward at
the expense of the symmetry of the face, and backward at the
expense of the brain cavity.' Quatrefages says: 'It is well
known that in the negro the entire face, and especially the
lower portion; ... projects forward. In the living subject it is
exaggerated by the thickness of the lips. But it is also
apparent in the skull, and constitutes one of its most striking
characters.' (The Human Species.)
"The space between the eyes of the negro is larger and flatter
than in the white. (Topenard.)
"The prominent nose of the white is in striking contrast to the
flat nose of the negro, which has the appearance of having been
crushed in. The flat nose of the negro is another characteristic
of the ape. 'The cartilage at the end of the nose of the white
man is divided, or split, as anyone can detect by placing a
finger on the tip of that organ; but in the negro nose this
split does not exist, nor does it exist in mulattoes .... The
absence of the "nasal spine" in the negro is another singular
difference.' (Anthropology for the People.)
"The comparatively thin lips of the white are in striking
contrast to the thick, fluffy lips of the negro. This thickness
of the lips is another character of the ape ....
"The prominent chin of the white is in striking contrast to the
receding chin of the negro. This retreating chin is another
character of the ape. Winchell says: 'The retreating contour of
the chin, as compared with the European, approximates the negro
to the chimpanzee and lower mammals.' (The Human Species.)
"The front teeth of the white, set perpendicularly in the jaw,
are in striking contrast to the front teeth of the negro, which
set slanting in the jaw. The slanting teeth is another character
of the ape. Haeckel describes as 'Prognathi' those whose jaws,
like those of the animal snout, strongly project, and whose
front teeth, therefore, slope in front; and men with straight
teeth 'Orthognathi,' whose jaws project but little and whose
front teeth stand perpendicularly ....
"Burmeister, quoted by Hartman, says: 'The negro's thick neck is
the more striking, since it is generally allied with a short
throat. In measuring negroes from the crown of the head to the
shoulder, I have found the interval to be from nine and a
quarter to nine and three quarters inches. In Europeans of
normal height this interval is seldom less than ten inches, and
is more commonly eleven inches in women and twelve in men. The
shortness of the neck, as well as the relatively small size of
the brain pan, and the large size of the face, may be more
readily taken as an approximation to the Simian (ape) type,
since all apes are short-necked.' (Anthropoid Apes.)
"When the Biblical, scientific and historical information on the
negro are added together, the conclusion that the negro is an
animal of the ape type is inescapable. To the writer, however,
the strongest evidence is found in just two statements of
Scripture. Man was created "in the image of God," and he was to
"subdue" the earth (Gen. 1:27-28). This indicates that man (and
man only) was to be creative, develop civilizations and the
earth's resources, and maintain the pure worship of God, all of
which the white man has done. The negro, on the other hand, has
done none of these things.
About the Author
Adam White (a pen nameAdam, in honor of the father of the human
family, and White, for the human color) is a former clergyman.
He was educated in several theological seminaries and
universities. Like Diogenes looking for an honest man, he sought
an honest ministry. With the influence of communism and race
mixing in the churches, an honest ministry was impossible. Now
Mr. White is engaged in writing and lecturing on race and
religion. His position is that race mixing is immoral, a
position diametrically opposed to that of the major religious
denominations.
"Enraged Apostate, World Citizen"
http://www.liberalassholes.com
The Negro ... Animal or Human?by Adam White; (1966)
Dedicated to pure-blooded white people, wherever they live.
The Negro ... Animal or Human? was originally written as a sixty-
four page book, but due to financial and other difficulties, it
could not be published. This small booklet has been produced as
the only possible alternative at the present time. If this
venture is financially successful, the larger book will be
produced and offered for sale very shortly. Other volumes may be
produced in the future, because the subject is quite large and
involves all of human existence.
The author acknowledges a great debt to Reverend H. H. Payne,
who wrote on this subject in 1867, and to Professor Charles
Carroll, who wrote two comprehensive books in 1900 and 1902. The
author of this present booklet is a former clergyman with a
rather broad education and experience. It is his opinion that
the correct knowledge that the negro is merely an animal and not
human, and that man, conversely, is human and is not an animal
is the most important information since the Bible itself was
written. Indeed, this information is contained in the Holy
Scriptures, but has not been recognized for many hundreds of
years. The implications of this doctrine are secondary, from a
theological standpoint, only to the doctrine of the Trinity. The
Bible clearly teaches that sexual relations between men and
animals are sinful. Such relations which result in living
offspring most likely also constitute the unpardonable sin, or
sin against the Holy Spirit.
From political and social standpoints, the implications of the
truth about human beings and negro animals are also extremely
important. The entire concept of civil rights for negroes
immediately is seen as completely insane from every angle. It
makes as much sense to give the vote to other animals as well as
to negroes; for instance, the dolphin, which may even have a
higher I.Q. The idea of any kind of intellectual education for
negroes, much less integrated education on the same level with
white human beings is senseless.
The excuses offered by liberals that negroes are backward only
because of lack of educational opportunity are untrue. The
evolutionary concept of the negro being some two-hundred-
thousand years behind the white man in development is also
untrue. Evolution is a false theory, therefore, no amount of
time considerations can account for the differences between men
and negroes. Neither will any amount of education or welfare
ever bridge the gap between the two. Almighty God made a
definite and permanent difference between man and the negro the
same as He made a definite gap between man and all other
animals. Man is a special creation on this earth, the only being
with an immortal soul.
Any attempts to integrate negroes with human beings have always
brought trouble in some form, usually in multitudinous ways.
Such is the case at present, and it will always be so. Anyone
will recognize that a situation where men are expected to exist
on terms of equality with animals in the same community can
never be satisfactory, at least to the humans. If we recognize
the negro as an animal through studying the biblical and
scientifuc evidence, then we shall readily understand the
impossibility of ever trying to make a man out of him. We may
further understand that the Bible, despite its many critics, is
the only authoritative source to define man and show that the
negro is an animal. The Bible, then, ought to be revered by
every sincere racist or segregationist.
Although the evidence offered in this booklet is very brief, it
ought to convince any reasonable person. Nonetheless, the author
recognizes that many points cannot be discussed due to lack of
space. It is his hope that readers will make their interest in a
larger book known through correspondence. Any questions or
comments will also be most welcome.
Adam White
The Negro ... Animal or Human?
The thesis of this booklet is that the negro is truely an animal
and not a human being. This is not meant in a figurative sense,
based on his behavior, which is often animalish in character. It
is based on Biblical, scientific and historical interpretation.
This viewpoint is not evolutionary, and holds that the Bible is
to be interpreted in its historical content as serious fact and
not as myth.
The writer's attitude on the Bible is that he regards it as the
holy word of God, and is willing to believe anything it truely
teaches. He is not, however, willing to believe every theory
based on the Bible no matter how venerated the theory might be.
One such theory is the supposed origin of the negro through the
line of Ham, Noah's son. The story (Genesis 9:20-27) tells of
Noah's curse spoken against Canaan, Ham's son, because of Ham's
unseemly behavior against Noah. The popular theory is that,
since Noah cursed Canaan by saying he would be a servant of
servants, Canaan and his descendants and possibly all of the
rest of Ham's descendants were turned into negroes or gradually
became negroes. Since negroes have often been servants to white
men, and, since negroes have largely inhabited Africa, the
theory is that they are servants due to Noah's curse and black
due to the heat of Africa.
Objections to the Hamitic theory of the origin of the negro are:
1) The Bible doesn't say that Canaan or his descendants, or
Ham's descendants, were turned into negroes immediately or at
any time. Nothing, in fact, is said about descendants of either
Ham or Canaan. 2) There is no indication anywhere in the Bible
that Noah had any right to pronounce such a curse on Canaan
(much less a curse that is completely distorted as to its
meaning) and make it stick as a divine curse of Almighty God.
The obvious reasons why the story was included in Holy
Scriptures are that we might see the dangers of losing self-
control through drunkeness, as Noah did, and that we might see
the sinfulness of displaying parental disrespect, as Ham did. 3)
There is nothing in the Bible showing any fulfillment of Noah's
curse.
On the contrary, the Egyptians, descendants of Ham (Ps. 105:23),
were masters instead of slaves of Israel. The Canaanites,
descendants of Canaan, were not enslaved, but were destroyed by
Israel, and not in consequence of Noah's curse, but for the
wickedness of those nations. (Deut. 9:4). 4) The flood,
according to Bible reckoning, occurred about 4400 years ago.
Negroes were known in Egypt at least 3400 years ago. Pictures of
negroes show them at that time to be essentially what they are
today and clearly distinguishable from the white Egyptians. The
Egyptian descendants of Ham were not negroes and, therefore,
contradict the Hamitic theory of the origin of the negro. 5) The
theory that intense heat in Africa is the cause of the negro's
color is not true. Many of the lightest negroes inhabit the
hottest areas, and some of the darkest live in the cool areas.
Also, the color of the negro's skin is only one of the many
important differences between him and the white man.
Another theory of the origin of the negro is that he developed
after the confusion of languages at the tower of Babel (Gen.
11:1-9). Objections are: 1) The Bible doesn't say that or even
hint at such a conclusion. 2) This theory would require a theory
of evolution to support it. The Hamitic theory, at least the
part based on a gradual change due to African heat, would also
require a theory of evolution.
The Bible does tell us considerable about the negro (even though
it doesn't use that word), but it does not support either of the
above theories. The negro is found in the Scriptures under the
terms "Beast of the Field" or "Beast of the Earth." These are
not general terms, but are terms used to designate a specific
animal as the evidence will show.
Some of the characteristics of this beast are demonstrated by
his eating habits. He is an eater of human flesh as shown by I
Sam. 17:46, Deut. 28:26, Jer. 7:33, 16:4, 19:7, 34:20; Ezek.
34:2-5, 29:2-5, and 39:4. He also, as shown by Exod. 23:10-11,
eats grain, grapes, and olives. No animal, except the negro,
eats in this fashion. Two other references to this beast show
him to have a hand, as able to talk, as involved in violence,
and as habitually clothed (Exod. 19:13 and Jonah 3:8).
The first reference to the beast of the field is in the creation
story, where they are mentioned in connection with the creation
of other animals. Genesis 3, the narrative of the temptation of
Eve, also mentions the beast of the field. Here he is called
"the serpent." That "the serpent" was not a snake will be shown
shortly. Adam gave names to "every beast of the field" (Gen.
2:20). To the particular beast of the field in Gen. 3:1, Adam
gave the name "nachash," the Hebrew word translated "serpent."
"Nachash" means 1) to view or observe attentively, 2) brass,
brazen and fetters of brass, and sometimes steel, 3) serpent.
Dr. Adam Clark, in his Commentary, Vol, 1, pp. 45 and following,
traces the word "nachash" through the Arabic to a root word that
means "ape." If, on the other hand, "serpent" is the actual
meaning intended in Gen. 3:1 for "nachash," then it must have
been a name applied by Adam to that beast of the field or negro,
because he reminded Adam of some characteristic of a snake.
The Bible-believing commentaries usually interpret the serpent
in the garden of Eden to be 1) Satan in the form of a snake, 2)
a real or literal snake, 3) a confusing combination of the two
above. The Bible, however, indicates only one interpretation.
Clearly, the correct interpretation is none of the three
mentioned above. The first objection to the idea that the
serpent was Satan is that the Bible text doesn't say that. Rev.
12:9 and 20:2 call the devil or Satan "that old serpent," but
they also call him "the dragon," The book of Revelation is
highly figurative, and its probable purpose in comparing Satan
to the dragon and serpent was to indicate his terrifying
loathsomeness, and not to refer back to Genesis 3. Secondly, if
the serpent were Satan, then Satan should be the individual
cursed to go on his belly and eat dust, and logically ought to
be plainly visible to man.
Thirdly, Satan would be required to have physical offspring,
because of the enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed
of the serpent (Gen. 3:15). The general, and I believe correct,
concept of Satan is that he is a fallen angel. According to
Matt. 22:30, angels do not marry. It seems safe to assume that
angels, including Satan, are incapable of procreation. Fourthly,
the description of the serpent as "more subtle than any beast of
the field" would be senseless if applied to Satan. Satan, as a
fallen angel, would possess more cunning than, not only any
animal, but more than any man.
Interpreting the serpent as a true snake also presents a number
of difficulties. 1) If Satan used a snake as his instrument,
then the snake was obviously not under its own control. To put a
curse on a helpless animal, especially a curse that is usually
assumed to cover all future time and all species of snakes, does
not seem in harmony with our knowledge of God. Such an
interpretation raises the question, too, as to whether God has
allowed Satan to manipulate animals. 2) If the serpent were a
true snake, then the description of his intelligence is false,
because snakes do not possess high intelligence. To assume that
the snake or serpent once had high intelligence and was deprived
of it is an assumption not based on Scripture. 3) The snake does
not have the power of speech, nor ears with which to hear, nor a
brain capable of either interpreting or conceiving ideas. If it
is claimed that the snake could speak at one time, he should be
able to now, because no curse was mentioned in that connection
in the Bible.
By the process of elimination, we will find that no other
animal, except the negro, fits the description of the animal
called "the serpent" in the garden of Eden. The evidence in
favor is as follows: 1) In regard to the serpent's power of
speech, we don't have to make up an additional story about Satan
having spoken through the serpent. We don't have to introduce a
fourth party (Satan) at all, which the Bible does not do. The
negro, however, fits the description as a "beast of the field"
able to speak, because the negro has always possessed the power
of speech. 2) The negro possesses a high degree of intelligence
in comparison with other animals. The description of "the
serpent" as "more subtle" or wiser is most appropriate in
conceiving of him as a negro. 3) According to the record, Eve
showed no surprise at the ability of the serpent to speak. If
the tempter were a familiarly known negro, obviously no surprise
would have been felt by Eve. 4) The curse pronounced on the
serpent to go on his belly has real meaning when applied to a
negro. He was cursed above all other beasts of the field (two-
legged animals) in being forced to crawl. Nothing is said about
the curse devolving upon the serpent's offspring. 5) The beast
of the field, as has been pointed out, was a man eater and
vegetable eater, and the serpent was a beast of the field. Such
eating habits fit the negro exactly, particularly in his wild or
natural state.
The negro is well known for his cannibalism, but he will also
eat anything that man will eat. 6) If the serpent were a negro,
we have a creature given over to the dominion of Adam which
explains how Adam was to keep the garden of Eden in a proper
condition. The description of the garden (Gen. 2:9-10) shows
that it was very large. With an estate that large, one man
couldn't possibly keep it in a high state of beauty and
cultivation. Only a few animals can be used for work, but the
negro is the only animal able to do small hand work requiring
tools. The negro is better able to follow spoken orders than
other animals and can also drive draft animals. The "beast of
the field" (negro) is specifically described in Jeremiah 27:6 as
given to King Nebuchadnezzar "to serve him." The negro was
clearly a servant to man from the beginning of God's design.
The negro, as we have seen, is a beast of the field and was the
tempter of Eve. The sin underlying the sin of eating the
forbidden fruit was rebellion against the authority of God. That
rebellion took the form of accepting the counsel of an animal,
the negro, by Eve and Adam. They were to have dominion over the
animals and not the opposite. Hardly anything could be more
revolting than to think of men, created in the image of Almighty
God, stooping to allow a lower form of life to advise them in
regard to their relationship to God. That, however, is exactly
what Adam and Eve did.
The sin of Adam and Eve in taking the counsel of a mere animal
above the direct commands of God was soon followed by the sin of
amalgamation (interbreeding between men and negroes).
Apparently, this sin was first committed by Cain, the first
murderer. There is not room here for all of the Biblical
information to prove this point. We simply point to the fact
that Cain had a wife before Adam and Eve had any daughters. The
only possibility left was for the wife of Cain to have been a
negress.
There is, also, not room in this pamphlet to continue the story
of the evidence of amalgamation between men and negro animals
found in the Bible. This information is contained, however, in
the writer's book. Most of the remainder of this pamphlet will
be devoted to scientific and historical material quoted from
Professor Charles Carroll's book, The Tempter of Eve, chapter
10, to show the tremendous physical, mental and sociological
differences between men and negroes.
"Mr. Morris says: 'It may be remarked that all the savage tribes
of the earth belong to the negro or Mongolian races .... On the
other hand, the Caucasian is pre-eminently the man of
civilization. No traveler or historian records a savage tribe of
Caucasian stock.' (The Aryan Race.) .... On the opposite, and
far distant shore of the great gulf, stands the ignorant, savage
negro, who mental indolence and incapacity accomplish nothing.
History records no achievements of his. His thousands of years
lived out upon the earth, are as barren of results as those of
the gorilla. Throughout his whole existence he figures only as a
savage or a servant. No 'woolly-haired nation has ever had an
important history.' (Haeckel.)
"The Bible teaches that man was created a single pair, 'in the
image of God.' And that the animal like the plant was made
'after his kind.' And we feel assured that after carefully
considering this most important subject, even the most skeptical
must admit that the white, with his exalted physical and mental
characters, and the negro with his degraded physical and mental
characters, are not the descendants of one primitive pair. This
conclusion has long since been reached by the closest observers
and the most profound thinkers of the age.
"In discussing this question, Professor Haeckel says: 'the
excellent paleontologist, Quenstedt, was right in maintaining
that "if negroes and Caucasians were snails, zoologists would
universally agree that they represented two very distinct
species which could never have originated from one pair by
gradual divergence." (History of Creation.)
"Thus, when viewed from a scriptual standpoint, it is evident
that, if the white is the being created 'in image of God,' the
negro is merely an animal ....
"Prof. Wyman says: 'It cannot be denied, however wide the
separation, that the negro and orang do afford the points where
man and brute, when the totality of their organization is
considered, most nearly approach each other.' Prof. Haeckel
quotes a great English traveler who lived a considerable time on
the west coast of Africa, who says: 'I consider the negro as a
lower species of man, and cannot make up my mind to look upon
him as a man and a brother, for the gorilla would then also have
to be admitted into the family ....'
"In explaining the true cause of the differences in complexion,
observable among the so-called 'races of men,' Topinard says:
'The color of the skin, hair, and eyes, is the result of a
general phenomenon in the organism, namely, the production and
distribution of the coloring matter.'
"It is thus shown by the highest scientific authorities, that
the black, colorless complexion of the negro, is not due to
climatic influences; but results solely from the black pigment
intervening between the dermis and the epidermis ....
"There seems to be a difference between the blood of the white
man and that of the negro, too subtle to be detected by
microscopic examination, but proved by experimental test. The
skin of the white man inserted in the flesh of the negro becomes
black, and the skin of the negro grafted on the white man turns
white. Nothing but the blood could produce this change.'
(Anthropology for the People.)
"The long, fine, silken hair of the white is in absolute
contrast to the short, coarse, woolly hair of the negro. Each
individual hair of the white is cylindrical. Hence, its section
is circular. In contrast to to this, each individual hair of the
negro 'is flattened like a tape.' Hence, 'its section is oval.'
(Haeckel, History of Creation.) The hair of the white is
inserted obliquely (at an angle) into the scalp; in contrast to
this, the hair of the negro 'is inserted vertically into the
scalp.' (Winchell.)
"The comparatively short, broad skull of the white is in
striking contrast to the long, narrow skull of the negro. The
length and narrowness of the negro skull is a character of the
ape. Prof. Winchell says: 'a certain relative width of skull
appears to be connected with energy, force and executive
ability. This explains the negro's lack of executive abilityGod
made him so. The significance of this is easily seen when we
pause to reflect that the task to which man was assigned in the
Creation required the highest executive ability ....
"The average weight of the European brain, males and females, is
1,340 grammes; that of the negro is 1,178; of the Hottentot,
974; and of the Australian, 907. The significance of these
comparisons appears when we learn that Broca, the most eminent
of French anthropologists, states that, when the European brain
falls below 978 grammes (mean of males and females), the result
is idiocy. In this opinion Thurman coincides. The color of the
negro brain is darker than that of the white, and its density
and the texture are inferior. The convolutions are fewer and
more simple, and, as Agassiz and others long ago pointed out,
approximate those of the quadruma (primates not including man).'
(Preadamites.)
"The relatively short, narrow jaw of the whites is in striking
contrast to the long, broad jaw of the negro. The length and
breadth of the negro's jaw is a character of the ape. The jaws
of the negro, like those of the other apes, 'extend forward at
the expense of the symmetry of the face, and backward at the
expense of the brain cavity.' Quatrefages says: 'It is well
known that in the negro the entire face, and especially the
lower portion; ... projects forward. In the living subject it is
exaggerated by the thickness of the lips. But it is also
apparent in the skull, and constitutes one of its most striking
characters.' (The Human Species.)
"The space between the eyes of the negro is larger and flatter
than in the white. (Topenard.)
"The prominent nose of the white is in striking contrast to the
flat nose of the negro, which has the appearance of having been
crushed in. The flat nose of the negro is another characteristic
of the ape. 'The cartilage at the end of the nose of the white
man is divided, or split, as anyone can detect by placing a
finger on the tip of that organ; but in the negro nose this
split does not exist, nor does it exist in mulattoes .... The
absence of the "nasal spine" in the negro is another singular
difference.' (Anthropology for the People.)
"The comparatively thin lips of the white are in striking
contrast to the thick, fluffy lips of the negro. This thickness
of the lips is another character of the ape ....
"The prominent chin of the white is in striking contrast to the
receding chin of the negro. This retreating chin is another
character of the ape. Winchell says: 'The retreating contour of
the chin, as compared with the European, approximates the negro
to the chimpanzee and lower mammals.' (The Human Species.)
"The front teeth of the white, set perpendicularly in the jaw,
are in striking contrast to the front teeth of the negro, which
set slanting in the jaw. The slanting teeth is another character
of the ape. Haeckel describes as 'Prognathi' those whose jaws,
like those of the animal snout, strongly project, and whose
front teeth, therefore, slope in front; and men with straight
teeth 'Orthognathi,' whose jaws project but little and whose
front teeth stand perpendicularly ....
"Burmeister, quoted by Hartman, says: 'The negro's thick neck is
the more striking, since it is generally allied with a short
throat. In measuring negroes from the crown of the head to the
shoulder, I have found the interval to be from nine and a
quarter to nine and three quarters inches. In Europeans of
normal height this interval is seldom less than ten inches, and
is more commonly eleven inches in women and twelve in men. The
shortness of the neck, as well as the relatively small size of
the brain pan, and the large size of the face, may be more
readily taken as an approximation to the Simian (ape) type,
since all apes are short-necked.' (Anthropoid Apes.)
"When the Biblical, scientific and historical information on the
negro are added together, the conclusion that the negro is an
animal of the ape type is inescapable. To the writer, however,
the strongest evidence is found in just two statements of
Scripture. Man was created "in the image of God," and he was to
"subdue" the earth (Gen. 1:27-28). This indicates that man (and
man only) was to be creative, develop civilizations and the
earth's resources, and maintain the pure worship of God, all of
which the white man has done. The negro, on the other hand, has
done none of these things.
About the Author
Adam White (a pen nameAdam, in honor of the father of the human
family, and White, for the human color) is a former clergyman.
He was educated in several theological seminaries and
universities. Like Diogenes looking for an honest man, he sought
an honest ministry. With the influence of communism and race
mixing in the churches, an honest ministry was impossible. Now
Mr. White is engaged in writing and lecturing on race and
religion. His position is that race mixing is immoral, a
position diametrically opposed to that of the major religious
denominations.