Was Esau White?

There are some individuals and groups who are dangerously attempting to redefine the characters of the Bible and its overall message to fit into their own world of bigotry and separatism. They tend to connect the oppression and slavery of the Israelites in Egypt with that of the oppression and slavery experienced by the Africans at the hands of the Europeans, not realizing that believing the ancient Egyptians and the Israelites were black, results in black on black oppression and slavery, not white on black! I am convinced that the pursuit to identify race in everything is itself racism.

Genesis 25:25 And the first came out red (hair or complexion), all over like a hairy garment; and they called his name Esau (“ā·säv'” - meaning ‘hairy’, not red).

It important to note, that the author does not emphasis Esaus’ complexion as much as he does his hair. It says "Esau was red all over like hairy garment. Again, Esaus' name means hairy, not red. If Esaus' skin was white or red the bible would have mentioned such a distinction from Gods original creation of black people. However, it does not say he came out with red hair all over his red or white skin. See picture below of a black man with red hair all over. Clear proof that red hair all over is not exclusive to caucasians.

According to IsraelUnited.org,the author argues that the bible mentions, “the first born/the elder child’s color because he was different from his Mother,father and all other people from the time of Adam. Genesis 2:7, “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground…meaning shades of brown…Do you notice Jacobs color is Not mentioned, because he looked like his mother and father and all the other people on the earth since the time of Adam.”

This is far from the truth. Esau was mentioned first simply because he was the oldest son, expected to receive the birthright. Esau being mentioned first has nothing to do with the hue of his skin. Likewise, Jacobs’ color not being mentioned is only due to the fact that Jacobis the second son, not because he was black. It is pure conjecture and speculation to interject these ideas into the narrative. No other passage in scripture follows this principle of mentioning the firstborn son because of the differentiation of the pigmentation of his skin.

What about the “dust of the ground”, does that imply that Adam was black? `aphar is the Hebrew word for dust, which could mean dry earth, dust, powder,ashes, earth, clay, ground, mortar, rubbish, dry or loose earth, debris, mortar, ore. There is no indication or evidence that any of these properties are exclusively black in color. In fact, sand is similar to dust (both are voidof clay) and in some contexts used interchangeably. Sand varies in color fromwhite, red, brown, etc. There is also evidence of white clay! Nevertheless, there is no evidence to prove that the dust that was used to create Adam was black, white, or red. This is simply needless conjecture to argue otherwise. It could also be argued that because dust is a substance void of clay-which are thousands of electrically charged particles that stick together thanks to water-there was no definite color to dust God used to make Adam.

There is clear evidence of white sand/dirt/dust in Africa!