Ancient Egyptian(http://www.dia.org/galleries/ancient/egypt/40.48jpg)
Ta_Seti, a premier online African-centered discussion group!
Ancient Egyptian
(http://www.dia.org/galleries/ancient/egypt/40.48jpg)
To: Athena [athena-discuss@info.harpercollins.com]
From: Edward Kent [Ekent@brooklyn.cuny.edu]
Subject: On 'Scientific' Racism
Date: Sun, 12 May 96 13:11:00 EDT
>From a libertarian list. I was banned from it after I argued a little too
effectively, I imagine, on behalf of gun control.
Ed Kent ekent@brooklyn.cuny.edu
---------------------------------
Subject: Stanford U Scientist On Political
Correctness in Freematt's Alerts??? Cc: CBRAND@afb1.ssc.ed.ac.uk,
les@steam.stanford.edu [Note from Matthew Gaylor: I've been having an ongoing
discussion with Les Earnest a computer scientist at
Stanford University about intelligence. Mr. Earnest has some interesting
comments concerning the controversy surrounding The 'g' Factor (Written by
University of Edinburgh Psychology Professor Chris Brand
. Mr. Earnest has expressed a concern that I
have an agenda and I'm not being intellectually honest by not forwarding
his posts.]
Matthew Gaylor wrote to Les Earnest :
Have you read his book?
Les Earnest replied:
Obviously not -- it hasn't been published. However, it is not
necessary to dig very deeply into a publication that attempts to reach
scientific conclusions about properties of racial groups without
having a scientific method for assigning individuals to those groups.
This is not a new issue, of course -- racists have been pretending to
be scientists since that term became respectable. The Bell Curve was
another book in this grand tradition. Even real scientists are able
to suspend the scientific method when they get into racial studies.
For example, Professor William Shockley, who was one of the inventors
of the transistor, spent his declining years at my institution,
Stanford, lecturing and writing articles about his racial theories,
which were quite similar to Brand's and equally baseless. In the
interest of maintaining academic freedom, the University allowed this
to continue for a number of years before they finally asked him to
confine his lectures to matters that he knew something about.
-Les Earnest
###
From: Les Earnest
To: freematt@coil.com
Subject: How many scientific racists are there?
Reply-to: les@cs.stanford.edu
Professor Chris Brand, who is displeased with John Wiley and Sons for
failing to release his new book, proudly identifies himself as a
"scientific racist." I argue that no one qualifies for that title so
far. With a bit of work someone could become a scientific racist in
the near future but I see no point in it.
Who is a racist?
For many years sociologists, government administrators and bigots,
among others, have held the view that every person can be reliably
assigned to a distict racial group. This belief has provided a basis
for many studies and "scientific" papers that correlate race with such
things as demographics, diseases or intelligence. It also has been
enshined in various laws and programs in all levels of government and
private enterprise in the United States under the name "Affirmative
Action."
Unfortunately for these laws, studies and programs, there is no
scientific basis for assigning individuals to racial categories, hence
all statistics on supposed correlations between race and some other
property are clearly fabrications. This is not a new discovery.
As Lancelot Hogben remarked 64 years ago [1]:
Geneticists believe that anthopologists have decided what a race is.
Ethnologists assume that their classifications embody principles which
genetic science has proved to be correct. Politicians believe that their
prejudices have the sanction of genetic laws and the findings of physical
anthropology to sustain them.
In the intervening years since that observation there have been many
different racial classification schemes postulated by various
governmental agencies, but they have been generally inconsistent with
each other and none has included a scientific basis for deciding how
to classify everyone.
For example, racial classification schemes typically include "Black"
or "African" or some similar term in their list races. This ignores
the fact that many people with dark complexions who live in Africa are
genetically closer to Europeans than than they are to certain other
"black" Africans. In other words, any scheme that lumps together
the very diverse African populations in a single race is patent
nonsense.
When it comes to mixtures of people from different geographic areas
the picture becomes even more muddled. For example, slave owners
adopted the policy that anyone who had even a tiny amount of African
background was a "Negro," hence they were born into slavery. This
classification policy was retained after slavery was abolished and is
still recognized in American law and by "Black" organizers who would
like to keep the population of prospective recruits as large as
possible.
I use the term "racist" to mean anyone who believes that every person
can be uniquely classified as a member of a particular race. Based on
that definition, I observe that there are many millions of racists in
the world, but not one of them can reasonably claim to have a
scientific basis for their classifications. Gathering data on
correlations between "race" and other attributes is therefore
pseudo-science.
How to become a scientific racist
Though none of the existing racial classification schemes has a
scientific basis, as I pointed out some years ago [2], it is possible
to construct a rigorously scientific classification based on DNA
analysis. The basic idea is to choose a number of racial standards in
terms of key DNA sequences and then classify individuals according to
the standard they are closest to. Of course, the results would be
quite different from the pseudo-scientific studies that have been
conducted to date.
If someone were to develop a rigorous racial classification scheme
based on DNA metrics, he or she could reasonablly claim to be a
"scientific racist." I expect that one will appear eventually, given
the amount of foolish interest that exists in this topic. However, I
would not recommend that anyone waste their time on this project
unless they have a political agenda like those of the politicians and
pseudo-scientists who have provided us with race-based studies and
government programs so far.
References
[1] Lancelot Hogben, ``The Concept of Race'' in Genetic Principles in
Medicine and Social Science, New York, Knopf, 1932.
[2] Les Earnest, "Can computers cope with human races,"
Communications of the ACM, Feb. 1989. Also available as ASCII text
file at ftp://steam.stanford.edu/les/mongrel/
###
****************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-20 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor,1933 E. Dublin-Granville Rd.,#176, Columbus, OH 43229
****************************************************************************
----------------
To: athena-discuss@info.harpercollins.com
From: Emiliano Zapata [zapata@together.net]
Subject: Affirmative Evidence
Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 00:04:01 -0400 (EDT)
Dave Meadows: (Evidence for the truth of his assertion that affirmative
action programs are "wiping out" white male privilege [and fairness] in
academia)
"My evidence for this is that every advertisement for a job in classics (and
other fields) ends with a line to the effect "X institution is an equal
opportunity employer; women, minorities, and handicapped persons are
especially encouraged to apply."
*********
eZ: And the national employment data and hiring statistics substantiate
this [Archie] Bunkerism?
(Sorry to act like such a "biker". But the clientele at this dinner
brings it out in me from time to time.)
*********
Dave:
"The evidence for this is that if I apply for a job and my primary
competition is a
woman or a member of a visible minority, all other things being equal,
I'll
probably not get the job."
**********
eZ: Solid. Let's make national policy on this one.
***********
Dave:
Yes, evidence will prevail -- but that evidence has to be evaluated
properly and that
means doing some basic source criticism;
***********
eZ: Here! Here!
***********
***********
Dave:
.. at the same time I also fear what effect the prevailing of
evidence will have on the `self esteem' of certain groups [read my note to
pkm about the anecdotes both in Roth and Lefkowitz about AfroAmerican
students who realized they had been fed a load of hogwash by their
afrocentric profs -- what effect did that realization have on their self
esteem?]....
***********
eZ: Boo-hoo. Sniff. Sniff. Those anecdotes...sniff, sniff, .... so
"touching"... yet so convenient!
However, Lefkowitz et al did not write the book on calling out hogwash on
matters arising in academe about Africa and African studies. Ani does a
decent job of pulling together a critique of some other swinegargle put
out by the "good guys" which, when it was sacked by PanAfricanists, was
not the subject of a booksale blitzkrieg.
At what point do we discuss how legions of students in Amerikkka,
including the former students now in the ranks of the professoriate,
*believe* in the Eurocentric myths of 1) universality and, 2) objectivity.
When do we discuss the dominant culture's belief system which holds that
scientific study in the EuroAmerikkkan tradition is conducted with
*absolute* detachment between "knower" and "known"?
When do we discuss the camouflaged ideological power of scientific study
in the EuroAmerikkkan tradition which presents itself as apolitical,
without perspective, and therefore qualifies *Scientism* for elevation
as an unquestionable morality, in and of itself, for the entire universe?
When will this list discuss the challenge presented in 1970 by African
and African American members of the African Studies Association which
called out the then 12 year old organization as being "fundamentally
invalid and illegitimate"?
And how will that discussion influence the position of Lefkowitz et al as
the saviors of universal scholarship?
Especially since, even back in 1970, scholars such as Dr. John Henrik
Clarke lowered the boom on what *white* scholars were doing under the
guise of "Academic Free[fief?]dom":
"African peoples will no longer permit our people to be raped culturally,
economically, politically, and intellectually merely to provide European
scholars with intellectual status symbols of African artifacts hanging in
their living rooms and irrelevant and injurious lectures in their
classroom....We suspect that this is a new area of academic colonialism
and that it is not unrelated to the neocolonialism that is attempting to
reenslave Africa by controlling the minds of African peoples." (Negro
Digest, 1970).
For a detailed contemporary afrocentric treatment of the subject of
controlling the minds of African peoples, see Amos N.
Wilson's_Falsification of Afrikan Consciousness: Eurocentric History,
Psychiatry and the Politics of White Supremacy; Afrikan World
Infosystems, 1994. (0nly $9.95 Bernardo!)
----------------
Message: 739
To: athena-discuss@info.harpercollins.com
From: Emiliano Zapata [zapata@together.net]
Subject: Predictable Discussion Dynamix/White Code
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 21:54:07 -0400 (EDT)
For those interested in how whites can be perceived on listservs that
include discussions about racism/supremacy...it plays out everywhere
regardless of discipline, educational level, economic class, method of
cooking....
***********
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 12:23:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Emiliano Zapata [zapata@together.net]
To: Multicultural Education Discussion [MULTC-ED@UMDD.UMD.EDU],
Cc: django9@aol.com, kelzz@aol.com, bear@lainet.com
Subject: White Code to an American Japanese Brother
I am continuing to "break it down" for the interested ones among us.
This post from "Jeff" is to Brother Daren. Now Brother Daren is a
warrior out in Indiana trying to do the anti-racist work he is so
talented at doing. He is, as some people say in colonialspeak, "a
resource" on issues of Asian American oppression. Check him out
sometime. The Brother is deep. (Yo D, wasssuppp?!?)
DECODING PROCESS BEGINS....
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 09:30:10 -0400
From: Jeff Higgins [HIGGINS@ACES.K12.CT.US]
Reply to: Multicultural Education Discussion [MULTC-ED@UMDD.UMD.EDU]
To: Multiple recipients of list MULTC-ED [MULTC-ED@UMDD.UMD.EDU]
Subject: Re: Hey, People!!!
Daren,
CODED MESSAGE (from "Jeff")
I don't see any need or place for the hatemongering thread that consumes
this listserv.
DECODED MESSAGE:
In my sanitized view of the world, Daren (an American Japanese), when
*you people* of color speak about freedom and justice I will impose the
majority (reads 'white') view that *you people* of color are so filled
with hate that you cannot accept all of the *good work* we are *trying*
to do to make the world better for *all people* (reads 'white'). We are
allowed to put post after post after post after post after post after
post after post after post after post after post
post after post after post after post after post after post after post
after post after post after post
post after post after post after post after post after post after post
after post after post after post
post after post after post after post after post after post after post
after post after post after post
on this listserv about our *good work* but you will not be allowed to
tell *us* (reads 'white people') that our thinking "consumes this
listserv". *We* feel so strongly that we are right (reads 'white') that
we will tolerate it only so long before *we* will do what *we* always do:
complain to the listowner that *you people* of color are dominating the
list with hatemongering so you should be removed. Got it?!? *We* are
the only ones who determine the terms and conditions of discourse,
remember?!?
CODED MESSAGE: In subscribing, I hoped for a discussion which would focus
on honing
educational techniques and sharing experiences in wiping out the beast of
racism.
DECODED MESSAGE: One more time: *we* (reads 'white people') set the
terms of the "discussion". What I want from you, Daren, is to accept me
completely in terms of the here and now and do not ever expect me to be
accountable for my racial identity construction. All that matters is
that you assume that I am not racist so my denial is not challenged in
any way shape or form. I am not a nazi so I am not racist. There.
That's simple enough isn't it.
So let's just ignore the fact that as far as your experience of the world
is concerned you have every reason to assume that I am not going to
practice white supremacy as I *educate* your people about the *beast* of
racism, that I do not have to develop an analysis based on the social
reality of the *targets of racism*, that I am not in any way connected to
a racial group which is historically tied to the creation, maintenance,
expansion, and refinement of racism. Remember! All *we* have to do is
treat each other like *human beings* as defined by *us* (reads 'white
people).
CODED MESSAGE: Instead, my mailbox is filled with diatribes against
white man and
the short-sighted blanket dismissal of my country, "Amerikka".
DECODED MESSAGE: Everything that calls *us* out will be dismissed. We
are entitled to carry our racist baggage anywhere we please and you have
to accept it. To link the Land of the Free with race oppression is wrong
because I am not like the KKK even though I benefit from the legacy of
extra-legal means of controlling people of color in this country, and do
"zero-zip-nada" to undo that legacy. What you should be satisfied is
knowing I am a good person, that I love *my country*, and that you would
too if you would just "lighten up". There is no such thing as *white
people* because we are just *individuals* who do the best we can. Capice?!?
CODED MESSAGE:
In other words, much energy seems to be expended in propogating
racism and the community's attention is drawn away from the critical
task of teaching others how to share in and marvel at the great societal
contributions and potential of all people.
DECODED MESSAGE:
I can blame the victims of white supremacy for spreading racism.
Therefore, you and that Emiliano guy should stop talking about it because
all you are doing is making the problem worse. Don't pay any attention
to the fact that my response to people of color speaking out against the
*ideological power* of what *we good people do* (reads "white people") is
intended to cast dispersions on your resistance to racism. I am ordering
you to think like us and *beleive* that even though *we* (reads, 'white
people) cannot even define racism in a way that does not disempower
people of color, that even though we cannot even think about the remote
possibility that we are members of a racial group which has a culture
based on privilege, that even though we need daily, moment-to-moment
affirmation from people of color (reads 'neocolonial social servitude to
white people)....I am ordering you to believe that all we have to do is
"hone" our skills. After all we are the only ones who truly know what we
are doing. Got it?!?
Now, I expect you to tell me about all of the *good work* your people
have done in this world...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
DECODING ENDS...
A response to Jeff....
Jeff:
You might disagree with the ways and means of what I do and how I do it.
You might be a subscriber to the Nike philosophy ("Just do it!) and are
reluctant to take on the responsiblity to transform your racial identity
*while* trying to continue your work.
But let me say this directly: if you don't then what you are depriving your
students of is beyond measure...because they will have missed the chance
of learning what the real struggle is about in a very personal way:
affectively from their teacher.
It is about more than methods and information...you must interrupt the
creation of "white people" that is going on in your classrooms...that is
the bottom line about the "beast"...ya gotta stop feeding it the young ones.
The real shame is that the students of color have to either endure this
in your classroom or succumb to it. The ones with alert parents will help
their child resist it, but then again we are all not conscious of what you
and your ilk do and how it is being done a little bit at a time under the
guise of "multicultural education."
eZ
*----*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*
---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*-
Anthony J. Chavez 131 Main St. Suite 607
*FIRST CIRCLE* Burlington, VT 05401
Race & Culture Education zapata@together.net
Resources Group Home of Chihuahua Press
----------------
To: athena-discuss@info.harpercollins.com
From: "Raymond A. Winbush" [rwinbush@usit.net]
Subject: Concerning Amerikkka
Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 20:38:48 -0500
FISHERGM@jmu.edu wrote:
Isn't there a better way to move forward
> than by way of anger and hatred, and the reactions that
> such anger and hatred generate?
>
> Gordon Fisher fishergm@jmu.edu
snip>
Gordon,
Please keep in mind that persons of color have *always* made
cynical remarks about Amerikkka. Here are just a few:
Billie Holiday's famous blues song entitled "Strange Fruit" which
was a metaphor of Blackpeople hanging from trees as a result of
lynching.
another:
"Amerikkka: Land of the tree, home of the slave". A phrase used
quite commonly during Freedom Summer, 1964 in Mississippi
another:
The United Snakes of Amerikkka. A phrase currently being used
by many hip-hop artists.
another
Dixie Man to Uncle Sam by Langston Hughes
"How can you
Shake a fist at tyranny
Everywhere else
But here?
Do you not see?
I, too, in Dixie
Stand in need
Of being free:
Jim Crow's
Too Hitler-like
For you---
Or me."
Amerikkka has always been a fickle lover to Blackpeople. It
should come to no surprise that it is reflected in what some call the
blues idiom. In one sense, Afrocentricity is an extension of that
idiom in that it challenges (and shall continue to do so) the very
foundation upon which white supremacy derives its "legitimacy"---
a misguided view of history.
Will Afrocentrists make mistakes in doing so? Definitely. Will we
be quick to rectify them? Most assuredly. Will we let diatribes like
Lefkowitz and others hinder us from talking to *our* people?
Absolutley not. Our people believe us because they know that we
act in their best interest in searching for their history and cultural
contributions. They also know that only on very rare occasions
have white people taught Black children in ways that will
encourage them to learn science, math, history and art.
Afrocentricity is a transformational ideology, and is unifying in its
ideological perspective for Blackpeople.
As the decline of the white western world continues, persons of
color will continue to provide their cultural, spiritual and
intellectual offerings to a world gone mad in its relentless pursuit of
control over people, the environment and the very universe itself in
what it calls "science".
Peace
Ray Winbush
Fisk University
-------------------
To: dakaufman@JTSA.EDU
From: "Raymond A. Winbush" [rwinbush@usit.net]
Subject: Re: JW's Racist Trot (fwd)
Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 16:34:52 -0500
Daniel,
P-U-U-U-H-H-L-Z-E-E-Z-E! If you truly cannot answer any of
your questions below, and if your statements emerge from
absolutely sincere ignorance, I suggest that you rush to your
nearest university and sign up for an introductory course in Black
Studies.
And to my fellow Afrocentrists on the list: It is abundantly clear
that we have struck a major nerve among those who are defending
the bulwarks against the "Black tide" of Afrocentric thought. We
must be on to something...
I deleted Bernard's post after I read it, but if you're still out there
Bernie (and I'm sure you are) the reason for "changing the subject"
is not a sign of retreat but an admission (at least on my part) that
energy devoted toward (re) educating white folks about their past
is an enormous task that frankly I gave up a long time ago. I
would much rather spend my time teaching my children (the ones
whom you are worried about that will be "misled" by me and other
Afrocentrists) about their past in a world that continues to eat
away like acid at their sense of self-worth.
I leave you with this: When asked by a reported what he thought
of "Western Civilization", Mohandis Ghandi replied, "I think it
would be a very good idea". I agree.
Peace out,
Ray Winbush
Fisk University
United States of Amerikkka
dakaufman@JTSA.EDU wrote:
>
> Although I am no longer posting to the list, I have been reading the
> postings. Yours have been amongst the strongest and most emphatically
> put. They also seem to be the most loaded with vitriol. I just have several
> questions I would like to ask you.
>
> 1. Who, exactly, are the 'whites'?
>
> 2. Followup on 1.: What is it that they have in common such that there
> is a point to referring to them all under the name 'white'?
>
> 3. Who are the 'people of color'? Followup: What is it that they have
> in common such that there is a point to lumping them together under
> that name.
>
> 3. Is the way that 'whites' have mistreated blacks in the past and
> present worse than or the same as the way blacks have mistreated one
> another, for example, in Rwanda? Why?
>
> 3a. Corrollary to 3. Are there better and worse reasons for mudering
> people? Is it worse to murder someone for his race than to murder him
> for his land or because you don't like the way he looked at you?
> If yes, what is the justification for this ranking?
>
> 4. Could you imagine any circumstances under which you WOULD NOT call
> someone a 'racist' for opposing either your views or the aims of
> afrocentric scholarship? What would be those circumstances?
>
> 5. In light of 4., do you think that you are being intellectually open
> and generous? That is, are you willing to admit at least the good
> faith of your opponents, if not that perhaps sometimes they are correct
> and their arguments valid? If not, why do you bother to engage
> them at all, if there is no possibility of them persuading you?
>
> Just wondering.
>
> Daniel Kaufman
---------------------
Message: 821
To: athena-discuss@info.harpercollins.com
From: ldunn@rover.bsd.uchicago.edu (Lawrence Dunn)
Subject: denaturing whiteness
Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 22:34:33 -0400 (EDT)
cathy, that lynching picture i sketched, the people in the striped uniforms
hung backwards by thier tied wrists, those were jews cathy, i perhaps
should have been more specific in my description when my main point was
that compassion has no limit (they were not being lynched, it was slow
death instead)
it is limited in such statements like that of willet steven when he
subsumes a really stupidly patronizing dammable guise and spews: "1.
Neither blacks nor other minorities are going to abandon the good old UkkkS
anytime soon for better situations elsewhere, certainly not for anything in
Africa now or the indefinite future. "
this use of language does nothing and says nothing but causes division. it
dangerously assumes that he is nonminority and that he knows what he is
talking about.
and it is not the way of an informed and compassionate individual unless
you are white and lost in japan somewhere in which case i suggest one be
weary of the japanese, watch them because they will not take such racial
baiting.
the purpose of this list in exposing the backward minds of such white
interlopers is very educational: they dress themselves down to who's going
to win on the pyramids argument, when what we are speaking of is a bit much
more important than "minority" can askew
i suggest a good reading of cornel west, discover as systems of knowledge
become humanized that there is also an unabashed continuity of knowledge;
beginning in africa
so i suggest to those of you who ask us for solutions: begin by denying
whitness begin by denying minority, stupid appellations
and take some time and think what about what i say
alas, i am really enjoying the erudited pleasures of the information coming
across. in earnest this is a good list and it reflects the machinations of
the consciousness of contemporary america. we need it. we need to see
ourselves naked and hanging on falling clifts. we need to see the nakedness
of our banging together against each other. this kind of blood is real and
it is a growing up blood. do not worry cathy, it
is good.
we see and find out how we handle balances and the new extents of
knowledge. we can see here that there are dreaded struggles going on in
academia. we can also see the direct application of these struggles, e.g.,
in contemp pedagogy
very soon i look forward to the disclaimer "white" removed from our
lexicons and all such subjects forced through a bataan cleansing rite in
japan (how long do you think our friends going to forget the bomb), and
then together in a dionsysian rite we all hold hands and bask in the sun of
a proud asskicking egyptian african sky
right here in street-in-your-face amerikka
larrydunn
----------------
To: "Kelly B. Keller" [kelzz@casalatina.org[
From: "Raymond A. Winbush" [rwinbush@usit.net]
Subject: Re: Kindergarten Revolutionaries
Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 22:25:47 -0500
Kelly,
I must say this is one of the most honest confessions I've ever heard a Jew
make relative to white skin privilege. Very interesting.
Peace,
Ray Winbush
Kelly B. Keller wrote:
> we (jews) have become some of the greatest gatekeepers of the
> euroamerikkan way (ok daniel, come and get me... i know this is going to
> piss you off) because we have had to give up much of who and what we are
> in order to succeed here; we have become white. yes, we are jewish, but
> we have now also become part of that larger collective of white people
> who have had to move further and further away from the strong cultural
> ties that have, in the past, helped us to survive (i don't discount that
> there are individuals and families and communities that have remained
> closer to jewish life... but if one looks at much of the distancing and
> rejecting of connection to judaism/jewish culture occurring especially
> amongst young jewish people, there is a dangerous and sad trend. i
> believe it's a manifestation of self-hatred, something that folks
> learn/pick up from their surroundings which gives them the feeling that
> being jewish ain't such a great thing...). anyway, that's what the
> "ballot box" has supposedly given us.
-----------------------
To: "Steven J. Willett" [steven@u-shizuoka-ken.ac.jp],
From: tpowers@uscsumter.uscsu.sc.edu (Tom Powers)
Subject: Re[2]: The identity fetishists view of pedagogy
Date: Thu, 23 May 96 15:39:15 EST
"""""""""""""""""""""Steven J. Willett wrote""""""""""""""""""""""""""
3. Every country has a primary duty to teach its cultural heritage.
That's what every country I know about does in fact. This duty
should not be subverted to teach identity or selfesteem. Selfesteem
really comes from mastering the hard, basic knowledge and techniques
with which one can actually do something creative. There are no
shortcuts. The idea that selfesteem can be injected into the student
with an infusion of imagery, distorted history, encouraging hype and
promissary redemption from the "white power structure" is about as
bankrupt as they come.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""end quote"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
The history of history in the United States has been, until the
twentieth century (and even for most of that) little BUT feel-good,
self-esteem, identity politics for white Euro-American males. Why
suddenly is it illegitimate to use cultural heritage studies as a
means of injecting self esteem? The entire purpose of teaching a
cultural heritage, as it has been applied in the U.S. at least, is to
inject self-esteem and build a sense of identity, or, to use a more
politically correct phrase, "to instill pride in being a citizen of
this country." The very criticisms of the National History Standards
vented on the floor of the US Senate (and in an infinite number of
other speeches and publications) is that they were insufficiently
identity-oriented -- that is, oriented toward the traditional white
male identity which identifies the American Cultural heritage with
white Euro-American males and little other -- and that they tended to
portray Our Country in an insufficiently favorable light. Too few
heroes! Trashing our Myths! Too much on the KKK and not enough on
Thomas Edison! How can you observe this, and then make the above
argument with a straight face? Imagery, distorted history, and
identity politics have been the primary means of the transmission
of the American cultural heritage!
There has been, until the past few controversial years, little attempt
to teach the cultural heritage of this country. There has been every
attempt to teach one segment of one of the cultural heritages of this
country: that segment which, in good Homeric fashion, honors heroes
who lead armies or conceive Great Ideas, and which, partly as a
consequence, has found little to admire beyond the White Male model.
A frequent criticism of those who accomplished something beyond that
paradigm was "what did they ever accomplish? No Negro ever [led an
American army, built a multibillion dollar business, whatever] and no
woman ever [again, whatever the Homeric Pattern said was admirable.]"
No matter that the statements themselves were not always accurate.
By restricting the definition of "accomplishment" to those things
consistent with the Homeric Heroic image, the vast majority of human
experience and accomplishment was dismissed. No matter that the
pattern was preserved by allowing exceptions. Even when a woman or a
black was permitted into the pantheon, it was one who followed the
same pattern: Joan of Arc was worth remembering because she acted like
a general; Molly Pitcher because she fought like a man; Martin Luther
King because he led an army of another kind. And I have already
pointed out how the images of Booker T. Washington and George
Washington Carver were used for that same purpose. Why is it that
myths and heroes are so important to our national cultural heritage
that National History Standards must be castigated for omitting them;
but myths and heroes are inappropriate as part of our national
cultural heritage when they don't fit the White Euro-American Male
model?
Steven, I'm afraid the facts prove exactly the point you're trying to
deny.
Your point on self esteem also misses a point. Self esteem sometimes
comes from identity. Even if you have nothing else of which to be
proud, at last you can say you're an American, and America is the
greatest nation on earth! (Or whatever other country or club or
baseball team or leader or religious movement you wish to identify
with.) You can draw self-esteem, not from your own hard work, but from
your identification with a family, a tradition, a country, a faith.
That's why you might find yourself willing to die for them, and why
the honor of your country or family or school is so important. Merle
Haggard is far from the only person to feel personally affronted when
a symbol of his personal and group identity, a national flag, is
trashed. This country has even seen a movement to amend our
Constitution to ban the burning of an American Flag, because it's a
symbol of who and what WE are, and of our pride, and because so many
Americans took it as a PERSONAL attack on themselves when anyone
trashed the flag. Identity is very much a part of self-esteem. Burn
the flag of my country, and "you're walking on the fighting side of
me."
I concur that self esteem can also be also drawn purely from
individual accomplishment -- and indeed, that kind of self esteem is,
in my view, far the most healthy kind, needing the approval of no
other group or person. But it is not the only kind, and there are
many people in the world today for whom such "master of my fate,
captain of my soul" self reliance and self creation is but a
meaningless and bitter mockery. That is exactly why identity politics
is such an important issue in the controversy over cultural heritage.
That is also exactly why so many conservative forces, inside and
outside the academy, insist on defending the intellectual paradigm
which validates their own identity politics, while attacking those
which might validate others and perhaps cast doubt upon the
superiority of their own.
Much is predicated in your post, Steven, upon the presumption
that an individual is sufficient unto himself. That's the great ideal
of the Homeric Hero, and evidence of the enduring influence of that
part of Greek culture upon male Euro-American culture today. The
so-called mainstream of American esteem honors the man (almost always
a man) who is truly independent, and is saddled with no shackles or
responsibilities beyond those he freely chooses for himself.
Archilochus personified and reborn! John Wayne! Natty Bumpo. But most
of us live different lives. Most of us are born into families,
communities. Most of us owe much of what we are to parents, friends,
and role models. Most of us are anything BUT "sui generis." And
wasn't it that great Greek philosopher Aristotle who declared that he
who could live alone without a community might be a god or a beast,
but surely could not be a man?
I would argue that self-esteem has many roots. It can also come from
service to others. It can come simply from the assurance that one is
loved by an esteemed other. It can indeed come from individual
accomplishment. And it can come from identity with something greater
than oneself. Steven, your perspective strikes me as far too narrow;
and your view of history, as historically presented in this country,
as simply the transmittal of "our cultural heritage" (while
alternative versions are "alternatives" or worse) strikes me as
disingenuous or naive.
Tom Powers
Professor of History
The University of South Carolina at Sumter
TPOWERS@USCSUMTER.USCSU.SCAROLINA.EDU
-----------------
Message: 912
To: athena-discuss@info.harpercollins.com
From: Kwesi Otabil
Subject: Nature of Debate
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 19:55:28 -0700
B.NATURE OF DEBATE I
I previously argued what the debate is, or has been, ABOUT. But what
makes the debate what it IS (i.e., singular, apparently inconclusive, yet ever
alluring)? `The Chronicle of Higher Education', in its Lefkowitz feature March
1996, reported her anticipation of dialogue as a positive outcome of NOA, if
nothing else. Well, such dialogue as there indeed were on this list would credit
Lefkowitz with remarkable prescience. (`Remarkable', because classicists usually
have their backs turned to the future.) But there is NO dialogue proper; only a
mock one at them most. What we have really is FRONTIER WARFARE; but
warfare not between `classicists' and `near-orientalists', or Afrocentrists and
Eurocentrists, or canon-devotees and multiculturalists.
Those elements or schools do have their respect plays, undeniably. But the
plays are mere flourishes, punctuations, and deflections. The basic, epic
engagement, by contrast, is one of conflict amongst WORLDS: Western, African,
and Arab/Semitic (or roughly, Asiatic). The theater of conflict is the Nile Valley,
with Km.t as the epicenter.
Now, the Bernal/Lefkowitz affair is only a belated episode in this secular
epic, and a fluffy one to boot. It owes its semblance of glamour mostly to timing
and circumstance: culture skirmishes (in the US), and advanced communications
technology (ensuring broad exposure, as with the Net). Think of it: although
Harpercollins created Athena purposely to stimulate debate on BA/NOA,
negligibly few postings have toed the line. Moreover, neither Bernal nor Lefkowitz
has put in a word--yet. They sparred briefly on the Harpercollins home page,
which was, incidentally, closed quite some time ago. In any case, the sparring was
primarily about mutual reviews and rejoinders, and tangentially about what we are
about on this.
As it were, then, Bernal and Lefkowitz might approximate to warring
commanders who dispatch their troops into mutual slaughter, while they retire to
a safe remove from the theater. Yet, for all the comic relief the analogy brings,
it still underscores my point about the episodic character of the BA/NOA
showdown. The clash is mightily overdetermined by the frontier warfare. It is,
however, a warfare not of attrition, but of progressive invigoration. Few may tire
and retire. But many are the enthusiasts and recruits, ever ready to join battle,
whether the battle be deflection (into parochial culture wars), or rehearsal of deja
vu (as with the so-called Aryan vs. Ancient models). It is, in effect, warfare that
fortifies; and this fact accounts for its singularity.
An intriguing question arises, nevertheless. How do the various actors or
agents get into the theater? What brings classicists, orientalists, Kemiticists, Euros,
and Afros, etc into mutual entanglement over and around Km.t in particular, and
the Nile Valley in general? Conversely, what makes for the species to kind
relationship with the larger, secular epic?
There is one tempting answer, namely, that the players come in as ordained
parties. By `parties', I mean that they are unconditionally beholden to preset
world-specific interests and/or agenda. But that answer still begs the question of
why and how those particular parties should represent their worlds in the theater,
parties which are at any rate not unanimous within one world. Surely, not all
classicists, orientalists, etc are interested in Km.t (or the Valley). Nor do they care
evenly about Graeco-Kemetic relations.
That the answer appears inadequate, though, does not negate the epic
compass to the debate. The warfare is widely attested in historiography. And our
current involvement, albeit manifestly irresolvable, may yet add a touch of
chronicle to historiography, long after the dust will have settled.
The question can be better handled, I think, through the uncovering of a
crucial, yet somewhat elusive dimension to the warfare. And that is the pull of
Km.t, not only as epicenter, but more impactfully as a high stake. The duality thus
establishes Km.t (and the Valley at large) as THE frontier, not simply as a theater.
Correspondingly, the skirmishes and other non-descript encounters amount to
struggles for the soul of Km.t. It follows, too, all those involved are inescapably
partisan, although perhaps with varying degrees of fervor. It is thanks to the same
dimension that one can discern sharper forms within the broad families of actors,
such as hellenists (within `classicism'), and semiticists (within orientalism).
The coveted soul of Km.t likewise yields categories like `Afro-Asiatic',
`Mediterranean', `Hamitic'--all crude inventions of ethnology, geology, and
mythology which are inducted with stealth into historiography. Mutilations,
collusions, and hyphenations vie as the sharper breed strive for shares. Forces of
Loot rush in, as carvers and molders hasten to refashion the shares with a view to
the `re-discovery' of a lost world. Thus, thanks to semiticism, Km.t suddenly ends
up scooped and lifted into the `Near-East' or `Middle East', either of which being
yet another of those befuddling concoctions. [I have often mused over how
distastefully `Egypt and the Near East' analogizes with `women and minorities':
just as Km.t gets surreptitiously orientalized in the process, so does `minorities'
come to subsume `women', thus mopping up the erstwhile absurdity of minorities'
being single sex.] By the same token, one may come to realize that the BA/NOA
clash is, on scrutiny, a sweetheart Eurasian, helleno-semiticist, hence classicist-
orientalist done deal.
For long, however, the stock-trading on Km.t has been conducted at the
exclusion of Africa. The ostensible reason lies in the infamous Occident-Orient
dichotomy. With the globe polarized exlusively around the dichotomy, it is logical
that all else be subsumed be either pole. But the `all else' is made to fall to the
Orient, because the Occident is (valued as) superlatively exclusive, and by
implication ever self-same. Hence, whereas there are peddled such constructs as
Near-East, Middle-East, and Far-East, there are no equivalents like Near-West,
Middle-West, or Far-West. (Sure, `Mid-West' and `Far-West' exist, but only as
action-hero derivatives of Yankee frontierism.)
The stated unevenness undermines the ostensible reason for the exclusion
of Africa. For orientalism is a Western creation-myth creature: it services the
foundational makings of Westernism. So, with `all else' consigned to the Orient,
and stock interest in Km.t (and the Valley) forever keen, what more effective ploy
than the collapse of K.mt (and parts of the Valley) into the lap of the Orient?
Identified now as near-oriental, now as mid-oriental, and now as mediterranean,
Km.t is simultaneously orphaned and endowed with new-fangled genealogy.
Orphanage foments questions about its racial identity: Was Km.t Black,
African, or OF Africa? New-fangled genealogy yields `Afro-Asia', and initiates the
semiticist wave of interest and appropriation. The interest basically is in how much
Kemetic culture or civilization owes to Asia Minor, not in how substantively
African it is. Consequently, the `Afro' in `Afro-Asia' becomes a virtual reality: it
is fluffy, even somewhat delusory. "Asiatic-Africa' says and does it far better;
`better', in the sense of exorcising the delusion. What counts inferentially, yet
insidiously, is Africa's debt to the outsider; I mean the part of Africa that can be
tied, per philology and all other conceivable -ologies, to Asia Minor. This in effect
licenses the stock view that Km.t is IN, but not OF, Africa. It is in Africa, only by
the accident of geography; no more. Its soul lies elsewhere.
It is at this juncture that the precise fit of *Black Athena* comes up
appraisal. Bernal, in the preface to Vol.I, discloses the motives behind his project,
namely, a desire to return to his Jewish roots. The obvious question is: what does
`Blackness' have to with the return. Since the release of the volume, and following
the racial furor stirred by it, he has reportedly regretted the title. His original title
had been `African Athena', one learns, but had been coaxed (or pressed?) by the
publisher into a sex-change for `Black Athena'.
Whether based on fact or regressive hearsay, the report rings a bit hollow,
to me. If the original title was `African Athena', then what could plausibly have
been the subtitle? Recall that the main thesis is about the `afro-asiatic roots of
ancient Greek civilization'. So I am simply wondering how those roots would have
been conceptualized or designated, short of the uncontentious, redundant,
`African roots of....'. Moreover, it is highly probable that `African' could have all
too easily denoted, or been decoded into, `North Africa', which is
classically/traditionally viewed as caucasoid, europoid, or simply mediterranean.
And `[south] mediterranean Athena' would have been too insipid a thesis or title
to fetch the kind of controversial, scholarly glow around `Black Athena' to which
our current ado testifies.
For all those reasons I discount the `African Athena' reportage. If the title
had at all been tabled, it might have been with attenuated candor. For an even
more sinister I reason, I still am uncomfortable with the Bernal project. He
contends in Vol.I that while pre-dynastic Km.t may have been radically marked
by indigenous African culture, dynastic Km.t owes much to Mesopotamian (hence
Asiatic) cultural infusions; and such borrowings would have been brought over by
Semitic peoples. In effect, Kemetic civilization proper is not an indigenous
creation.
Such contention is potential ferment for a project of its own; i.e., the Asiatic
(or Semitic) roots of Kemetic civilization. Why he did not undertake it directly is
beyond me. Was it by political calculation? Still beyond me. What is not (beyond
me) is the manoeuvering that perchance inadvertently surrenders Semiticism
virtually to Westernism. The thesis of alien origination (of Kemetic civilization)
is not new, at all. It dates back to MacIver and Thomson, roughly at the turn of
the 20th century. So, in a sense, Bernal may have been serving the Aryan cause
much against his benevolence. Doubtless, these cudgels would have been needless,
if he had simply settled for `Semitic Athena'. The latter would have been a frontal
assault on Aryanism, and correspondingly spared Africa the proxy burden.
But, Semiticism is not the sole beneficiary of the cobbled genealogy.
Westernism, too, does--in the guise of Hellenism, and by extension Latinism. This
rests on the `mediterranean' supposal. If Km.t was inherently a mediterranean
culture/nation, then it must have shared kinship with other `mediterranean
peoples', like the Greeks, Romans, Iberians, and North Africans. This would
legitimize, say, the Western expropriation of the OBELISK, what I personally
consider to be the signifier extraordinaire of Kemetik cosmology and ingenuity,
and second in heritage worth only to MAAT.
Now apart from the self-serving, thievish logic to the mediterranean
doctrine, hinted at in my earlier positng, there is also a very embarrassing oddity
about `North Africans'. Those on the continent who are sneakily co-opted into the
caucasoid family were mostly colonists (Phoenicians), nomadic desert invaders
(Saracens), and other riff-raff. They also made their entry just about the time that
(i) Km.t was approaching exhaustion (Phoenicia, 10 century BCE) or (ii) totally
non-existent as a living culture (Saracen ascendancy, 7th century CE). Lastly, and
most sobering, the `Africa' in North Africa is semantically void, since latter-day
inhabitants at least tend to swear off Africanness. So, in this bid of sordid
expropriation, too, one witnesses the flirt of beggarly scholarship (historiography)
with the butt-naked will to piracy. Km.t as `mediterranean' annuls Africa for the
benefit of the West, just as Km.t qua Afro-Asiatic demotes or throttles Africa,
with the accrued booty split between Semiticists and Hellenists/Latinists.
The entry of Afrocentrists marks a riotous rupture of the sweetheart deal,
precisely because it obtrudes into view and debate the Africa that has been
classically evacuated, mutilated, or pilfered. This no doubt explains all the furor,
indignation, from both orientalists and classicists, Egyptologists, as well as the
traditional student of ancientry.
For an eloquent illustration, let me cite the sparring between Ayele Bekerie
and Peter Daniels earlier on, in this discussion. Prima facie, the clash was over
disciplinary protocol and methodology. Deep down, it turned on frontier
legitimation. Ayele is an Abyssinian, but one who is fiercely and unrepentantly
African--at least by open avowal. Whether by teleguided indoctrination or by
willful election, the average Abyssinian has long disclaimed Africanness, and
staked Semitic (Asiatic) heritage, tracing his/her lineage all the way back to KING
SOLOMON'S SPERM. [This incidentally shows how Afro-Asiatism can work to
subvert Africa, and why Asiatic-Africa seems a more appropriate category.] So,
here we have an Abyssinian, seemingly ill-given to alien mythology, squaring off
with a supine Orientalist who thrives on x-rated mythology and foul geography,
and who presumes to lecture the former by invoking the might of pawn-shop
authority!
I will not go into the Diop cruxifiction here; it deserves a separate
treatment. Let me only say, in passing, that I do not personally consider him as
an Afrocentrist, in the conventional sense, howevermuch he may have been co-
opted by the rally. He was a Kemeticist, no doubt. But he also quested after
MAAT, with all the vigor and integrity of his rationalist will. And it is such will
that I share solemnly, without apology. Indeed, the more he is calumniated by
classicists, orientalists, and others, the more I shall be confirmed in my
commitment. After all, on the matter of Km.t qua frontier, I have found damned
little to give me faith in the Academy, except spite, for the most part; spite
especially for those who peddle sanctities about the tattered `science(s) of Man'.
Now, even though I find in Diop what the average Afrocentrist does not,
and so by orientation derogate from the Afrocentric core, I do applaud their
(Afrocentrists') bid at indirectly uncovering the hoax of the Occident-Orient rift,
or its obverse--the sweetheart collusion. Interest in Km.t is not going to dissipate,
this side of the frontier. And that means that, so long as there are Kemeticists still
in breath, the dyed-in-the-wool `Egyptologist' can no longer presume to come
rampaging through the Valley like a castrated elephant. Put otherwise, the frontier
can no longer be taken for granted as pushable, collapsable, or displaceable ad
libitum. If the past six weeks of Athena are any indication, it is brutally that the
Kemeticists are no pushovers: they will not be brow-beaten or silenced with
echolalia.
I have of course assumed the presence of Kemeticists on this list, visible
participants as well as lurkers. And I base the assumption on the tenor and
orientation of certain participants. I could be wrong, granted; still, the error would
not quash the frontier thesis. Note, too, that this thesis is irreconcilable with the
two-camp postulate (Meadows). As argued above, there is more at stake on
Athena than Afro vs. Euro cheerleading. With that in perspective, then, let me
point out, and counterpoise, certain pitfalls in the various discursive rapports with
the frontier, rapports premised on the state of the question. These pitfalls pertain
to the three categories:
1.WORLD
2.ANTIQUITY
3.MODEL
I will sign off for now, and resume with the pitfalls in my next posting.
Regards,
Kwesi Otabil
The Neo-Maat Institute
[PS: My criticism of Bernal is not meant to belittle his scholarship, I should point
out. I respect his intellect, admire his erudition, and salute his moral courage. I
will, however, not let my respect overshadow my assessment of his frontier
involvement. I won't.]
-------------------------------------
Ta_Seti, a premier online African-centered discussion group!
Report any problems to Paul Kekai Manansala at webmaster@AsiaPacificUniverse.com
If you have difficulties with this site, visit the main Afrocentric Debate webite.
If you have difficulties with this site, visit the main Afrocentric Debate webite.
Sponsored by AsiaPacificUniverse.com