The point was that the text that is being attributed to Rash"i was not penned by him (similar to the text that is being attributed to Bavli), and the original passage written in Mishnaic Hebrew has no racial enmity.
I get what you are saying about these primary sources. But what I wonder about is, why and who it was that translated these sources and interpreted them the way was done. It's more so about these primary sources, aside from the original primaries. Don't you think it's peculiar to what has happened?
We can sit here and act as if 1700 years of dehumanization based on a Hamitic doctrine didn't exist, or we can acknowledge that something odd and awful has happened and still is happing till this day based on this doctrine. In no way is there blame on the NOI-Farrakhan, Griff or Nick Cannon.
The term was in use by the time 'Hebrew myths: The Book of Genesis' was written. It is used there in the commentary following their rendition of the passage from the Medrish.
I will read the book 'Hebrew myths: The Book of Genesis' to get a better understanding of this, that go into the interpretations and primaries of the word negroe and how it has been conflated with this 1700 years old doctrine?
Last edited: