The Israeli Church of Universal Practical Knowledge (UPK) spewing Bible based racist mythology in Times' SQ, New York City. The elderly gentleman in the background is high priest Yashiyya.

One thing that is becoming a common sight in New York City, my home town, is a group of right-wing Christians preaching hate that is rooted in their interpretation of the Bible. These are the men commonly referred to as "the Black Israelites," the most prominent groups being the 12 Tribes, and the Israelite Church of Universal Practical Knowledge (UPK). These men teach an absurd form of right-wing Christianity that comes off as the Black Nationalist version of the Christian Identity movement.

Their doctrine, at its most basic level, is a spin on the Bible, where the Israelites are the ancestors of modern day African and Latino Americans. These are the chosen people of God, and the other nations are cursed. The main enemy are the Edomites, whom these groups argue are the people today referred to as "white." This quick look into their various groups will show the exegetical problems present with such claims, and expose these alleged "prophets" as being men who are not at all acquainted with the text they claim to follow (i.e. the Bible).

The claim that the modern day so-called "white man" is Esau is derived from specific interpretions of Obadiah, and other books of the Bible, but rests most strongly on Genesis 25:25. This verse informs us that Esau was "red" at birth, and based on this, the Black Israelite groups conclude that Esau, one of the most hated characters of the Biblical folklore, is the progenitor of caucasians. "The 'white' man isn't really white" they scream. "He's red!" The blood shows through the skin, due to lack of melanin, and thus they have proven Esau was the first white man.

This is the crux of their argument, and like many of their claims, it exposes them as complete novices with regard to Hebrew and the Bible. Indeed, in Genesis 25:25, Esau is referred to as "red," and the word "red" was translated from is (admonee).

Of course, the 12 Tribers and the UPKers don't know Hebrew, so they don't know this. In fact, they try to down play their inability to speak the original language that their folklore was recorded in by claiming that modern Hebrew is really Yiddish; they have created their own dialect, "Lashawan Qadash," which is a play on the Hebrew "Lashon Qodesh" (Holy Tongue). Rather than referring to the Hebrew text, they rely solely on the King James translation of the Christian scriptures.

Regardless, these monolingual bible thumpers shoot themselves in the foot when they claim that Genesis 25:25 is proof that Esau was white. Elsewhere in their rhetoric, they go on to claim that the tribe of Judah of the Biblical folklore was made up of what are now referred to as "African Americans," or "black" people. Unfortunately, these men don't realize that one of the kings of Judah is also described in the same way that Esau is described in the aforementioned verse from Genesis.

As has already been stated, the Hebrew word that "red," in Genesis 25:25, was translated from is admonee. As any Rabbi will tell you, there is only one other person in the Bible that is described as being admonee (red, ruddy), and that is King David. I will now compare the Hebrew text of 1 Samuel 16:12, and Genesis 25:25.

Genesis 25:25 VaYetse harishon ADMONEE khulo, K'aderet se'ar, va'iqro sh'mo Esav. "And the first came out RED [admonee], all over like a hairy garment; and they called his name Esau." 1 Samuel 16:12 Va'ishlach vaivi'ehu V'hu ADMONEE im-Y'feh einayim V'tov ro'ee Vayomer YHWH qum M'shachehu ki-zeh hu. "And he sent, and brought him in. Now he was RUDDY [admonee], and withal of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to. And the LORD said, Arise, anoint him: for this is he."

Now, this proves, beyond a doubt, that the same word is used to describe both Esau and David. The 12tribers and the UPKers may attempt to erect a strawman by ridiculing my transliteration, insinuating that I used a "Yiddish pronunciation," but the text still tells the story. Even if they resort to their "Lashawan Qadash" dialect, both men are described with the same word (in this case, pronounced ahdamawanaya, rather than admonee). David is "ahdamawanaya", and Esau is "ahdamawanaya" as well. Both the 12tribers and the UPKers have tried to escape this fact by staying only with the KJV translation, saying that David was ruddy, and Esau red, and that these are two different descriptions (they claim "ruddy" means young). However, there is no escaping the Hebrew text.

With regard to "Lashawan Qadash," the Black Israelites have created their own dialect, where the only vowels are 'a' (as in "raw") or 'i' (as in "high"), the 'i' sound being derived from ayin, and all other letters taking the 'a' sound. This absurd "Lashawan Qadash" dialect actually hurts the Black Israelites when we consider the name "Adam," which in Hebrew is written the following way:

This word, if rendered devoid of its vowels, actually appears in the Hebrew text of the TaNaKh on several occasions meaning "red." In those instances, Hebrew speakers would pronounce it adom, or adum. However, in "Lashawan Qadash" there are no vowels (the pointed text is ignored), and those words have to be pronounced as adam. The first example would be the Hebrew text of Isaiah 63:2. I challenge the Black Israelites to refer to the Hebrew text of Isaiah 63:2, and tell me what word "red" is translated from (in Hebrew, it would be adom, but because of the particular spelling, where the vav is dropped, it is pronounced adam in "Lashawan Qadash"). Here is the Hebrew text of Isaiah 63:2:

One more example is in order to drive this point home. The Freethought Mecca would like to present the Hebrew text of Zechariah 1:8, which, on two occasions, mentions horses that are red. To help our non Hebrew speakers, we would like to show some of the words. The Hebrew word for horse is soos, and it is written as follows: . Going across the first and second lines of the text we will present, there will be the words al-soos adom, which means "on a red horse," and will look like the following:

Finally, towards the end of the verse, there is a part about red horses (plural), or soosim adumim, which in Hebrew is written as follows:

That being said, we now present the Hebrew text of Zechariah 1:8, and we would like the Black Israelites to explain why adam is being used as the word for red.

Now again, UPKers and 12tribers will try to erect a strawman by ridiculing the transliteration of these words, erroneously accusing the Freethought Mecca of speaking Yiddish, and spewing nonsense about their "Lashawan Qadash" dialect. Regardless, in their dialect, "horse" would be sawas, and "on a red horse," from Zechariah 1:8, would have to be I-la sawas adam. This would mean that adam does in fact mean red, and would not run smoothly with their claim that "red" is a designation for white people. If Esau's redness means that he was white, then David must also be considered white as well. Any attempt to use a twisted interpretation of the KJV translation of Jeremiah 14:2 to argue otherwise, as many of these types do, would be nothing more than a duplicitous fallacy. If Esau was white, then Adam and David were as well too.

Of course these examples from Isaiah and Zechariah might be considered somewhat sophomoric in nature, so we would like to also take into account Songs 5:10, in which the female speaker describes her male lover (apparently Solomon) as follows:

Dodee tsach v'adom, daghool me'rbabah. My lover is white and red, the chiefest among ten thousand.

Here the word "red" is translated from (adom) with a vav (the 6th letter of the Hebrew alphabet) present, which the UPKers pronounce adawam. They themselves claim that the Hebrew word for red is "adawam," and the word they have in mind is clearly present in Songs 5:10. If redness is a sign of white skin, shouldn't being called (tsach v'adom) - white and red - be a clear indication of white skin? If an Israelite tries to claim that this is not a reference to Solomon, ask them who, then, is being referred to as "tazachaa wa-adawam" (the way they would pronounce it).

They may try to cite Songs 1:5 as proof that Solomon is black, but this will only show that they can't read Hebrew. Indeed, the person speaking in that verse does refer to themself as dark or black, but it is a woman speaking (the gender is feminine)! The Hebrew text reads sh'chorah ani (or they would pronounce it "shachaawarah anaya"), which means "I am dark" or "I am black". But the word for black/dark is feminine: (shachorah). If this were a man speaking, the masculine (shachor) would have been employed. While we are not convinced these verses are necessarily references to skin color, if we side with the reasoning of these sorts of Israelites, we'd have to conclude that the book of Songs (Song of Songs) records a love affair between a "white" male and a "black" female. Biblically sanctioned miscegenation! How do these racists feel about that?
 
Personally, we consider the Bible to be nothing more than a self contradicting compilation of goat herder camp-fire stories. Regardless, it does not seem that race is ever mentioned in this compilation with regard to skin color. The 12tribers and UPKers may attempt to argue otherwise, but their claims are weak, and saturated with error. With regard to people being described as "red," or "ruddy" (admonee), Rashi, Mizrachi, and other Orthodox commentaries have noted that this has nothing to do with actual skin color, rather this is a reference to an aggressive, or even murderous nature.

Since we first wrote this article, we have gotten several emails from angry Israelites, asking us if we are positively asserting that African Americans are not the descendants of the tribe of Judah, or that modern day "white" people are not descended from Esau. While we feel that they are the positive claimants, and have yet to prove any real evidence for their position that "blacks" are Israelites and "whites" are Edomites, let it be noted that this article does not take a position on the issue. Very specific doctrines are under discussion here, and the arguments presented above stand regardless of the genealogical origins of "blacks" and "whites". Besides, we consider such questions irrelevant in light of the fact that "race" and "nationality" are mere social constructions.

It should be noted that we here at the Freethought Mecca are actually quite fond of heterodox Black Nationalist forms of Christianity and Islam (such as the Allah Team, and other five percent nation groups). Christianity and Islam are imperialist religions that have ravaged much of the world, including Africa. Indigenous African culture has essentially been destroyed, and the people have been, for the most part, assimilated. Groups like these are struggling to forge an identity within the confines of a psychological prison built with the bricks of Arabo-Judaic or Judeo-Hellenist mythology. We can appreciate this fact, but an error is still an error, ignorance is still ignorance, and hate is still hate.