Rating: 
Summary: A MAJOR LITERARY ROADBLOCK THAT HALTS POLITICAL INCORRECTNES
Review: Here we are half a world away, deciding the histories of other people and places. Egyptians (and North Africans of the Maghrib) do not consider themselves a part of black civilization due to a simple fact: they are predominantly Caucasian. Egyptian history has been intertwined with the Near East and Europe for millenia and only the Nubians played a major role in Egypt's history. Only in America can people be labeled black because they either had or might have some distant black ancestors. America's warped racism of the past has now been reversed, but the change in the source doesn't excuse the stupidity. Mary Lefkowitz appears to have decided to tackle a delicate issue and has been branded a racist for simply trying to stick to facts and not fantasy. Popular American culture is already depicting Egypt as a part of Afro-American history. Cleopatra's Greek origins are igonored entirely and the spread of ignorance is now rampant. Just as a sidenote both Egyptian and Greco-Roman civilization are Mediterranean and the Greeks had nothing to do with Britain or what would become the U.S.A. either. Lefkowitz' main financial supporters are part of America's conservative political and social right-wing (many of whom are latent racists), but this should not diminish her accurate message regarding Egypt's role in the evolution of human history. Afro-Americans have honed in on Egypt (and unconsciously seem to feel that the "closer" to Europe they can be linked the more advanced "their" history will be appear) and have ignored ancient Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa, Mali, and even Nubia to a lesser extent. This entire historical mess has lead to a focus upon human phenotypes and has veered from loftier academic pursuits such as languages and social evolution and the development of technology. The Mediterranean is indeed the hub of human civilization (although China seems to have been ignored entirely in spite of her independent advanced civilization) and it is sad that skin color is the issue that is being focused upon and not the roots of our social and political ideas. Sadly the next generation will suffer for our mistakes unless more objective people like Mary Lefkowitz emerge to keep us focused upon reality.
Rating: 
Summary: A outstanding book
Review: Mary Lefkowitz has injected a badly-needed dose of reality into the world of "afrocentrism" with her well-reasoned book. This book should be required reading for all college students especially those who subscribe to afrocentric philosophies. For the attacks she suffered for writing her tome, Ms. Lefkowitz will be numbered among those sainted few in history who stood up for truth in the face of vicious attacks.
Rating:
Summary: A model of critical thinking and disinterested scholarship.
Review: Mrs Lefkowitz's courage in tackling - as is painfully obvious from the customer reviews on this page - an intellectually disreputable, epistemologically incoherent, discreditably abusive and frequently semi-literate political agenda is awesome. Her book is a treasure, not only - or even mainly - because of the devastating empirical evidence she assembles to refute the claims of the "Afrocentrists", but because of her commitment to the principles of critical scholarship and free inquiry. For her, history is a search for knowledge, wherever it leads; for her critics, it is a political tool in which the notion of truth is meaningless. All those who value a society in which truth, critical inquiry and the search for knowledge take precedence over political ideology would profit from reading this book.
Rating:
Summary: Ignore lies below
Review: I am shocked at the blatant distortions below from Kenya. The writer appeals to Diop and Obenga and claims that these two "proved" that ancient Egypt was totally black at a conference in 1974. This is a deliberate and quite disgraceful lie. The conference was held under the auspices of UNESCO in Cairo from 28 January-3 February, 1974. You can read the details in the annex to chapter I of the UNESCO General History of Africa, vol. II (Paris: 1990).Out of twenty participants, only Diop and Obenga claimed that the ancient Egyptians were totally black. 'Numerous objections were made to to the ideas propounded by Professor Diop', (p. 43); 'there was total disagreement' (p. 49); 'during the lengthy discussion on colours, Professors Vercouten, Sauneron and Save-Soderbergh on the one hand and Professor Diop on the other were again in disagreement', (p. 53). Yet the previous reviewer cites these same professors as if they agreed with Diop! Far from "proving&q! ! uot; anything, Diop and Obenga's attempt to inject a racial agenda into the study of ancient Egypt forced UNESCO to assert that UNESCO 'was committed to to the cause of promoting international understanding...and that it had not been the intention of the Organization, when deciding to hold the symposium, to give rise to tensions between peoples or races', (p. 50). Commenting on Diop and Obenga's "thesis", it is stated in the official report that they 'were ill-advised...to refer to the series of criteria established by anthropologists to characterize the negro', (p. 51). Diop's 'forceful affirmation [of his "thesis"] was criticized by many participants', (p. 51). In short, Diop and Obenga's work was massively critiqued by most participants at the symposium - as any African historian knows and as is readily confirmed if one takes five minutes to read the report published in the UNESCO book and from which I have quoted. It is absolutely disgraceful that ! ! a reviewer should attempt to mislead potential readers on t! his page by deliberately distorting and lying about the credibility of Diop and Obenga and claiming that they had "proved" anything. You should know that both are largely ridiculed in professional circles and certainly should be treated with massive caution if using as a source to defend "Afrocentric" ideas. Thought readers should know this and not be misled by the attempt from Kenya to mis-inform potential readers.
Rating: 
Summary: Best to follow international norms
Review: I actually wasn't able to read all of the book Leftkowitz' book is basically an appraisal of the political motivation of the so-called Afrocentrist from W.E.B. Dubois to Lenard Jefferies. As such, the scientific validity of the claims she makes is null. Martin Bernal, Dr. Charles Finch, to name a few, have pointed out the constellation of factual errors she makes regarding Greek and Egyptian history. Methodologically bankrupt, and embarrasingly inaccurate, Not Out of Africa proves that Leftkowitz, a so-called Classist, can't even marshall the appropropriate information from the Greek sources to prove her point. If the serious reader and scholar would like to know the historical, linguistical, scientific,anthropological, cultural, social data that suggest the anteriority of egyptian knowledge to Africa (throughly researched in all ojectivity) we challenge you to read all the following works of Cheikh Anta Diop and Theophile Obenga (of course if you are a real scholar, you should read the works in French, as I have)and not just the some what "watered down" english versions. Cheikh Anta Diop Alert Sous les Tropiques Nations Negres et Cultures tome 1 and 2 Anteriorite des Civilization Mythes ou Realite historique L'Afrique Noire Precolonial L'unite culturelle de l'Afrique Noire Civiliatization ou Barbarie (Anthropoligie Sans Compliasance) La Parante Genetique de l'egyptien ancien et des langues negroes-african (Bernal should read this one before he makes uninformed claims about the eyptian language belong to some so-called Afro-Asiatic language group) Nouvelles Recerche sur l'egyptien ancien et des langues negro-africains La Philosophie, La Relgion, et la Science Theophile Obenga La philosophie africaine de la period pharonique (2660-320 avant notre ere) For our english speaking audience African Origins of Philosophy in Ancient Egypt and Black Africa: a students handbook to the study of, Origine Commune de l'egyptien du copte et des langue negroes africains (an! other book that might inpress linguistists Afrique dans l'antiquite "Aristote et Egyte" in Revue ANKH no 2. Cheikh Anta Diop, Volney, et le Sphinx If you would like to know here to get these books, email me and I will locate them for you Like most scholars, Leftkowitz cannot confront the scientific validity of Diop and Obenga who at an international conference in Cairo (1974) proved that Egyptian civilization was african in its language, it culture, its manner of thinking. It was attended by 20 renown Egyptologist among them Jean Vercouter, Serge Saunerson, Gamal Maktar, and of course, Diop and Obenga If you dare to read the proceedings of this Cairo conference you will see that Egyptians(kmt)and the Egyptians (kmtyw) was black African as the name suggests(see UNESCO's General History of Africa Vol. 2--the unedited version of course which is available in English). Perhaps classists should follow the international norm that these scholars set at the Cairo Conference. By the way, we have already demostrated that the word "philosophy" is not of indo-european origin, but that "-sophos" (meaning ability, science, wise) probably derives from the egyptain root "sb3". both "filo-" or "fil-"(lover of, beloved) and "-sophia" do not have indo-european roots. Also the egyptian "b" becomes "ph/f" in greek. Why does Leftkowitz acknowledge this as she meticulously and mistaken tries to describe that Cadmus didn't come "from Egypt" (that foolish 'ap aigiptious' argument she posits) Why doesn't she and other Egyptologist and historians who know better understand the etymologyy of kmt km the heiroglypic of a burnt because of wood, whose determinative is strands of black hair means black km.t and km.tyw with the determinative of people means black people. km.t with the symbol of the land means "Black nation, town or village" When the egyptians wanted to describe the land they used the w! ord "t3" t3 as in t3-mry t3-seti When Champollian re-drew the men that Eyptians recognized we see that both kmtwy and nhsyw were followers of the god Horus while the asiatic sati and the dsrt were not. Eyptians and Nubians shared the same clanic, topograpic god--thus they were "ethnically" brothers. The tomb of Rameses III shows that the kmtyw and the nhs were represented as the same people with black skin and wooly hair (Herodotus "melanos" which means "black" not "dark" and refers to skin color) Leftkowitz has not mastered Greek or Coptic, she doesn't know Egyptian, she hasn't read Cheikh Anta Diop's or Obenga's work, she is sketchy on Greek myths and history, she is not a linguist, nor a historian. She does know history of Philosophy, Egyptian history is foreign to her and she doesn't know how to marshall acheological or anthropological data to support of authocnous Greek development of Greek "thought". Nor has she read Alexis Moret "Les Mysteres Egyptiens" or Saunerson's "Les pretre egyptiens" in any great detail or "Prolegemene a l'etude de la religion egyptienne". Forget about Gerald Massey, Jean LeCant. What good is Not Out of Africa. Come on, is it really as well research and document as it could have been? If her work is politically motivated then she should follow the norm that Diop and Obenga developed at the international Cairo Conference of 1974. Perhaps Leftkowitz mistrust international UN norms like the one that took place the following year--1975 when the UN offically condemn Zionism humm Brian Brown
Rating:
Summary: MARY MISSES THE MARK
Review: If this was a comic book, they would be arch-enemies; Mary Lefkowitz vs. Martin Bernal. But it isn't a comic, it's reality (or academia, which is sort of close). And the only victims are people trying to come to an informed understanding of the debate between the two. Lefkowitz has made Bernal the bogeyman of Afrocentrism for a very good reason: for better or worse, his monumental work 'Black Athena' is the most thorough , ambitious, and sustained attack on the idea that Greece (as the cradle of European civilization) was somehow born pure of Egyptian and Semetic civilizations that has been made to date. But despite foaming rhetoric on both sides (including Bernal's own hyperbole) about "Afrocentricity" and who was "white", "black", "European" (ad nauseum), the two basic premises of his work are fairly mundane: 1) that the early Greeks were heavily (Bernal claims "massively") influenced by Egyptians and Semetics, which (he claims) Greeks themselves freely admitted; and that this relationship was systematically "covered up" by the racist, white male academia of the 19th and 20th centuries. But back to Lefkowitz. One of the great disappointments of this book is, having made such a stink over Bernal's work, Lefkowitz has done so little to address its shortcomings. With so many weak spots in Bernal's theories (which is perhaps inevitable when such a vast amount of information is stretched over such an ambitious framework), Lefkowitz often insists on attacking arguments that Bernal never actually made. For example: As someone who is extremely annoyed by the misplacement of modern racial ideas into the ancient world, I was more than a little wary of what Bernal would add to the subject. But the fact is he was remarkably conservative in his comments, confining himself to the observation that many Egyptians had mixed or Negroid ancestry, and for the most part defined themselves in cultural ratjer than racial terms (he made similar ! comments on the Greeks). In addition, the second book of 'Black Athena' revises Bernal's claims of Egyptian cultural and political dominance of the eastern Mediterrainean so that his "revised ancient model" of events is even less controversial than similar claims made by various sources in Antiquity. Another example of her misplaced hostility (and yes, it does degenerate at points into hostility) is Lefkowitz's attacks on Bernal's most marginal arguments. Take Sesostoris. Bernal claims that this Egyptian Pharoah (among others) made several military and political incursions into the Levant, possibly even Asia Minor (Turkey). Bernal marshalls facts, many of which are secondary or ephemeral, to bolster this claim. But his primary aim in presenting the Sesostoris theory is to show that Egypt was not the passive, "dead" culture that is often presented to the West, but a vibrant society that was perfectly capable of conquering/ subduing neighbors, and had at times a political and cultural clout in the region comparable to that of France under Louis XIV or Naoleon. While the details of a Sesostoris "empire" may be disputable, the idea isn¹t as far-fetched as Lefkowitz (and others) have made out - largely with the argument of ³never heard of it!² - especialy considering thefact that both dating and archaeological claims made over the past 50 years are being constantly revised to include new materials previously overlooked, misunderstood, or even ignored. Which brings us to the true weakness of Lefkowitz¹s campaign against Bernal. In her eyes, his greatest sin seems to be his lack of a degree in Classical or antique Mediterrainean studies. While this is a very real concern, a man¹s degree is not the sum of his knowledge. Her academic snobbery on this point seems a little misplaced for someone whose own specialty does not include Egyptology or Semetic Bronze Age cultures (or Even Greek Bronze Age culture, if I understand correctly) . It is further weakened when you conside! r that one of Bernal¹s more credible claims is the redating of certain periods by considering new chronologies in volcanic and other geoenvironmental dating that are brought out by scientists who couldn¹t care less about history or archaeology, often against historians and archaeologists who have a real stake in protecting the theories that they have learned and taught. Why did a review of Lefkowitz turn into a defense of Bernal? Because, whether you agree with him or not, you can¹t turn him into the Great Satan of Afrocentrism and turn to the same slipshod and phantom arguments that you accuse him of. Lefkowitz¹s heavy-handed swipe at Afrocentrism (a richly deserving target) has hit almost everything but, and her assault on Bernal is disingeniously self-defeating. Is Bernal right? Maybe, maybe not. But he sure knows how to tick people off, which can be a good thing in a complacent field. Are Afrocentrists in general right? Not if they¹re wasting thier time trying to prove that the pharoahs were black -- being the descendants of black exploiters isn¹t anything to brag about. Is Mary Lefkowitz right? If she is, it is only through the luck of the righteously narrow-minded. This book is entertaining, but it confirms opinions rather than opening minds. Maybe you should just buy a comic book instead. END
Rating:
Summary: A erudite project reaffirming the integrity of history.
Review: Lefkowitz's book is an intuitive guide examining the integrity of history and how many of today's contemporary Afro-centrists have attempted to adulterate the course of history. From the "Egyptian mystery system" to many historical reevaluations of important character's, Lefkowitz explores, in detail, the precarious consequences of rewriting history to accomodate a sense of ethnic pride. The primary concentration of this book pertains to the fallacy of Egyptian influence in Greek civilization. Not Out of Africa is a erudite endeavor to secure the authenticity of historical accounts in light of the growing trend of ethnic political agendas and multi-culturalism teachings. If anyone has questioned the nature of history as a result of multi-cultural bias', this book is essential in examining the evidences and determining the culprits responsible for this travesty of historical misrepresentation.
Rating:
Summary: Eurocentrism at its finest
Review: It is amazing how inept even the liberal elitist of classical education have become. Despite the works of scholars such as Godfrey Higgins, Bernal and others, the author presupposes a lack of knowledge by the reader and assumes that the traditional "western" education is in and of itself a unique development. History is a continuum and proves the author incorrect. She further confuses nationality with race (a european concept itself). For many years the World Book Encyclopedia called Egypt a member of the European group. How asinine! She confuses a nationality (Greek and Egyptian) with race (black and white) What do archeologists say concerning the origins of the ancient Egyptians? Furthermore, basic physics dictate that all colors originate from black. In addition, the black chromosome is dominant; the white, recessive. I am still searching for her logic.
Rating:
Summary: Scholarly refutation of radical Afro-centrist "history"
Review: In an academic world where politically correct truths are not to be questioned, Ms. Lefkowitz courageously corrects many of the more far-fetched claims of rather shoddy scholarship. However, contrary to a review below, she does not deny the importance or magnificance of African cultures. Her subject is the erroneous attribution of historical concepts and even persons as African. It is a strange mindset that believes the perpetuation of lies somehow aids in building self-esteem. Read Robert Edgerton's excellent THE RISE AND FALL OF THE ASANTE EMPIRE for a look at an important African culture that was years ahead of many of its European counterparts. OUT OF AFRICA is an important work that should not be missed!
Rating:
Summary: At last, someone tells the truth
Review: This book is a timely debunking of the lies and distortions that are passed up as "history" by the more looney-tune wing of Afrocenticity. Lefkowitz has the knowledge and guts to expose the likes of James, Diop and other assorted frauds and also lays into Bernal's "Black Athena" - a book that any first-year classicist could pick holes in yet amazingly has been welcomed as a serious book in some circles of American universities. Such is the climate of unreason and fear today on US campuses. What Lefkowitz does is show that Afrocentric history as it has presently manifested itself is made up of non-historians who have almost no experience in the field they claim to be experts in. A number are also liars - such as James who claims that Cleopatra talks of herself in the Book of Acts. Imagine if a European claimed Boudiccea was in Revelation!! As an academic school, Afrocentricity has absolutely no credibility when it sticks to trying to lie about and re-write ancient Egyptian history. It frankly is embarrassing that you can have alleged professors in the US deliberately spreading these lies and allowed to get away with it. As Lefkowitz says, would we tolerate a professor of geography spouting about how the earth is flat? The analogy is correct for it is a FACT that there are NO trained archaeologists or REAL historians who promote the "Egypt was Black" rubbish. These Afrocentrists are either amateur buffoons (James), physicists-turned-clowns (Diop) or political scientists-turned-headline grabbers (Bernal). Surely if Afrocentricity had any credibility the archaeologists and historians would be falling over themselves to re-write history. But here's the rub. You see, the reason for this silence is because The White Man is involved in some amazing and inpenetrable conspiracy to deny Africa's true past! Yes, this is what we must believe. Why Egyptian archaeologists have joined in this disgraceful venture is open to question, of course (probably paid dupes). I heartily commend this book but also point out Lefkowitz's edited book "Black Athena Revisited", which is far more scientific and factual (anathema to the Afrocentrics). Unless they can come up with the academic goods, expect the proponents of Afrocentricity to continue playing the race card rather than debate the facts (they know they can't), or wittering on about how Elvis. I lived and went to school in Egypt and have visited all the main sites. It is amazing that anyone could propound this Black Athena stuff seriously once you've actually been there and seen how the Ancient Egyptians portrayed THEMSELVES.
| 
