Rating: 
Summary: Good Stuff!
Review: I can think of nothing more insulting to the Black community than the need of some afrocentric "experts" to literaly steal the history of another country (Greece). It implies that Africa doesn't have a rich enough culture to be proud of and that is a shame. It is a crime that Mary Lefkowitz needed to write such a book, however since it has to be done she does it well. Step by step she gives actual evidence to refute claims born out of rage and inadaquacy. The best arguements involve (in my opinion) pointing to the lack of a propaganda attack on Cleopatra for her race by her & Ceasar's foes. It is a fine example of how people and politicts don't change only the technology they use does. She points out not just the factual errors but the inherant dangers of spreading a fantasy and beliving a lie for political purposes. Those who do are made of the stuff of those who don't care for those they incite and exist only to destory. All of the greatest tyrants used such tactics as the basis for their rule. Such illusions are usually shattered at a great price. Lets hope that we as a society and particularly the young African American community don't to pay it.
Rating:
Summary: impressive critical study
Review: This is a fascinating critical examination of a growing body of Afrocentric literature -- at least at it applies to the question of Egyptian influence on Greek culture. The most extreme Afrocentrics claim that all of what is great in ancient Greek culture came from, or was stolen from, ancient Egypt, and that the ancient Egyptians were what modern Europeans would call black. That is the extreme position, easy to criticize, and Lefkowitz does it in short order -- sometimes even ignoring,in the interest of brevity, evidence that supports her thesis. Her conclusions are more temperate than those of Louis Gates, Jr., but since he is black, and she white, most of the criticism leveled against her has been personal and doesn't address the evidence she cites (check out Gates' attack on Afrocentric scholarship in his article in the July 20, 1992 edition of the New York Times (p. A15): "Black Demagogues and Pseudo-Scholars").Ironically, much of the trouble starts with Herodotus, "the father of history". He did visit Egypt (he was a Persian subject while Egypt was ruled by the Persians). His eyewitness accounts almost invariably stand up. When he relies on informants (there's no indication he knew the local language), and when he speculates on origins and influences, then he becomes quickly unreliable (as he admitted himself, he chose stories for their interest, not their reliability). And like a true Greek, he indulged his rationalist theorizing tendencies, particularly the argument from analogy. For instance, he subscribed to the Greek theory of climatological determination of skin color. Also, to the Greeks anything darker than the average Greek is "melas", or "dark". From there, the more ideologically-motivated scholars have travelled the short distance to "black", and then "Negroid". Thus John Hendrick Clarke says Cadmus, described in the original sources as dark, who was the mythical founder of Thebes in Greece, and who came from Phoenicia (then under Egyptian rule), was Negroid (Clarke cites Diodorus as his source, but Diodorus says no such thing), and is thus an example of black Egyptian founding of Greek culture! I kid you not. Of course, Herodotus is not always reliable. Seeing two dark doves, he concludes, based on his climatological theory, that they are Egyptian. Similarly, the Colchians, darker than the Greeks, who live on the eastern edge of the Black Sea -- they too must be Egyptian. Diodorus Siculus, visiting Egypt in the first century BC then reports the same conclusion from Egyptian priests -- but again, Diodorus gives away the game: he describes his method as seeking confirmation of Greek sources from Egyptians, after Egypt had been exposed to Greek sources for 200 years! One can imagine the conversation: "Was Herodotus right when he said the Colchians were Egyptians?"; "Oh, yes. Not only that, Egyptians colonized the entire Mediterranean, and even Babylonia"; "Wow, that's fascinating -- not even Herodotus said that!" Needless to say, there's no archeological evidence of Egyptian culture in Colchian remains, any more than there is (Bernal's favorite) material evidence of Egyptian or Hyksos colonization of Greece in the 2nd millenium BC. But no matter. Other howlers abound. Cleopatra is demonstrated by Afrocentrists to be black by reference to Shakespeare's play Antony and Cleopatra, and by reference to Ripley's Believe It Or Not!. Again, I kid you not. James, the author of Stolen Legacy, has his own little howlers. To him, Plato must have stolen Egyptian philosophy because he used a chariot metaphor and the Greeks didn't use chariots in 5th century warfare. But the Egyptians used chariots when chasing down Moses, so Plato must have stolen his philosophy from Egypt. QED. Sounds like the witch trial scene, with the medieval dialectician, in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Lefkowitz disposes of the argument by referring to the Iliad (with its mention of chariots), artistic representations of chariots in Plato's time, and the presence of chariot races in Plato's time. She ignores some evidence that supports her thesis (again, for brevity reasons and to avoid overkill)from archeology and linguistics: chariot stelae and a ring depicting a chariot from Late Helladic Mycenae; chariot part inventory tablets from Pylos and Knossos; Greek names for chariot parts that are Indo-European; etc. The point is, Lefkowitz could have written a book three times as long. She could have addressed the European Phoenician-source-of-Greek-culture craze, which lasted as long as it did because Arthur Evans failed to release his notes -- a clear analogy to the relative lack of Egyptological scholarship prior to the 1836 publication of hieroglyphic translation -- which, of course, also runs counter to the notion of Eurocentric bias. The book is well written (her analysis of the failed translations of Aegyptus in Herodotus is a masterful piece of first-class scholarship), and it does not stoop to ridicule or sarcasm. This is a fascinating book, but in the end, you don't know whether to laugh or cry. American slaveowners worked overtime to strip Africans of their culture, to rob them of their confidence and identity, and to instill a slave ideology. One reaction has always been countereducation -- as Albert Raboteau describes it, as slaveowners were emphasizing the Biblical passages concerning obedience to a master, the slaves themselves were organizing their own countereducation emphasizing Exodus, etc. We see, today, a continuation of that tradition, but transposed to the academic world as a reaction against "white" standards of evidence and scholarship, harnessed to the same dreams of uplift and liberation. Someday, perhaps, we won't have a society that produces that kind of reaction. I recommend the book completely.
Rating: 
Summary: Assante said it best:
Review: Mary Lefkowitz' book has sought to re-assert the idea that Greece did not receive substantial contributions from Kemet, the original name of Egypt, which is the Greek name for the ancient land. Professor Lefkowitz has offered the public a *pablum history which ignores or distorts the substantial evidence of African influence on Greece* in the ancient writings of Aetius, Strabo, Plato, Homer, Herodotus, Diogenes, Plutarch, and Diodorus Siculus. A reader of Lefkowitz' book must decide if she or he is going to believe those who wrote during the period or someone who writes today. History teaches us that a person is more likely to distort an event the farther away from it she happens to be. If you have a choice, go with the people who saw
the ancient Egyptians and wrote about what they saw. Ancient Greek civilization did not spring from an "immaculate conception." Antiquarians have long been influenced by the "Aryan model" and have IGNORED contributions of the civilizations of the Nile, which were fully developed by 4000 BC. Sadly, praise for Lefkowitz' strawman arguments comes from white fear that Afri(Afro)centricity is an attempt to "to replace "white" history with "black" history, or "white" mathematics with "black" mathematics..." In fact, it is merely the "to promote a more plausible view of the arts, humanities, social sciences, and physical sciences as products not of white culture only, *but of human culture*, more broadly considered and valued than white elitist intellectuals would traditionally allow." Read this tripe if you're a fearful individual.
Rating: 
Summary: Preaching to the choir, yelling at the wall
Review: Not out of Africa is not exactly a book that stands on its own. You have to know the basic premise of the books this one is responding to, first. And second you have to have some knowledge of Ancient History to interpret what's said and assimilate the arguments and their validity. Since this book is a response to the Afrocentrist movement, the arguments it makes are less important in some ways than who makes those arguments, and their supposed motives. Afrocentrism is the name for the theory that Greek civilization, the basis for all Western thought and culture, was stolen by various philosophers from Ancient Egypt. The Egyptians in turn are revealed to be part of "Black Africa" and therefore Africa is the real "cradle of civilization" and Greek philosophy is merely a fraud. It shouldn't surprise anyone to know that this would be a divisive argument with a good deal of vituperative arguments between the two sides. The author of this book, Mary Lefkowitz, makes the mistake of marshalling too many facts in support of her arguments, and essentially demolishing each point of the Afrocentrist theory. Since the critics can't refute her arguments, they are left with attacking her, questioning her motives, and even defaming her heritage. This of course does nothing in terms of the actual debate, but it does serve to obscure the facts and muddy the waters, so those who don't know anything about the facts of the issue will be confused. Lefkowitz makes her points clearly and concisely, and points out some real howlers in the middle of the Afrocentrist argument. For instance, Aristotle couldn't have stolen his eyes from the Library at Alexandria, because he never visited Egypt and died before the library itself was founded. One interesting portion of Lefkowitz's argument is that much of the Afrocentrist theory originates in the mystical theories behind Freemasonry, the members of that organization apparently believing that their rites descend from ancient Egyptian rituals. The problem with a book like this is simple. Those who start the book suspicious of the Afrocentrist argument will probably agree with most of what's written here. Those who start as Afrocentrists themselves will regard the death of Aristotle before the founding of the Library of Alexandria a "detail" that can be explained away by calling the author a racist. This sort of argument goes on way too long.
Rating:
Summary: Eurocentric Babble
Review: It is a testiment unto the times in which we still live that this book was given any sort of recognition as the truth. I could only stomach half the book and am wondering how I got that far when the introduction alone included so many contridictions. Afrocentric belief does not detract from other cultures. It only points out that yes, the people of Africa were influential to much of the world. How can it be explained that Greek philosophers could acknowledge this fact yet this author cannot? Also to say Egyptians were not African is ludacris. One need only look at the facial features of the Pharohs to know this, not to mention the evidence that has mounted over the years. If I could give this book no stars I would.
Rating:
Summary: good book...
Review: which absolutely and completely demolishes the myth of afrocentrism.
i wish to correct a maligned amazon.com rater (who obviously remembered from an old elementary-school map that egypt was indeed a country located (surprise, surprise) in africa)....when someone comments on the fact that africans developed no written languages and doesn't include egyptians as africans...that simply makes sense from an obvious visual and genetic racial background. north africans are not black, in the sense of what is commonly considered black by western standards. you silly fool. is charlize theron considered african-american? now you look as stupid as you are!
Rating:
Summary: In the defense of logic.
Review: This book by the Wellesley professor of classics is a significant contribution not only to the study of classics, but for education in general. I have worked with several people who are the product of college level instruction in Afrocentrism. This view transcends cultural discussions and enters into their views of general logic used in the workplace. That is, when trained to believe in the use of pseudoscience, the individual also exercises this method in unrelated areas. This result is to be expected. The reason why logic and reasoning is valuable to teach in schools is not so that a person can later discuss Descartes, or Aquinas, but so that the student can transfer this empirical method into general life problems. This is the point of Lefkowitz's book. Afrocentrism is pseudoscience. It is defended, not with evidence, but with racial sentiments of anger. Regardless of pointing out factual inaccuracies, these so-called scholars take any contrary argument and charge that the other party is brainwashed into accepting a European view of culture. This has led to many absurd arguments such as Egyptians flew in gliders, or that George Washington Carver was successful not because of his scientific training, but because of the amount of "melanin" in his skin. At its best, Afrocentrism seeks to induce pride in a race. At worst, it devalues the African culture by using false claims and supporting anti-intellectualism. This makes the proponent of such methods no better than those who speak poorly of African heritage due to a belief of European superiority. The author's view is that African heritage should be valued on the many valid reasons to give acclaim, not on fantasy. I recall in grade school reading about how the USSR controlled press espoused claims that basically everything, including the washing machine, was really an invention of communism. These claims were both laughable and sad, and I feel the same for those who have given us Afrocentrism. Unfortunately, some of these falsehoods are making their way into grade schools as part of Black History Month.
Rating:
Summary: African Written Language
Review: It's interesting how far some people will go to exploit a myth and then lo and behold up pops another one in the reviews. "Africans (not Egyptians) had no written language" Ge'ez was the written language of the Ethiopians who last I heard, were Africans.
Rating:
Summary: Brave Scholar Defies PC "History"
Review: These are tough times for honest scholarship, as Mary Lefkowitz admits early on in her book. As she says in her Preface, "There is a current tendency...to regard history as a form of fiction that can and should be written by each nation or ethnic group." In that way, cultural relativism achieves its aim: to make certain groups of people feel good about themselves at the expense of the truth. History, she argues, has been hijacked by political action groups (in this case, Afrocentrist racicals), and the disservice has been the greatest at the point of the endgame: students are being taught, in the name of ethnic pride, things that are false or at least groundless. Thus, the great error of Afrocentrism is that it passes off political indoctrination as fact to impressionable students who have to (1) carry a false view of history into their public lives; and (2) choose whether or not they are to become anti-white racists. This skillfully argued, carefully documented book is a must-read for those who respect honest scholarship and responsible teaching in these PC times, and wish to know the motives behind Afrocentrist claims of black cultural and racial superiority, and the conspiracy theories that support it.
Rating:
Summary: Who decides what is a "modern myth" and what isn't? And how?
Review: "Between the end of Reconstruction in 1877 (when Hayes sacrificed African-American freedom in exchange for the White House) and the end of World War I in 1918, African Americans experienced their nadir. North and South colluded in gutting the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, depriving African Americans of their rights. The author examines every aspect of our country's post-Reconstruction retreat from equality: the economic factors, the Supreme Court decision, and, in a unique and disturbing survey, the racist caricatures that dominated the most liberal newspapers and magazines of the day. Logan unfolds a narrative of national betrayal as harrowing as it is heartbreaking." Review of The Betrayal of the Negro:
From Rutherford Hayes to Woodrow Wilson
by Rayford Whittingham Logan, Eric Foner (Introduction) In this 21st century, we are discovering a number of things about our present and past as a culture that are ultimately unsettling. INTO THE BUZZSAW: UNCOVERING THE MYTH OF A FREE PRESS is a recently published book by Kristina Borjesson that not only builds on recent bestsellers like BIAS and WHAT LIBERAL MEDIA, but transcends it to such a degree that it shows the corporate controlled media in America to be utterly incapable of dispensing truth as Americans need to know it. No stories--i.e., no facts--that could have a qualitatively negative effect on the image or profits of the parent companies of the news media outlets (or the government in that context) are allowed to be actively pursued by reporters or reported on the news. BLACK ATHENA by Martin Bernal, and similar works of iconoclastic ancient historians and anthropologists (the likes of which, though consistently ignored by the establishment, have been written for more than two centuries) deeply offends some people, yet the truth within other books about power, oligarchy, and the dissemination of information in democracies with historically imperialist agendas--like Borjesson's about our modern media--oddly does not. The above quoted book, BETRAYAL OF THE NEGRO, along with scholarly works like NIXON'S PIANO and AT THE HANDS OF PERSONS UNKNOWN, show the extent to which racism and the corresponding subversion of the Constitution has been the order of the day in American history throughout the 18th through 20th centuries. Also, to what degree this has been institutionally systemic, like a cancer that eventually seeps into the mind and marrow of its host body, redefining its existence. People engage in no debate about the political and cultural implications of these books, but they will write blistering diatribes about Martin Bernal's BLACK ATHENA without ever having read it; a man who discusses ancient societies from more than three thousand years ago. The quasi-academic political reaction to Martin Bernal's BLACK ATHENA that is essentially Lefkowitz' NOT OUT OF AFRICA is, in that context, something that never ceases to amaze me. (Nor the fact that people, even "well-meaning liberal Whites", are oddly more offended by any questions regarding the conservative think-tank foundations which funded the production of her work than those who are by the very existence of Bernal's!) We still, according to many opinion makers, are somehow supposed to have as a categorical imperative the obligation to pretend (despite the growing mountainous evidence to the contrary in numerous fields of study) that the American University system of the 18th through early 20th centuries--the intellectual mouthpieces of African slave-holding societies--was some secular Vatican City in whose halls naught but truth had ever been told. Now THAT's what I call mythology. Lefkowitz in NOT OUT OF AFRICA brings up important points regarding Afrocentrism and puts bad scholarship methods on notice. However, when told in the context of ignoring some pretty unsettling truths about modern academia and the real ancient world, they become essentially issues of semantics. One of these purposely ignored facts are as follows: there are entire centuries-old schools of thought, such as Metrology [the study of ancient measures and measurement systems], Geodesy [applied metrology regarding the measurement of the earth and its circumference as the basis of navigational systems] and comparative linguistics [much of which, i.e., language itself, actually has a proven basis in the nascent metrological sciences], that have been exorcised completely from college campuses. Why? Because the facts they reveal don't tow the party line of the New World Order. They show not just the Egyptian origin of Greece's mathematical and architectural systems but the only logical explanation for a significant percentage of the non-Indo European origin of its language (from which one can easily explain their religious system with its many gods that ironically resemble Egyptian ones, like *Athena* from the Egyptian goddess sister of Isis *Neith*). The differences between the Parthenon and the Pyramids, along with other central aspects of the two cultures, matter about as much as the difference between Haydn and Beethoven, or Cezanne and Picasso, when taking the truth revealed by these sciences into consideration: creativity comes from a *reorganization* of the components of a preexisting linguistical structure--however well hidden or forgotten--after it has been taught and digested. Those who focus on Lefkowitz' pet peeves in Afrocentrism simply do not know this; the book was designed so you never would. Indeed, Lefkowitz' pretense in NOT OUT OF AFRICA that only her detractors and the supposedly Black pseudo-academics she criticizes have a political agenda is, in that context, offensively hypocritical. People today are not offended by Afrocentrism. They are unconsciously disturbed by Afrocentricity's revealing of the deep-seated corruption of academic, Constitutional and human values in our society over the past three centuries for political ends. Such that it becomes obvious that what writers like those whom Lefkowitz debases in NOT OUT OF AFRICA say is true, is actually just as possible as what we've been repeatedly told. Afrocentricity has opened up the Book of Revelations in Classicism. NOT OUT OF AFRICA is just another intellectual raging at the dying of a Eurocentric light in academia that should never have been lit anyway, as it could never replace the bright truth of the African sun.
|
