Customer Reviews

We Can't Go Home Again: An Argument About Afrocentrism

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

Clarence Walker does a good job in deconstructing the Afrocentric school of Black history, with it's emphasis on African pseudomyhology to salve the egos of many Black Americans and ignoring of raw facts and detailed research. Mr. Walker's views may be a bit too conservative for some, but he does a good job of backing up his views with verifiable facts and good research. However, I would say that the need for this book was at it's peak 10 years ago, when the Afrocentric fad was at it's peak and nonsense passing as fact filled the sheleves of Black bookstores. But it still does a good job of rebutting those that will listen to the crackpots again.

"Nonsense" is one of Clarence Walker's favorite words in this scathing critique of Afrocentrist discourse, which focuses on the attempt to reclaim Egypt as a seat of Black culture. It is not, in fact, a conservative analysis; most of the usual right-wing suspects will run screaming from this book, which comes down hard on the pro-affirmative action side, savages what Walker sees as a return to "free market racism" (85), and drubs the homophobia shared by some black leaders and their purported opponents. (In a footnote, Walker bluntly describes Dinesh D'Souza's _The End of Racism_ as itself "racist.")

Walker's project might be described thusly: he subverts central Afrocentrist tenets about race, culture, and historical origins by demonstrating that most of these supposedly critical arguments actually derive from outmoded European beliefs. Most seriously, he shows how Afrocentric ideas of race borrow from the newly "scientific" racism of the mid- and late-19th century. Elsewhere, he catalogs ludicrous errors in Afrocentric history texts; examines methodological problems in Afrocentric research on Egypt; and attacks the anti-Semitism he sees endemic to some strands of this discourse. He also argues that Afrocentrism finds itself unable to deal with American slavery, a problem that is an artifact of one of the most serious problems with Afrocentrism as a disciplinary approach: it seems incapable of engaging in dialogue with "mainstream" scholarship.

This is an exasperated book. Walker has no patience with those who define "blackness" by one's willingness to toe a particular intellectual and political line. He is equally irritated with what he describes as the "therapeutic" trend in Afrocentrist historiography, which substitutes psychological uplift for the complexities of historical study. His use of the word "Negro" is political, since he sees nothing particularly "African" about "African-Americans." (As Walker points out, many Africans refuse to consider African-Americans "one of them.") Since Walker is writing a jeremiad and not an in-depth analysis of Afrocentrism's own history (see, e.g., Wilson Moses' _Afrotopia_), the book occasionally irons out difficulties and lumps when it ought to split. In particular, it is not always clear that Walker himself understands the particularities of contemporary Egyptology. The book hardly constitutes an assault on the study of Black history, however; it is, rather, a plea for a Black history written without romantic blinkers on.

We Can't Go Home Again is a good begining on the subject of Afrocentrism. Walker explains what the movement is and isnt'. He tells wny Afrocentrism arose and what's supposed to be wrong with it. He explodes certain myths and fantasies and shows the reader that real Black history is fall more complicated and intersting than the feel good pap that is being taught in our schools today.

Mary Lefkowitz is quoted on the cover as saying if you read only one book on Afrocentrism, this should be the one. I think that hers is actually better, but this is an excellent polemic written by a real scholar - as opposed to Asante, Diop, the below mentioned "doctoral student" whose "research" is laughable at best, and other purveyors of poorly reearched fantasies about the past.

Walker's style is pugnacious and he tells it like it is. Nonsense and balderdash are exactly that and called such.

Can't say I agree with everything in the book. In the second half of the book he flails away at everyone who opposes or even thinks critically about affirmative action and other such policies. In fact, you will perhaps be surprised to learn that concepts like "merit" and "color blind policies" are simply racist dodges of neanderthals out to return the US to the days of Jim Crow.

If you can get by that nonsense, and focus on the discussion of Afrocentrism you will find this book invaluable. It is a brave book by a courageous author in the land of political correctness.

A very good book! It has a few minor flaws in developing its argument but in the end ... its conclusion is undeniable, Afrocentrism is not based as much on historical fact as it is based on politics.

Clarence Walker has made the third attempt by the major publishers to squash the idea of Africans having an ancient past. First they trotted out Lefkowitz, who I'm sure was not prepared to handle the intellectual beating she incurred all over the country (her idea that there was no ancient mystery system was trounced by a doctoral student who went to the original Medu Netcher (hieroglyhs) to show that there were numerous official titles for priests of the mysteries). Strike one.

Second, a Brit, Stephen Howe was pushed to the plate with a sad attempt to undermine Black scholars with name-calling. Strike two.

Now, I guess Oxford University Press feels that by serving up a (self professed) Negro to the public, that it will do some good. For the most part, Walker seems to have a vendetta against Molefi Asante, and he uses some underhanded tricks to lambaste his target. His main indication that he is here to fight dirty is when he compares Asante's book Classical Africa with Barry Kemp's Ancient Egypt. Asante's book is for junior high school students, and Kemp's book is for college students and scholars.

Also like the other authors, Walker throws people with various points of view under his umbrella of Afrocentricity. People like Louis Farrakhan are absurdly referenced. Even if someone has publicly said that they are not Afrocentric, they are still treated as though they are. For instance, Dr. John Henrik Clarke said in a 1995 interview:

First of all, let me say that I differ with the concept of Afrocentricity
because it compromises the word Africa. The concept was old long
before the current propagators began to promote it. This form of African
awareness started early in the 19th century with Frederick Douglass,
Prince Hall, Benjamin Banneker, Paul Cuffe and the African Colonization
Society, Martin Delany and David Walker with his famous Appeal, and
the founding of the African Methodist Episcopal Church. So, Afrocentricity
is a current development of this generation that is weakened by not having
the background of this information. I think the concept is much too narrow.
It's almost like popular music...Next season you might not even remember
today's hit songs. I have nothing personally against it; it just lacks depth.
Herb Boyd, A Conversation With John Henrik Clarke. Quarterly Black Review of
Books, 02-28-1995.

In this quote, Dr. Clarke also gives a critique of Afrocentricity that sounds surprisingly like the same criticisms that Walker talks about in his book. But Dr. Clarke is considered an Afrocentrist by Walker. Could Walker be using an Afrocentric methodology to criticize Afrocentricity? Hmm. Strike three, you're out.

The basis of this book is a (argument), not scientific evidence. Taking into account all that support this book, give a non-scientific opinion, more (political) in the end. Walker is another eurocentric apologist who over looks the emperical evidence that ppl like Dr.Diop, Dr.Massey, Dr.Ben, Dr.Clarke etc., have presented, wether the objective was from euro-historians or afri-historians.



In the books that walker tries to refute by the mentioned authors, there is much evidence to support that Africans did indeed influence the Asians and Europeans, and that, Egypt(KMT) was indeed a African civilization, no where, but in Africa do you find those(aboriginals) that directly resemble, in appearance, culture and language, the Egyptian people and system, see: Wolof, Nok, Buganda, Yoruba, etc. Facts are irrefutable, so, Mr.Walker should reread the books of Dr.Clarke, Diops, Jackson, Dr. Massey, etc., considering if he even read their work.



People tend to support with prejudice what makes them feel good at the end of the day. Indeed, if Africentricity was a tool to reestablish black pride, then, one wouldnt need to look at ancient societies for a boost, another classic example of how wanna-be authoritarians mismatch information. Black pride and black history are two different subjects inwhich Mr. Walker purposely doesn't make the distinction between the facts and opinions of himself and others, selective favoritism no doubt.



Mr. Walker is so full of himself, that he would have ppl to believe that colonialism, industrialism, imperialism, fascism, etc. didnt have a negative effect on under-developing Africa and other europeanized stricken worlds. This book is another example of european escapism from any wrong doing of others. Books like these are becoming few and far between, as for all intelligent ppl will perceive facts, rather than believe in opinions. My assertion(opinion supporting fact) of mainstream eurocentric babble. p.i

"A SCIENTIFIC revolution, according to Kuhn [the scientist/linguist author of THE THEORY OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS], is not simply an addition to pre-existing knowledge. It is, within any field, 'a reconstruction of the field from new fundamentals'; a complete demolition of an old theoretical and conceptual structure and its replacement by a new one based on entirely different aims and premises. The old paradigm...attacked from the outside...cannot be defeated on the basis of its own rules for, as we have seen...these rules are not only inadequate to solve new problems which have begun to arise--THEY ACTUALLY PRECLUDE ANY DISCUSSION OF THESE PROBLEMS AT ALL."

Dr. Chris Knight, London
From BLOOD RELATIONS:
MENSTRUATION AND THE ORIGINS OF CULTURE

"Unable to detect any contradiction in the formal statements of the Ancients after an objective confrontation with total Egyptian reality, and consequently unable to disprove them, they either give them the silent treatment or reject them dogmatically and indignantly. They express regret that people as normal as the ancient Egyptians could have made so grievous an error and thus create so many difficulties and delicate problems for modern specialists. Next they try in vain to find a White origin for Egyptian civilization. They finally become mired down in their own contradictions...after performing intellectual acrobatics as learned as they are unwarranted. They then repeat the initial dogma...the White origin of Egyptian civilization.

"...Egyptians themselves--who should surely be better qualified than anyone to speak of their origin--recognize without ambiguity that their ancestors came from Nubia and the heart of Africa."

Chek Anta Diop
THE AFRICAN ORIGIN OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION
From Chapter Three, "Modern Falsification of History"
and
Chapter Seven, "Arguments for a Negro Origin"

This seemingly balanced look at the psycho-cultural history of Afrocentricity still shares with its more latently racist precursors one undeniable fact, when looking at history through the lens of science: they are all eerily reminiscent of the Biblical scholars and human biology scientists who brutally attacked Darwin in the mid 19th century, and the Newtonian physicists who joyfully and artfully dismissed the work of the postal clerk Einstein in the beginning of the 20th.

Dare to compare...and see if I'm right.

Compare this book to Chek Anta Diop's THE AFRICAN ORIGIN OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION, the archetypal lightning rod for Eurocentric criticism. Walker in HOME AGAIN clearly puts the underqualified "Amen" chorus of Afrocentricity on notice. However, this still does nothing to Diop, regarding the scientific basis of his work and the paradigmatic shift away from the corrupted integrity of Classicism it instigates.

Consider the following:

=Does Walker believe an "absence of evidence" (i.e. an absence of scholarly work on ancient African comparative linguistics that fortifies a preexisting Afrocentric theory about Egyptian/African cultures) "equals the evidence of absence" (i.e. equals proof that the post-Egyptian African cultures were not "racially" derivative of the more ancient African cultures of the Nile Valley [in the way the similarities of the ancient Greek, Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian and French languages show their "Indo-European" origins])?

And does he believe secretly relying on THAT childish postulate to disprove an "African" influence on "Indo-European" cultures via Egypt is somehow good enough science, freeing him to talk about sociology and politics?

=How is it, really, that there are no comparative linguistics studies of the sub-Saharan African languages and Coptic, Demotic, or the most ancient Egyptian written in hieroglyphs for Walker to refer to (as Egypt is, geographically, a northeast African country)? Do they really not exist at all, or do they simply not support his point of view, therefore undermining the credibility of his thesis?

censorship


=Why are the startling similarities (to say the least) of the Greek mythological pantheon and the older Egyptian systematically ignored in both Biblical and ancient literature studies within the Classicist's paradigm? (Like, for example, the names Athena and Athens ["Athene"] proven to be derived from the Egyptian goddess Neith ["Nth"], the sophisticated worship of whom predates Greece as a culture by more than two thousand years?)


=What are Walker's credentials in archaeology, anthropology, linguistics or the applied physical sciences?

demagogue

And why is it that his fan base in predominantly sociological academia (and of course, reactionary American politics) sees no reason to even ASK this question?

Only Diop's work truly answers these questions, revealing their unavoidable implications.

Diop breaks AFRICAN ORIGIN into the following chapters:

I- Preface: The Meaning of our Work

1) What were the Egyptians?
2) Birth of the Negro Myth
3) Modern Falsification of History
4) Could Egyptian Civilization have originated in the Delta?
5) Could Egyptian Civilization Be of Asian Origin?
6) The Egyptian Race as Seen and Treated by Anthropologists
7) Arguments Supporting a Negro Origin
8) Arguments Opposing a Negro Origin
9) Peopling of Africa from the Nile Valley
10) Political and Social Evolution of Ancient Egypt
11) Contribution of Ethiopian-Nubia and Egypt
12) Reply to a Critic
13) Early History of Humanity: Evolution of the Black World

II- Conclusion

The paradigm-shifting, scientific foundation of Afrocentricity is, in part, instituting a Freudian projection/transference from the intellectual institutions of Euro-American, Imperialist/Plantation-era capitalism: that which is the economic foundation of the modern "globalized" world. This is for which almost the entirety of Classicism is but an apologetic (as it was essentially designed to be); much like *craniometry* also was for the American Slavery and Jim Crow centuries that accompanied it (a "science" often equally heralded by 19th and early 20th century racist intellectuals before being discredited in this oh so pure academic world of ours). The evidence of this dynamic is, partly, the irrational celebration of underanalysed books like this. Galileos of ancient history, like the 19th century pre-Jungian mythographer Gerald Massey (ANCIENT EGYPT, THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD; BOOK OF BEGINNINGS) and the 20th century African physicist/linguist Diop are said to herald a paradoxical return to Nazism (?), where non-scientific political essays like Walker's book are celebrated as the Gospel. WE CAN'T GO HOME AGAIN is Aryan theology masquerading as African-American historiography, masquerading as science.

Walker's book, We Can't Go Home Again, is a poor attempt to debunk Afrocentrism (more appropriately termed Afrocentricity). The book quickly develops serious flaws. Walker's conscious and purposeful reference to Black people as "Negroes" (without offering any context) only exemplifies his frame of reference and places him outside of serious dialogue. He admittedly demonstrates a limited scope of Afrocentricity by focusing on the supposed primacy of Ancient Egypt (Kemet) within Afrocentricity's epistemological framework while not even briefly exploring other main tenets. It appears, as with other attempts, that this critique is only put forth to sensationalize the issue and not to engage in a constructive exploration of what should/could be done about the modern Afrocentric movement. For those wishing to understand the possibilities and limitations Afrocentricity, there are far better texts that this one.

...Proverbially of course.

Reguardless, the statement stands. Here we have a man, with absolutely no credentials on the various topics that his book attempts to cover(therefore murdering what he has to say on this subject), attempting to return world history, especially Black/African history to the fantasy (i.e. African persons resembling Europeans) in which it was steeped until African Americans had to tear it away from the lies that the Eurocentric associated with it.

Clarence Walker uses absolutely no factual, or verifiable for that matter, sources to claim that the Sub-Saharan peoples of Africa didn't single handedly built Ancient Egypt, which in turn, after gaining thousands of years worth of time over southern European nations, didn't influence Greece--or Rome for that matter.

That's one.

Two, he's a racist of a fool who tosses the term "Negro" around because he doesn't see anything "African" about African-Americans. Apparently, he's blind and stupid and can't recognize the physical features inherent in both African Americans and those who live on the continent. God forbid he recognize the fact that African Americans are descendents of the Africans who were stolen from their land by the ancestors he's trying to defend. Walker even goes as far as using the position that Africans don't consider African Americans to be "African" to justify his racism.

Even despite the fact that our ancestry isn't contingent upon the approval of anyone.

Walker would rather African Americans recognize Ancient Egyptian history (i.e. their history) as theirs until the invasions of the Greek/Macedonians and Romans.

And did you ever notice how that is the only part of Egyptian history which is praised and written about in the west? As if European invaders actually contributed something to ancient Egypt other than its downfall, demise and destruction?

Walker would like to believe that Black history is romanticized, and with all of its current claims (i.e. facts) of being the various foundations of other cultures and humanity, is false.

Again, as stated earlier, since he is no real authority on Anthropology, Ancient history, or Egyptology for that matter, his opinions are null and void (By the same token, nor am I an authority on the abovesaid subjects. But unlike Walker, I acknowlege the evidence to support all opposition against this POS book.) and making it an argument and rant; not a scientific reference.

Clarence Walker killed his credibility with this one, especially when he neglected to recognize the previously mentioned fact that Africa is both the cradle of civilization and its natives (who were Sub-saharan) were the first human beings to walk on this planet and were the same ones who built Eqypt, the first real empire.

And on another note, the features of Cleopatra don't contribute to his argument either because in being the cradle of civilization, all Africans aren't dark-skinned, and broad-nosed/lipped. Check Ethiopia, and then try to speak some nonsense, like calling them Arabs.

If Afrocentricity were truly a simple remedy for the scarred ego of the African American, then any myth could be perpetuated. Thi s is why we have stories like that of John Henry. History wouldn't have been a factor.

Clarence Walker attempts to postulate that the lack of writings establishing a Sub-Saharan/Nubian lineage for those of Ancient Egypt, which would have been written in the Segregation/Aparthied ridden 19th century ANYWAY, validifies his nonsense. This is a lineage which is immortalized in ancient egyptian art.

Remember the Sphinx missing its nose?

At the end of the day, this book is nothing but racist nonsense wrapped in heavy anti-"PCness", draped in heavy right-wing conservatism which would give fools Rush Limbaugh an orgasm; history through the lens of the Eurocentric who would perfer Nazism and lies to actual truth.

It's the white/conservative historical gospel, and as we can see from the other reviews, they're all too eager to eat it up.

Too bad none of it is true.