Customer Reviews

Not Out Of Africa: How "Afrocentrism" Became An Excuse To Teach Myth As History (A New Republic book)

5 star:		(64)
4 star:		(21)
3 star:		(10)
2 star:		(19)
1 star:		(45)

 

 

In the fall of 1991 I was asked to write a review-article for The New Republic about Martin Bernal's Black Athena and its relation
to the Afrocentrist movement. The assignment literally changed my life. Once I began to work on the article I realized that here was
a subject that needed all the attention, and more, that I could give to it. Although I had been completely unaware of it, there was in
existence a whole literature that denied that the ancient Greeks were the inventors of democracy, philosophy, and science. There were
books in circulation that claimed that Socrates and Cleopatra were of African descent, and that Greek philosophy had actually been
stolen from Egypt. Not only were these books being read and widely distributed; some of these ideas were being taught in schools
and even in universities.

Ordinarily, if someone has a theory which involves a radical departure from what the experts have professed, he is expected to defend
his position by providing evidence in its support. But no one seemed to think it was appropriate to ask for evidence from the
instructors who claimed that the Greeks stole their philosophy from Egypt.
-Mary Lefkowitz, Not Out of Africa

One is torn by two competing emotions in reading Not Out of Africa. On the one hand, there's the visceral thrill of watching idiotic
ideas get an old-fashioned butt-whipping. But, on the other hand, there's something poignant about the need of black scholars to claim
the accomplishments of the Greeks and Egyptians as their own. It is very nearly painful to watch the ease with which Ms Lefkowitz
disposes of the lunatic ideas that make up Afrocentrism, though she deserves great credit for taking them seriously enough to lay them
out systematically, and demonstrating that they actually do have ancient sources, before annihilating them. Still, as you near the end of
the book, the contest has been so uneven that it's natural to wonder if this bloodbath was really necessary.

However, in her conclusion, Ms Lefkowitz makes the case for why it is necessary to utterly destroy Afrocentrism, and here she is
equally persuasive. Her reasons are as follows :

(1) By claiming European civilization as a product of Africans, Afrocentrism has the perverse effect of making blacks responsible
for the culture which justified their enslavement and oppression for centuries.

(2) By focussing solely on the achievements of the Egyptians, Afrocentrism fails to consider genuinely black African cultures, like
that of Nubia.

(3) By teaching black students that white Europeans stole their culture, Afrocentrism fosters racial animosity.

(4) Afrocentrism is not only antihistorical it is also antiscientific--denying genetic, archaeological, linguistic, and other forms of
data.

(5) It wastes precious educational time; the time that students spend learning the lies of Afrocentrism is time that they are not
spending learning the truth.

And she closes with a very strong statement :

Students of the modern world may think it is a matter of indifference whether or not Aristotle stole his philosophy from Egypt. They
may believe that even if the story is not true, it can be used to serve a positive purpose. But the question, and many others like it,
should be a matter of serious concern to everyone, because if you assert that he did steal his philosophy, you are prepared to ignore or
to conceal a substantial body of historical evidence that proves the contrary. Once you start doing that, you can have no scientific or
even social-scientific discourse, nor can you have a community, or a university.

That's pretty bracing stuff, but it cuts to the quick : are we truly prepared to sacrifice our universities and our students on the altar of
political correctness, self esteem, and multicultural hogwash? One would certainly hope not, and we can only thank Ms Lefkowitz for
having the courage to take on the racially charged task of confronting these issues head on. She has done us all a great service.

GRADE : A

Alright, I'll admit up front, it wasn't easy reading Lefkowitz' book, especially after having read both volumes of J.A. Rogers 'World's Great Men Of Color' as a teenager (I'm 46 now) and finding both those books fascinating. It wasn't easy having one's firmly established beliefs methodically deconstructed after having lived with them for more than 30 years. Being human, part of me WANTED to believe the claims laid down in Rogers books, but I've come to realize that the danger for self-deception is proportionate to the need to believe in what one is defending AT ALL COSTS. Such an attitude only blinds a person to perceiving what is true by burying it under layers of preconceived ideas and opinions, ideas and opinions often fueled by emotions, and must therefore distort what is read. The result is often a gross misunderstanding of what the person is saying, or worse yet, completely ignoring what is being said.

After having read Lefkowitz' book with an open mind I found her arguments too persuasive to ignore, her proof too irrefutable to brush off. Anyone without an axe to grind can see that this woman CLEARLY knows what she's talking about. All of her assertions are backed up by evidence that can't be swept aside. And yes, as uncomfortable as it was this African-American was willing to make the sacrifice of walking away from his 'cherished beliefs'.

BTW, for those who criticize Lefkowitz of 'being racist' all I can say is, man how childish. Just because someone disagrees with or says something you don't like DOESN'T MAKE THEM A RACIST. PERIOD. END OF STORY.

The Afrocentrist argument seems to proceed as follows:

Egypt was located in Africa, hence Egyptians were negroid.

Egypt exerted an enormous influence on Greece.

Greek accomplishments were "stolen" from Egypt, i.e. from Black Africa, and many famous Greeks were in fact black Africans, including Socrates and Cleopatra.

Therefore, (white) European civilization, built on that of Greece, actually stole the heritage of black Africa and claimed it for itself.

The argument is absurd, of course, for a great number of reasons. Firstly, Egypt had far more in common culturally with its Middle Eastern neighbors (which included Jews, Arabs, Midianites, Edomites, Nabateans, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Akkadians, Hittites, etc.) than with sub-Saharan Africa. Interestingly, the civilizations to the south of Egypt, Nubia and Ethiopia, could also be characterized as having greater ties with the Middle East than with sub-Saharan Africa. The ancient Egyptian language, and the descended Coptic language of the Coptic Christians in Egypt, was a Hamito-Semitic language (as is Ethiopic), rather than Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Congan, or Khoisan. A cursory glance at the Copts of Egypt (e.g. Bhoutros Bhoutros Ghali) will indicate that they are certainly not negroid. The art of the Egyptians depicts a people with large almond-shaped dark eyes, tan to reddish-tan skin (not black), and black hair. Some admixture with sub-Saharan Africans is undeniable, yet the Egyptian language was undeniably Hamito-Semitic and culture was Middle Eastern. And why is the race of the Egyptians so important, anyway?

The Egyptians certainly had an influence on the Greeks, as did other peoples. But to erroneously claim that the Greek religion, art, music, mathematics, science, philosophy, literature, and government all came from Egypt or from anywhere else, and with no evidence, is absurd. Egyptian mathematicians were capable of solving linear equations, for example, but not quadratic equations (as could the Babylonians), nor did they know of the binomial theorem (as did the Chinese). The Greeks, on the other hand, developed mathematics to the point of a rudimentary calculus, and were capable of measuring the radius of the Earth to within 1%. Greek philosophy or literature had no rival in its sophistication. To claim that Socrates, an ethnic Greek, or Cleopatra, also an ethnic Greek of the Hellenistic period, were black, is ridiculous.

This is not a racial thing. It is a matter of an ideology attempting to twist history and reality to conform to its theses. We saw it when Nazi Germany said that Slavs had stolen all the accomplishments of their cultures from the Germans, or that Jewish composers (like Mendelssohn) were cold and uncreative (and a lot worse things than that). Interestingly, we also saw it when Prussian racists claimed that the ancient Greeks were a largely blond people (so that they would be like the Germans), whereas Greek art (look at the amphorae) depicts a tan-skinned, dark eyed, black curly-haired people. This form of "scientific" racism is sick and dangerous, and I hope people will not be duped by it.

After having had enough caffeine to float a ship, I finished Mary Lefkowitz's "Not Out of Africa." The arguments of the book are compelling; it was the author writing like an academic that required shots for the attention span. Nevertheless, her scholarship and knowledge of ancient Egypt is obvious.

Her reason for writing the book was simple. She saw history being revised to enhance racial and cultural esteem by the introduction of fantastic and nonsensical theories that she enumerates in detail.

The revisionism taking place today follows an inductive pattern of thought. Egypt is in Africa; therefore it was a Nubian culture. Cleopatra VII, Queen of Egypt was obviously black because one of her parents probably conceived with a slave. "Proof" of her African heritage comes from a nineteenth century painting by a black artist depicting her as being black, and a description of her in William Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" where she is described as being "tawny brown."

Professor Lefkowitz correctly counters that Cleopatra was a Ptolemy, not Egyptian, a descendent from a Macedonian conqueror who ruled Egypt after the death of Alexander the Great. William Shakespeare's description of her had nothing to do with her skin color, and that the Bard had never left England, let alone traveled to Egypt. (How would he have known?) She refutes the theory that Cleopatra was (likely) conceived by a slave.

She presents compelling arguments against the notion that the Greeks stole the alphabet and philosophy from Egypt pointing out the obvious evidence that both cultures had contrasts on every level. It is like the other theory that Plato stole the African philosophy and ideas from the library at Alexandria and then burned it to the ground, quite a feat since the library wasn't started until Plato was long in the tooth, and then took years to complete. Besides, how do you steal ideas and thought? Even if you do, don't more ideas simply return to those who thought of them in the first place?

Some charge Lefkowitz and her supporters with racism. This is an act of desperation that is tantamount to academic extortion. It is the same as saying that if you don't support the president, you are hurting our troops. Both challenges are nonsense. The good professor is not intimidated.

Warning: the book is not an easy read for those looking for lively narrative. This is very scholarly but academic, and may give new meaning to the word dry.

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.

I enjoy the logic of the persons who "prove" that ancient Egyptians were black by saying "you can see from the population today! Some of the are my color and I'm light skinned." Well let me see... I went to Colorado and I saw a great deal of whites and a few blacks, the same for ALbany N.Y.. Hmmm... this must prove the original native americas were white and black! I am black and am saddened these by attempts to bloster self-esteem by re-writting history. What nonsense. Great book.

By way of introduction, I am an unrepentant leftist. My political activities began long ago, during the Vietnam era, before many of this book's critics were even born. I've "moderated" in that, while I acknowledge that many individuals and groups have suffered because of institutional systems, I recognize that individuals have overcome those systems with talent, intelligence, personal effort and commitment, and various opportunities, most of them legal and ethical.

My leftism has been tempered too by experience with leftists whose doctrine has become, "My enemy's enemy is my friend," i.e., if someone is an underdog, no matter how ludicrous his or her assertions, I still endear and endorse them. (I reflect on a black woman with three Ph.Ds who rants from coast to coast on racism--while I know countless non-blacks who have the ambition but haven't the money nor the "affirmative action" opportunities to obtain those credentials). Among the leading consequences of this foolishness is that we are, as a society, perhaps more divided--segregated--than ever before. I hold the left responsible for that because it has not earnestly evaluated WHICH "special interest groups" to take seriously and which limited resources to spend on them all. The right, in fact, is reaping great benefits from the divisions, watching the left nibble at itself, corroding just a little more every day with what has become known as identity politics. And that is among the ironies of the left: its status as its own worst enemy.

The second page of that introduction is that I am still reluctant to pay attention to the words and, yes, doctrine of the political "right," some of whom have endorsed this book. Yet there is a school of "thought" that's even more destructive than that of the off-the-wall left, that of Afrocentrism. So, despite its rightist endorsement, because its author has done a fine job of researching the tenets and exposing the fallacies of that school, I hereby endorse the book.

A review of contemporary leftist trash reveals that there are endorsements of these stupid Afrocentric fairy tales even in the ostensibly scholarly world of the academe. There is, alas, the whole realm of "multiculturalism" which claims that there is little common ground between men and women, between blacks and whites, between any self-proclaimed underdog and the allegedly powerful. Because the left tends to endorse the underdog, the absurdities of Afrocentrism are accepted despite lack of a smidgen of evidence to support it. So the victim industry continues unabated, and its spokespersons continue as gurus with all the evidence required of a fundamentalist preacher.

Because the books subject matter is a little dry--it's obvious that Dr. Lefkowitz is well trained in discerning historical detail--it won't compete with pop novels that overflow the shelves, probably not even with the books it refutes. But the evidence is solid, a reaction to the unfounded claims of the Afrocentrist.

The acceptance of the Afrocentrist crap is also solid evidence of the weak state of critical thinking, even among supposed scholars, no less on the left than on the right. But my biggest fear is that, like with the latest wave of "gender feminists," the justification of the Afrocentrist myths is not unlike that of the Nazis, the Stalinists, or, for that matter, the Ku Klux Klan, any extremist group that needs to sustain itself despite all evidence to contradict its reasons for existence. Many of the critics of the book who've attempted to refute it are defending their stands with reasoning I may have expected at best from a high school freshman who's trying to seem intelligent. The underlying, not even tacit assumption of the stuff is that the blacks are superior, that contemporary Western culture originated with the Egyptians (from whom the Greeks stole it) who were black, etc., etc. There was a movement among late 19th and early 20th century Germans who argued their superiority in a similar fashion, with no evidence beyond occult fads and Teutonic myths that were popular among the educated of that era. And we all know where the Germans went with that.

Fortunately, there are many black scholars who reject this rubbish, despite the accusations that they've sold out to the white "establishment." So no black person is to take this as a criticism of black people, or anything African, Egyptian, or anything else. It is rather an endorsement of pursuit of evidence to support one's claims, and a refutation of PC fantasies backed with no evidence over the claims of their perpetrators.

You are no less racist because you are a black racist, a white racist, or any other color or condition. Remember the civil rights movement? It was about EQUALITY!

Everyone knows Afrocentricity is a sham. Even the "professors" that teach this pap admit it's purpose is to build esteem rather than provide historically accurate information. Actually, the existence of this book, by classical scholar Mary Lefkowitz, shows how far down the path to ruin we've come. To even have to debate the ridiculous idea of Afrocentric ideology exposes the deep corruption of higher education. At least Lefkowitz delivers powerful, punishing blows to the Afrocentric scholars in this book.

The central idea of Afrocentric thought is that the Greeks, those wonderful people who contributed so much to Western thought, actually stole much of their ideas and concepts from the Egyptians. Since Egypt is in Africa, that means the Greeks took these ideas from blacks. Lefkowitz shows, in minute detail, how this is just not true. She also refutes the Afrocentric belief that Cleopatra and Socrates were black. One of the funniest parts of the book takes place during her discussion on Cleopatra. Some Afrocentric scholars actually use Shakespeare as a source! As a historian myself, I find this absolutely hysterical. Note to others: you know you're in trouble when you have to use a 16th century English playwright as a reference for historical information on 1st century AD figures. Lefkowitz goes on to show that Afrocentric scholars actually get most of their theories from a French Freemason. The origins of Afrocentric belief comes from a white European! Could it get anymore delicious? It does, actually. Lefkowitz also talks about how early Hebrews actually tried to do the same thing the Afrocentrists are doing now; that is, trying to take credit for Greek ideas and beliefs. The Greeks were so great that people have been trying to take credit for their ideas for two millenia! Jealousy knows no bounds! As for Africans developing these ideas themselves, forget about it. It has been proven that Africans never even developed a written language. It's hard to pass on a belief system without a written language. This isn't to say that Africans didn't have development. Mali and Songhey were powerful and rich kingdoms. But they just don't compare with the Greeks. There is nothing wrong with that. Why can't Afrocentric scholars be pleased with those developments that really occurred in Africa? Apparently, some of them have frail egos.

I'm really glad Mary Lefkowitz took the time to write this book. She should be commended for her bravery in standing up to this threat to academe. She'll suffer many slings and arrows for her beliefs. I'm also glad I had some Greek history and language under my belt. She delves pretty deep into Greek names and ideas. Still, this is a quick read on an important topic. Recommended.

I have come to this issue of Afrocentrism late, and thus to this book late. As a teacher of ancient Greek philosophy, when I heard of these claims of Egyptian antecedents of Greek philosophy I felt compelled to look into them. I read two books: first Innocent C. Onyewuenyi's "The African Origin of Greek Philosophy," and Molefi Kete Asante's "The Egyptian Philosophers," and was unimpressed by the arguments (my reviews of both are on this site). I also read a part of the first volume of Martin Bernal's "Black Athena" and was equally unimpressed.

Mary Lefkowitz's book is unfortunate in two respects. It is unfortunate that in certain areas of academe political aspirations have motivated tawdry scholarship of the sort that she feels compelled to respond to. Postmodernist fantasies and certain elements of radical feminist studies serve as other sad examples. Secondly, it is unfortunate that Lefkowitz must divert from her own productive research to write a book that goes back to the basics of classical studies to refute the many absurd claims made by afrocentrists. Indeed I think the reason that many reputed scholars don't do this yeoman work is that they don't wish to be distracted from their own work for what they quite correctly regard as nonsense. But unfortunately the nonsense is growing in influence, and so all scholars owe Lefkowitz a debt of gratitude for her willingness to take on such a thankless task.

Lefkowitz is thorough in her approach. She doesn't simply correct the multitude of errors that afrocentrists make in the development of their arguments. In addition she does two other things to seal the case. For one, she tracks down the modern sources of the conceptualization of ancient Egypt which provide the framework for afrocentrist arguments. This framework is the so-called ancient Egyptian Mystery System-an imagined system of education administered by the Egyptians that was supposed to have branches throughout the ancient world. This she traces back to a fictional novel written in the 18th century by Abbe Jean Terrasson. Terrasson's fantasy was preserved as factual within Free Masonry since its publication, and is the "scholarly resource" upon which afrocentrists have based their arguments.

The second thing Lefkowitz does is to point out various errant methodological principles upon which afrocentrists rely. There is what Lefkowitz calls "the argument from silence": the absence of any texts of Egyptian origin that might confirm the afrocentrist's argument is thought to bolster their view. Technically in logic this is ignoratio elenchi, or argument from ignorance. Martin Bernal argues in this manner when he insists that the traditional creation myths of ancient Egypt "must" have been for popular consumption, and there "must" have been a more abstract and theoretical basis for them preserved by the priests of Egypt. Where are the texts? Not only is this argument from ignorance, but it ignores the implausibility that any abstract interpretation of the myths would undoubtedly require written expression. Abstract and complex conceptualizations can only be developed in writing. Lefkowitz also notes the tendency of afrocentrists to use the fallacy of post hoc, propter hoc, that is, if someone in Egyptian culture says something that sounds like what the later Greek philosophers said, then there must have been influence. This ignores the difficulty of justifying the claim of influence. Comparative studies between western and eastern modes of thought have been an ongoing concern for some decades, centered in Hawaii's East/West Center, and their journal. Fascinating parallels have been discovered, but the issue of influence has never been raised. What appears to be clear from these studies is that human thought can converge at times, without any influence.

Lefkowitz has done all scholars of ancient thought the great service of setting the record straight. The myths of a massive influence, or even identity (cf. Onyewuenyi) are dispelled. What I wish is that the efforts of African and African-American scholars cease to concentrate on this quixotic search for Egyptian antecedents of Greek philosophy and give all of us some insight into the viewpoints, customs, ideas of African people throughout the continent. Culture never fails to offer fascinating and important cognitive fruit. It is the time for this to come to light.

When I first picked this book, I was shocked to learn that such politically motivated and factually inaccurate statements are propounded in our universities. I like how the book discusses these inaccuracies and the truth behind them. I find it scary that people like Mr. Lewis and others have to hide behind accusations of racism to fight an argument and its underlying facts that are clearly written and meant as an argument not as some racist propoganda. History is not literature. It is not meant for each ethnic group to interpret it how they wish. It, too, is based on science and fact finding. This book goes through the facts and the science and dispels the myths. I found it interesting and easy to read (it avoids the "doctorate style" of writing).
The nay-sayers and racism-accusers seem to rely on their own racism to justify thier own ignorance. It is also funny to point out that this why she wrote the book. Obviously these readers did not read it or chose to ignore the facts. Facts that are quite hard to disprove.
Africa has its own interesting and valuable history that is equally important. It should be studied. Why does it have to be the basis of Aristotle to be important?
History is not always politically correct, nor are its underlying events. Why does it have to be contorted to fit a narrow view? I wish people would quit throwing up a smoke signal of racism when their counter arhuments to this book fall flat.