tattedupboy
Thank God I'm alive!
I stumbled across this earlier today, and it made me think about the African American studies classes I took in high school and college. Basically, the author, of the book being discussed here talks about how African American studies curricula across the country are passing of myths as fact in order to make people "feel better." Kinda reminds me of my high school Afro American studies teacher telling us that the first eight presidents of the United States were actually Black (of course, he didn't give any names). It wouldn't surprise me at all if Al and Jesse were somehow behind this.
Not out of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became an Excuse to Teach Myth as History | Insight on the News | Find Articles at BNET
Lefkowitz knows better. In Not Out of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became An Excuse to Teach Myth as History, she applies her knowledge of the ancient world and its languages to showing, as she puts it, that "virtually all the claims made by Afrocentrists can be shown to be without substance."
Take the claim that Cleopatra of Egypt was black. To reach this conclusion, Lefkowitz points out, one must assume that the unlikely actually is probable: for example, that Cleopatra's grandmother, the only member of her family not identified precisely as a Macedonian Greek, was a black African. It is possible that this was the case, Letfkowitz points out; but surely if it had been, the Roman writers of the time, who hated Cleopatra, would have used her foreign ancestry against her.
Because ancient sources that mention the matter identify Cleopatra as Macedonian Greek, Afrocentrists turn to more modern sources to buttress their case. One writer, Joel Rogers, has pointed out that in Antony and Cleopatra, Shakespeare describes Cleopatra as "tawny," which means, he says, that Shakespeare thought of her as a mulatto. Lefkowitz finds this unconvincing - just as she does the use of the bard's work on this occasion - "as if Shakespeare were an authority on Ptolemaic Egypt."
But other Afrocentrist citations are even more bizarre. Rogers actually offers as evidence a passage from Ripley's Believe It or Not that claims that Cleopatra was "fat and black." John Henrik Clarke, professor emeritus of black and Puerto Rican studies at Hunter College in New York, writes that "in the Book of Acts, Cleopatra describes herself as `black.'" Clarke does not give the precise chapter and verse in Acts and for very good reason, says Lefkowitz. Cleopatra is not mentioned in Acts and, in fact, died some 60 years before this book of the New Testament was written.
To illustrate the harm done by Afrocentric myths, Lefkowitz tells of the Wellesley student who objected to the showing of the film Cleopatra on the grounds that having Elizabeth Taylor in the starring role perpetuated the lie of "white supremacy." When a member of the classics department tried to discuss Cleopatra's genealogy with the student, it quickly became apparent that she wanted no part of such explanations. To her way of thinking, they were further examples of white racism.
Afrocentrism is more than an exercise in esteem building; it is a way of nurturing racial resentment. When academics such as Lefkowitz are skeptical, it is seen as evidence that whites, simply because they are white, want to deny blacks, simply because they are black, the grand heritage of ancient Egypt. Before the 19th century, Afrocentrists say, scholars acknowledged the primacy of Egypt, but with the burgeoning of the slave trade, European scholars began to minimize the importance of all things African and to credit the Greeks with what were actually Egyptian achievements.
Lefkowitz acknowledges that there was a shift, but it was not racism that caused it; rather, it was an increase in knowledge. Scholars learned how to read hieroglyphics "and once they were able to read real Egyptian texts," they "could disregard the fanciful interpretations of hieroglyphics that had been circulating since late antiquity." Afrocentrists return to these fanciful interpretations and report as truth such myths as Aristotle's having plagiarized his philosophy from the library at Alexandria - a clear impossibility, Lefkowitz observes, since the library was assembled only after Aristotle's death.
Those concerned about fraudulent history being taught on campuses owe a debt of gratitude to Lefkowitz for this book, and so do those who are appalled by untruths being propagated in our schools. Concerned parents will find herein powerful ammunition in their battle to rid of Afrocentrist ideas the worldhistory curriculum their children are studying.
But the battle likely is to be protracted. Afrocentrists themselves will not be impressed by the evidence that Lefkowitz has piled up because truth - which is the aim of gathering evidence - is not their concern. Their goal is a pride-building myth.
Perhaps in the next stage of the debate over Afrocentrism it should be asked why myth is necessary, since the truth should be such an obvious source of pride. As presidential hopeful Alan Keyes has observed, "The survival of black people in America, through slavery, racist assaults and economic deprivation, is one of the greatest sagas of the human spirit the world has ever seen."
Not out of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became an Excuse to Teach Myth as History | Insight on the News | Find Articles at BNET
Lefkowitz knows better. In Not Out of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became An Excuse to Teach Myth as History, she applies her knowledge of the ancient world and its languages to showing, as she puts it, that "virtually all the claims made by Afrocentrists can be shown to be without substance."
Take the claim that Cleopatra of Egypt was black. To reach this conclusion, Lefkowitz points out, one must assume that the unlikely actually is probable: for example, that Cleopatra's grandmother, the only member of her family not identified precisely as a Macedonian Greek, was a black African. It is possible that this was the case, Letfkowitz points out; but surely if it had been, the Roman writers of the time, who hated Cleopatra, would have used her foreign ancestry against her.
Because ancient sources that mention the matter identify Cleopatra as Macedonian Greek, Afrocentrists turn to more modern sources to buttress their case. One writer, Joel Rogers, has pointed out that in Antony and Cleopatra, Shakespeare describes Cleopatra as "tawny," which means, he says, that Shakespeare thought of her as a mulatto. Lefkowitz finds this unconvincing - just as she does the use of the bard's work on this occasion - "as if Shakespeare were an authority on Ptolemaic Egypt."
But other Afrocentrist citations are even more bizarre. Rogers actually offers as evidence a passage from Ripley's Believe It or Not that claims that Cleopatra was "fat and black." John Henrik Clarke, professor emeritus of black and Puerto Rican studies at Hunter College in New York, writes that "in the Book of Acts, Cleopatra describes herself as `black.'" Clarke does not give the precise chapter and verse in Acts and for very good reason, says Lefkowitz. Cleopatra is not mentioned in Acts and, in fact, died some 60 years before this book of the New Testament was written.
To illustrate the harm done by Afrocentric myths, Lefkowitz tells of the Wellesley student who objected to the showing of the film Cleopatra on the grounds that having Elizabeth Taylor in the starring role perpetuated the lie of "white supremacy." When a member of the classics department tried to discuss Cleopatra's genealogy with the student, it quickly became apparent that she wanted no part of such explanations. To her way of thinking, they were further examples of white racism.
Afrocentrism is more than an exercise in esteem building; it is a way of nurturing racial resentment. When academics such as Lefkowitz are skeptical, it is seen as evidence that whites, simply because they are white, want to deny blacks, simply because they are black, the grand heritage of ancient Egypt. Before the 19th century, Afrocentrists say, scholars acknowledged the primacy of Egypt, but with the burgeoning of the slave trade, European scholars began to minimize the importance of all things African and to credit the Greeks with what were actually Egyptian achievements.
Lefkowitz acknowledges that there was a shift, but it was not racism that caused it; rather, it was an increase in knowledge. Scholars learned how to read hieroglyphics "and once they were able to read real Egyptian texts," they "could disregard the fanciful interpretations of hieroglyphics that had been circulating since late antiquity." Afrocentrists return to these fanciful interpretations and report as truth such myths as Aristotle's having plagiarized his philosophy from the library at Alexandria - a clear impossibility, Lefkowitz observes, since the library was assembled only after Aristotle's death.
Those concerned about fraudulent history being taught on campuses owe a debt of gratitude to Lefkowitz for this book, and so do those who are appalled by untruths being propagated in our schools. Concerned parents will find herein powerful ammunition in their battle to rid of Afrocentrist ideas the worldhistory curriculum their children are studying.
But the battle likely is to be protracted. Afrocentrists themselves will not be impressed by the evidence that Lefkowitz has piled up because truth - which is the aim of gathering evidence - is not their concern. Their goal is a pride-building myth.
Perhaps in the next stage of the debate over Afrocentrism it should be asked why myth is necessary, since the truth should be such an obvious source of pride. As presidential hopeful Alan Keyes has observed, "The survival of black people in America, through slavery, racist assaults and economic deprivation, is one of the greatest sagas of the human spirit the world has ever seen."