Banqueting Scene, Thebes, tomb of Nebamum & Ipuky, 1400 BC(http://www.tulane.edu/lester/images/Ancient.World/Egypt/A81.gif)
Ta_Seti, a premier online African-centered discussion group!
Banqueting Scene, Thebes, tomb of Nebamum & Ipuky, 1400 BC
(http://www.tulane.edu/lester/images/Ancient.World/Egypt/A81.gif)
From: ANDY-K
Subject: Re: athena-discuss-digest V1 #143
Sent On: 05/28 03:57 PM PM ET
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 21:51:38 GMT+1
From: ANDY-K [ANDYK@amadeus.cmi.no]
Sender: owner-athena-discuss@info.harpercollins.com
[owner-athena-discuss@info.harpercollins.com]
Subject: Re: athena-discuss-digest V1 #143
> From: "Steven J. Willett" [steven@u-shizuoka-ken.ac.jp]
> Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 19:49:26 +0900
> Subject: Re: the -centrisms
August netters,
I have followed this intriguing debate from the sideline, far in
Norway, by medium of the digest. The tribulations of my present
existence could not allow me to directly follow the list. Many a times
though, I felt like running the gauntlet and throwing my little
weight in. It quite a long time ago that I read a bit of Ancient
History (strictly Greek and Roman History!) in the Univ. of Ghana,
Legon, and prefer to regard myself as a hobby historian rather than a
historian. But Steven J. Willett's recent post urged me to send this
post.
By now, it should be clear to many that no amount of "proof" and
"evidence" other than those deemed as such by Eurocentric views of
Greek origins of civilisation will be acceptble to those who oppose
the main them of Black Athena. And such a "proof" can hardly be found
outside the available evidence. What proof and evidence then do the
rewriters of history to make origins of civilisation of white
(Greek) origin? They sound less convincing.
Of course, modern "Western" civilisation has devised its own system of
proof (paradigm) to rationalise its conquest and swallowing up of other
peoples' civilisation. It's happening all the time, when an
ethnobotanist, a gene technologist, an agent of a pharmaceutical coy
returns from the tropics with some new genes or plant gotten from a
traditional healer to synthesize, store up, in-breed, turn into a cure
for a certain disease, or many of the modern rape and plunder of
developing countries indigenous knowledge going on now.
Bernal's book was long in coming. In fact, long overdue! Even a reading
of the Cambridge History of Africa Vol 4 (?) (needs urgent and drastic
revisions) make one wonder why the ancient Greeks were getting the
credit for what the compilers valiantly tried to say was not African.
What makes one wonder is, all the "evidence" point to even the
Greeks themselves acknowledging ancient Egypt and other Middle Eastern
civilisations, to whom the Greeks used to be mercenaries and
underdogs for, as being the sources of some of their practices, gods,
etc. And the FACT that C18th Euro-American racism moved the site of
man's origin of civilisation from Africa to Greece is played down and
denied by some. When the captive William Amo, from the former Gold Coast
(Ghana), defended his doctor's thesis in Germany in the C18th, (I don't
have the exact particulars with me here) it was still in vogue to
regard Africa as the source of civilisation, not Greece. But Amo later,
the great scholar and teacher, whose thesis was on the "Position of the
Moors in Europe", was forced by German racism to leave Germany and died
in Ghana in obscurity. The then ranging trade in humans was no
respector of scholars, especially when black!
Steven wrote (lots of stuff deleted, in fact, a thing many should have
been doing8-))
) > plausibilities." It is the evidence, they feel, that gives their
> case an assertive believability. In the course of marshalling these
> facts and plausibilities, Bernal relies on broadcast charges of
> "Aryan" racism he cannot prove and does not seriously try to prove.
> It is this style of argument that Thomas Palaima called, and rightly
> called, "diabolical." Had he resorted solely to evidence rather
> than this fluctuating mixture of evidence and racial rhetoric, he
> would have aroused far less reaction.
As an African living in Europe, I hardly need proof of European racism.
It's everywhere! In their postures towards us; the silly questions some
"friends" ask us: (are there some people still living in trees in your
country? They'd be shock if you dared tell them such questions have
racial prejudices); and the social sciences and humanities as taught in
the universities, for instance the Social Darwinism that still dog
modernisation theories.
Perhaps, Bernal just assumed Aryan racism as given and needing no
proof. I don't need one either to know that it still exist among an
overwhelming proportion of Euro-Americans of Aryan extraction. And I
see it on this net, in the anxiety of our august scholars at the notion
that the Egyptians were "black". After all, up to the 1960s, the
paradigm was that Black Africa had no culture, no civilisation and
history! All were just savages and fit to be used as slaves (beast of
burdens), colonised in order to be "civilised" and "christianised".
Those themes are currently reverbarating in certain quarters calling
for the recolonisation of Africa, following the coming in fruition of
what Rosa Luxemburg predicted a long time ago would occur - "capitalism
...produced barbarism"! Forget about the Coming Anarchy, we now its
source, and no cover up can hide the truth of the continuing
despoilation of Africa to make the North rich and opulent. Of course,
African "modern slavers" in the state houses, BWs, Pajeros and
Mercedezes, are just as heartless and collaborative as the human
slavers before them!
But who's really "black" among even the Negroid "races"? I may pass as
one, but I was told by a Cuban-American Peace Corp of Aryan extraction
ober 17 years ago: No! you're brown! Of course, I knew that! In my
language, Ewe, it's an insult to call to call someone "black". Of
course, Colin Powell is also "black". We (Africans) did not designate
those categories. Using that designation, C13th Spain could hardly pass
for white too!
Steve was ecstatic!
> Amen to that! It is clear, however, from the continual intrusion of
> race, taken in its crudest form as melanin counting, that a great deal
> of selfesteem is riding on the question of who the Egyptians really
> were. There is a desire to make them subSaharan blacks so the entire
> continent of Africa can as it were participate in the Egyptian miracle.
What is wrong with that if it's the truth? Most Africans south of the
Sahara have oral histories that put them far away from their present
locations. In these, the origin from the East features in most. In
fact, the migratory patterns and evidence left behind are very glaring
to we Africans, even though archaeologists, etc. are yet to explore the
area fully.
The point is it's now established that the Egyptians got their
civilisation from further south in Africa. Nubian civilisation predated
that of Egypt, but Egypt got the upper hand for millennia, due to its
geographic location (I believe). A lot of slave labour was needed for
building all those monuments in Egypt, and these, we know, was got
essentially from down south through Nubia, a vassal state. It's my
contention that this brought about the separation or distinction in
skin colour eventually in Egypt, into a lighter ruling class and the
mass of "black" population. It also meant the subordination and lack
of "progress" (dedifferentiation) of people of darker colour through
constant demands for supplies of labour on them for the aggrandizement
of not only Egypt but also Nubia, Cush, Axum, etc, later Patterson
(1983). What Patterson called an "international pecking order", now
called "global capitalism", has ancient roots! Samir Amin and co. have
a book on that thesis. The response was the constant dispersal of
darker colour people downwards and to the west, to what becomes the
sudan corridor. Arab intrusion into Africa finally compelled many of
these entities which had formed new empires to disintegrate and move
further south, some reaching the coast the same time Europeans came
sailing along the coast. Just 500 years ago!
I'm a Ghanaian citizen but I can take you to Gbadagli (Badagry) in
Nigeria to homes where you meet relations who will recognise me by
sight; even though our ancestors left about 600 years or so ago! We
keep in touch, even though the maddening borders and customs, (relics of
colonialism, and neo-colonialism) make that more and more difficult!
> Much of the effort Afrocentrists invest in their research is directed
> at proving things quite tangential to the issue of influence. Race
> pride is the real motive here, and that brings up identity politics
> once again.
Whites never tire of priding themselves they claim patent rights to! In
fact, they made a lot of dole out of them, even if a stolen copyright!
Asians have learned that trick. Time for people of African origin to
do so too, be proud in their contribution to civilisation and the
wealth of the world, and demand their just share!
>I don't think we're ever going to get away from that
> politics unless Classicsts and educators generally make clear what we
> have and have not gotten from Greece, and make equally clear how very
> much different they were from us.
It's all pointed out but you refuse to see it!
>They also need to stress the
> historical contributions of all cultures without the fabrication of
> nonsense like a black Socrates or a black Cleopatra.
As an African, who also took an elective in Society and Politics in the
Black Diaspora (in the '70s), I must admit we find some expressions of
some African-Americans rather quaint! We used to laugh until tears
came into our eyes at some of the ideas of some of the civil rights
movements that emerged. Being Black Jews, for instance, and migrating
to Israel, for instance. Then some about how God ran shot of clay after
making blacks and so used the shit of blacks to make whites, hence
their skin colour! Of course, the Nation of Islam people are also yet
to come to grips that Arab and Muslim slavers sold more slaves in
Africa than all African chiefs combined! In any case, they were
compelled to do so by external forces, and once the process
started it gathered its own momentum.
Orlando Patterson (1983) book (Slavery and Social Death) is quite a
comprehensive account to guide any doubter. I've read it so please, you
out there, please don't come at me with that one about slavery already
existing in Africa before the coming of the Arabs and Europeans. I know
that. But I also know that it was not a generalised thing in all
societies and certainly not on a rampart scale as occurred within the
400 years plus it became a way of economic life in Africa. And I have a
rich oral history to back me.
I've read of slavery in Africa with much amusement! BTW, I also come
from the Upper Slave, where the last slave ship was reputed to have
left to leave for the New World just in 1888. The relations of the
victims were still in mourning in the '60s, when I was growing up as a
child. People visiting them had to carry some food to them! We're yet
to tell our story to the world. Meanwhile, only myths are bandied about!
I belive those excesses and any of by some Afrocentrists obsfuscate
rather than illuminate, and undermine the real truth. No wonder this
claim of Cleopatra being black has been used fequently to disparage the
evidence of an Afro-Asiastic origin of Greek civilisation. If
Afrocentrics need blacks painted white later, I guess there are many in
American history to use to stimulate the self-esteem of African-American
kids. I watched a documentary with Danny Glover as the commentator and
it was a revelation.
Now, I must say that Afrocentrism has a lot of implications to us
Africans, particularly "Black" Africa, and this must not be overlooked
in focusing attention one-sidedly on only Africans in the Black
Diaspora. That we were also part of the civilising process (even as
slaves) must not be ignored. Empires and pyramids were built on our
backs. Africans also need to regain their self-confidence and
creativity. Mindless copying is destroying everything there.
Not only some Jews did time in Egypt, for which they still celebrate
the Passover! And for which they continue to villify Egypt and by
extension we Africans for millennia. Africans did not become hewers
of rock and drawers of water by chance. The Jews saw or read about us
(biblical fundamentalism?) doing so in Egypt. White racism and
Apartheid benefitted very richly from that "misinterpretation", some
Christians claim now, of the bible. So after deconstructing the
historical myths about Africa, attention needed to be turn to the other
myths enslaving the poor "souls" and minds of Africans. Myths of Judeao-
Christianity and Islam fall among the spiritual myths of the
supernatural!
I guess I've ranted enough, for a first post! Well, just making up for
lost time! Please in case of rejoinder cc to me for prompt response.
ANDY C.Y. KWAWUKUME
NORWAY
----------------
Here are the eight major reasons given by Prof. Diop for
his classification of ancient Egyptian culture as African.
These were condensed by Femi Akomolafe on his homepage,
and have been further condensed for presentation here.
1. Totemism: Both Egypt and Africa are totemic societies.
2. Circumcision: "Only among Blacks does circumcision find an
interpretation integrated in a general explanation of the universe, in
other words, a cosmogony." p.135 (Diop, _The African Origin of
Civilization). Also the widespread practice of female circumsion,
which is found to this day in Egypt and through much of Africa.
3. Kingship: "The concept of kingship is one of the most impressive
indications of the similarity in thinking between Egypt and the rest of
Black Africa." - p.138. Specific practices, including the
ritualistic killing of monarchs, was practiced by the Egyptians, as is
still the case in some African societies today (or up to modern
times).
4. Cosmogony: 'Negro cosmogonies, African and Egyptian, resemble each
other so closely that they are often complementary. To understand
certain Egyptian concepts, one must refer to the Black world, as is
attested by what we have said about kingship... The similarity of mores,
customs, traditions, and thinking has already been sufficiently stressed
by various authorities. Perhaps it would take more than a lifetime to
report all the analogies between Egypt and the black world, so true is
it that they are one and the same.' - p.139
5. Social Organization: Ancient Egyptian social stratification: peasants,
skilled workers, priests, warriors, and government officials, royalty.
Modern Africa: peasants, artisans or skilled workers, warriors, priests,
royalty.
6. Matriarchy: Although not as strongly matriarchal as Meröe, Egypt still
had one of the first great female monarchs, Hatshepsut. In Egyptian
cosmology the origin of the universe is attributed to a female deity,
and the vault of heaven is feminine rather than male as among most
patriarchal societies.
7. Relationship with Sudan/Nubia: Here, Prof. Diop was right
on target. He clearly anticipated the great discoveries of Qustul
and the A culture by closely studying the historical and other evidence
with an unbiased eye. 'Until the close of the Egyptian Empire, the
kings of Nubia (Sudan) were to bear the same titles as the Egyptian
Pharaoh, that of the Hawk of Nubia. ' p. 147
8. Geography: Another point often avoided by Western 'experts.' Even
if we only take the Hamito-Semitic family of Greenberg, we find related
languages from Egypt southward to Uganda and Kenya, and west to Nigeria.
Again even using Greenberg's groupings, the Nilo-Saharan language
family also shows the supposed line between East Africa and West Africa
is imaginary. Nilo-Saharan languages include Dinka and Luo in Kenya,
Masai in Tanzania and Kanuri in Nigeria and Niger. Among the Congo-
Kordofanian family, the Kordofanian languages are spoken in
Sudan, while Wolof and related languages are spoken in West Africa.
Of course, languages are carried by people. But we know many other
elements of culture also travelled from East to West and vice a
versa since prehistoric times. The diffusion of iron is one good
example of such prehistoric movement. The diffusion of domesticated
crops is another. If we take look at the Proto-African families proposed
by Obenga, Winters and others we see even much wider African
connections. The Hamitic languages, in addition to much shared
vocabulary with other African languages, share much in morphology
and phonology.
Paul Kekai Manansala
---------------
Message: 693
To: athena-discuss@info.harpercollins.com
From: errolhen@polisci.ufl.edu (Errol A. Henderson)
Subject: Loose ends I
Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 15:03:34 -0400 (EDT)
I have really tried to struggle over these issue in my past postings, and
even those I disagreed with seemed to make a real effort at developmental
dialogue. I think the nature of our discussion is at a nadir, and in that
respect (and not much else) I agree with Godfrey. That being my limited
view, let me try to tie up some loose ends before I depart.
First, to P. Daniels who after lambasting Obenga as " ignorant
>of the most basic principles and techniques of historical linguistics" and
one who contends that "Egyptian is related to the languages
>of Negro Africa (all of them, apparently)." I am not a linguist, however
it appears that your challenge rests on the alleged fallacy of suggesting
the relationship between Egyptian and other African languages. Or do you
maintain that the suggestion of a pan-African language, inclusive of
Egyptian is untenable and research that suggests that is fundamentally
flawed? It is clear that linguistics is so clear, so unambiguous, that
certain pursuits are simply sophomoric. First, the assumption of what Diop
called a Paleo-African language system comparable, in some regards to the
unity of Indo-European languages is consistent with, though with important
exceptions, to the pursuit of one of your beknighted fellow travellers,
Greenberg (you do, after all refer to him as "the great" in your posting).
But, you help me because I'm not a linguist, didn't Greenberg suggest in
1948 (American Anthropologist) that African languages could be classified
into 16 language families? By 1954 he reduced the number to 12. By 1963 he
reduced the number to four. It appears that, even the founts of the
scholarship you suggest as preeminent, seem to accord some weight to the
transformation of classifications (especially language subgroups) with the
accumulation of further reserach (these are not exactly phylum and subphylum
here). So is his assumption foolish or is his methodology, obviously the
stronger argument is the latter so let's go there for a moment.
You maintain that Obenga (drawing on a source that is actually from the 1974
conference) uses an approach that " Any beginning student of linguistics"
would see is flawed." Implicit in your assumption is that Obenga is a
dilletante and his work (and I assume by implication Diop's work) is not to
be taken seriously (though at the conference rival scholars seem to think
that it was at least worth discussing). You later point out that the
problem is that what he did is much too superficial, that is, he attempts to
show correspondences without appreciating intervening factors, that is he
needs a more fuller research design. Well, considering that you weren't
examining his later works (1989) on Ancient Egypt (which you suggest,
without reading them, are probably also flawed) is it surprising that his
early work would focus primarily on these more "superficial" associations?
Is the methodology flawed and thus dilettantish, or is the evidence
tentative, which suggests the need to broaden the research design and to
introduce control variables? You, like Lefkowitz seem heated, in part,
because you disagree with the scholarship - and that's fine; but also
because you may have gotten "dissed" at a conference. Now you know as well
as I, that some of the most learned scholars are at their worst at academic
conferences. Evidence based on conferences, is shall we say, a bit shallow.
Now if you refer to the work specifically, that's a matter of debate and it
should be engaged. I think what concerns me most, and remember I'm not a
linguist (but I have used Greenberg's approach to "fractilization" in some
other work) is your completely dismissive attitude to the work, after what I
think is a misrepresentation of it in the first place. Would you make the
same claim against Hornburger's work and her suggestions of a relationship
between Egyptian, Coptic, and other "indigenous" African languages or is
your zeal reserved for those of Obenga's ilk. I do appreciate that you have
at least attempted to engage a part of Obenga's argument. I do not regard
highly Godfrey's alacrity and dispatch in consuming wholesale your remarks
concerning Obenga and recasting them such that one should psychoanalyze
those who would appreciate his work (much as Daniels appreciates Toynbee's
work even in light of his racism, more below). Godfrey maybe you should
psychoanalyze your students who read Kant, Hegel, Hume, and other white
racists. Oh their all dead, are there any in the present that make it onto
your reading lists that you then suggest (following Deal) that you can
simply ignore the first two pages and then read the unadulterated part of
the book. What are you implying that they need a feel good history? As for
feel good history, I have spent most of my life being forced fed the self
congratulatory narratives of whites as "history" final, story over. If you
are so concerned with such self congratulatory narratives passing as fact
then you should be quite busy devising syllabi.
Daniel also suggests that "the co-optation of ancient Egypt into
Afrocentrism is a somewhat recent event; I believe I can pinpoint it." He
suggests that the "proto-Afrocentrists" emerge from Southern Nigeria.
Further, Daniels cites Toynbee as "not without his prejudices,[5] but those
prejudices did *not* extend to "Negro Africans." This is ridiculous. This
is the same Toynbee who stated clearly (for nearly 40 years) that Africans
were the only people to have failed to contribute a civilization to human
history. Even in the face of evidence to the contrary, you, and Doug Deal
before you (I thought nobody used Toynbee Doug?), do not even admonish the
racism of Toynbee (it is definitely not a disqualification or a suggestion
of poor research faculties such as those you suggest for Obenga) you
actually applaud his "awakening" in 1972 that, gee, maybe these black folks
did produce something. You then, use that as evidence to state his
unbiasedness towards "Negro Africans." Astounding, my good man, simply
astounding. Well, both you and Toynbee are just plain wrong. Even
Lefkowitz is better on this point, she at least sees the 19th century
influence of Diasporic and continental African writers on the subject. Even
her use of James, which I will return to in a moment, does a better job than
your Toynbee reference. In fact, Dubois work "The World and Africa" and
"Black Folk Then and Now", especially the former, are two post WWII
treatments that include discussion of the African influence in Egypt and
Greece. He used classical accounts that have been discussed in this forum.
Also Diop had already laid out his basic arguments for African linguistic
unity, upon which much of his cultural unity thesis - and his Afrocentric
historiography rests in 1948 and 1954. By 1959 he had published the L'Unite
Culturelle De L'Afrique Norie spelling out his "two cradle theory" upon
which much of the Afrocentric anthropological argument rests. Daniels is
simply off the mark when he considers the "Southern Nigerian" route of
Afrocentric "appropriation of Egypt." Your suggestion of a "sea-change" in
the 1974 conference was simply a continuation of the thesis put forward much
earlier. Though you are correct, insofar as the UNESCO conference was the
first widespread dissemination of this research.
I want to make a point that rides on the above, that is, the impact of
Toynbee's foolish assertions about African civilizations,or the lack
thereof, is really a continuation of Hegel's white supremacist notions (read
his Philosophy of History,1944, pp. 91-93 "[Africa} is no historical part
of the World; it has no movement or development to exhibit." I bet he's
pretty "unbiased too"). What bothers me is that while some challenge that
more rigorous Afrocentrists do not challenge those who are not, I do not
find the zeal that accompanies the challenges on Afrocentrism in the
challenges of white supremacist history. Daniels even applauds Toynbee's
almost 40 year hiatus from history. Further, absent this challenge and its
relegation as the responsibility of rather marginalized Afrocentric
historians, these scholars continue to have remarkable influence. The best
case in point in this forum is the postings through Ketseas on the
"Deconstructing of the West." These have their root in Toynbee's conception
of world history. Samuel Huntington, who Ketseas inaccurately calls
"Harrington" promoted his "clash of civilization" thesis in Foreign Affairs.
His civilizations following Toynbee do not include an African civilization.
Well, that's not completely accurate, he does say "possibly African." His
position is that with the end of the Cold War, the Iron Curtain of ideology
will be replaced with the Velvet Curtain of culture, as conflict across the
"cutlural fault" lines will become the dominant form of conflict in the
world. His policy prescriptions include, inter alia, a frontal attack on
multiculturalism at home. I have empirically examined Huntington's
arguments and they recieve very little if any support both over time and in
the present (I hedge on forecasting). Nothwithstanding their accuracy, the
point is their influence. That scholars simply cast aside the white
supremacist renderings of history as long ago is defenseless, especially in
light of the incredible energy at challenging (though not necessarily
reading) what is promoted as Afrocentric texts. (Doug Deal challenged me to
go back 50 years and find apologists for the holocaust of enslavement, I
think after rereading some of the cliometricians (1974) he would probably
rescind that). The impact of white supremacist history is evident in the
long history of US domestic and foreign policy, and though I am not a
linguist, nor a Classicist, I am a political scientist and I can demonstrate
that impact in the past and in the present.
Other loose ends, I am glad that some of you are at least qualifying your
statements concerning Afrocentrists with "some Afrocentrists" or
"Afrocentrists who do research in this area" because it does indicate an
appreciation of the diversity within the worldview and the applicability
(though not necessarily the acceptance) of Afrocentrism across disciplines.
Also, the discussion about the role of the Christian Church in the European
Enslavement of Africa is really quite conclusive and clear cut. That does
not imply that all of Christendom participated but popes sanctioned it
clearly. Suggesting others participated, as pointed out earlier, does not
absolve this hallowed body for its atrocitities. Likewise, all of
Christendom didn't participate in abolition, by a long shot, I know the
Southern Baptists didn't. Further, to suggest the seminal role of the
Church is to deny the abolition of enslavement in revolutionary Haiti after
its liberation in 1804, this was quite a bit before it was made illegal in
the US, and even before the constitutional requirement to restrict the
importation of enslaved Africans (1807). Two other ancillary points, the
earlier reparations discussion should be informed by the fact that from
1865-1868 blacks in this country were constitutionally undefined, they were
no longer enslaved but not as yet citizens. Some argue that the imposition
of citizenship should have rested on a plebescite among blacks as to their
own self determined role in this or some other society. Finally on the
point of reparations, it is clear that an injustic has been done and so
social justice should be our highest aim. As for taxation, for Doug and
Wagers, how much are you taxed for the Bureau of Indian Affairs or for the
maintenance of agreements between the US and Native Americans? As far as
the American way, the American way has been to provide Native Americans
relief "in perpetuity" in the form of land and sovereignty within it as well
as other resources. I am not laying claim to such, I am just putting forth
an argument since many of my postings are replied to as if they have no
logical basis. Further, white supremacism was not simply a function of the
holocaust of enslavement but was social policy up to at least (1965-1968).
(An aside, I thought the earlier discussions on race, enslavement and
reparations provided a good opportunity for context for the larger
discussion and allowed us to flesh out some contrasts and continuities in
our arguements). If I may further impose on your patience, I think the
discussion about Bianca is just off the mark. It's something how
susceptible some are to some of the most blatant caricatures of black
people. I don't know who she is, but I do know that she misrepresented
herself in a forum where she maintains we are neither concerned nor honest.
I do not think that requires some paternalistic head patting for academics
hit with residual guilt. This may be due to the fact that I actively engage
blacks in poor communities constantly (mostly through volunteer work). That
she would come, as a teacher mind you, and perpetuate these stereotypes is
bad enough, but as a spokesperson for the voiceless, is unacceptable. THere
is no implicit virtue in being outside academia in 1996 as there is none in
being inside it. Further, she's a teacher, is she an academic? I found the
sentimentalizing and the silly elevation of her as some sort of "voice of
the streets" to be a better indication of how out of touch some academics
are and how ready some are to be convinced of black theatre (Bianca) and not
black theory (Afrocentrism). The suggestion that she is somehow in the best
tradition of Afrocentrists is ridiculous, not because of where she says
she's from, its because of what she brought (or didn't bring) to the
discussion. It really fills a paternalistic spirit rife with condescension
to see these empty black vessels waiting to be filled with our intellectual
nectar. My advice, have a Coke and a smile.
Back to the larger point: What is really being challenged is the
Afrocentric historical paradigm as it impacts on the Classics. In the
Classics what Afrocentrists have done is lay claim to the centrality (not
the exclusivity) of Ancient Egypt. Diop often remarked that Egypt was to
Africa what Greece is the Europe (I haven't head anyone take up Samir Amin's
point that Hellenism comes to modern Europe through Islamic influences
(e.g. "Averroes" and others, see Samir Amin in his "Eurocentrism" (1989).
The influence that has been spoken of is not something that emerges
primarily from Afrocentric works. It is to be found in the Ancients and
Herodotus is an often cited source. It is clear then that to attack
Afrocentrists one must also provide a critique of the Classics. Further,
this influence is, for many Afrocentrists, evident in several areas. It was
Breasted who argued, for example, that monotheism and the "moral heritage"
of the West came from Egypt "through the Hebrews than from them" in his
"Dawn of Conscience" 1934:xv. As for Greece, and I am not a Classicist, the
assertions that bring many of you to this debate are those found in GGM
James. Now in my earlier posting I am not suggesting that James is outside
of the Afrocentric tradition completely. Scholars do cite him (like others
cite Toynbee) but the arguments do rest on his interpretation of the texts.
That is very important because it suggests that Afrocentric Classicists do
not rely on the textual content of James where he was not qualified to offer
a learned position on them. Therefore we move to those Afrocentric
Classicists (in this case Egyptologists) who do rely on textual evidence.
In Karenga's work, first in his translation of "The Book of Coming Forth By
Day" (The Book of the Dead) he challenges the materialistic conception of
Egyptian philosophy. This philosophy is rooted in the principle of maat
which is the guiding principle of the universe and, social and personal
relationships. For Karenga, "Maat is the fundamental principle of the
divine, natural and social order, established by Ra, God, at the time of
creation." (p. 23) The Kemetic conception of the personality is rooted in
the divine image of humans; the perfectability of humans; the teachability
of humans; the free will of humans; and the essentiality of moral social
practice in human development (p. 26). He has offered his translations of
some of the most important Egypian Texts in a collection called "Selections
from the Husia" (1984). His larger treatise on Egyptian social ethics is
his recently completed dissertation from USC which can be accessed through
University Microforms Inc (UMI) in Ann Arbor Michigan. He challenges the
textual translations of earlier Egytologists but, important for this
discussion, he also converges with several claims found in James, but
unsupported by James. For example, the notion of the DemiUrge or the
Unmoved Mover, for Karenga is clearly preceded by the Egyptian text of Ra as
Atum. The logos can be understood as Ptah creating through "the word." But
Karenga's contributions, to my mind, are on the role of social ethics in Kmt
in his treatment of Khun-Anup (the eloquent peasant) the messianic vision in
Neferti and Amenope which reads like the Proverbs. I would be very
interested in the opinion of Classicists who have read these pieces on the
argument of philosophical influence. What Afrocentrists argue is first,
convergence between Egyptian and later civilizations. They have often
responded to this apparent convergence (I can not wage its degree,or
existence for that matter, but notice I have not thrown a tantrum about it)
as a repudiation of the claim of black inferiority on the one hand, and
white primacy in philosophy and monotheism on the other (that is how the
argument is often cast and should surprise no one). Once the blackness of
Egypt is maintained, then the anteriority of Egypt and the fact of trade
linkages and proximity, often, ipso facto, led to claims of an African
origin of Greek philosophy. I think that is mostly the argument the too
closely follows James' conspiracy theories. I think the influence argument
is raised mainly as one of similarity (and primarily partial similarity);
these tendencies are fanned by the assertion of Greek primacy in philosophy
and axiomatic reasoning.
---------------
Message: 882
To: athena-discuss@info.harpercollins.com
From: GLORIA EMEAGWALI [EMEAGWALI@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU]
Subject: Egyptians, Ethiopians, black skins and cowards
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 16:08:01 -0400 (EDT)
I have just been told that there is another possible line
of argument vis a vis Aristotle"s statement, listed towards
the end of this note:
Egyptians and Ethiopians are black
They are cowards
Therefore black people generally are cowards
The quotation is also available in
Jonathan Barnes, Complete Works of Aristotle, vol. one,
Oxford Uuniversity Press. Note that the quote comes from
Aristotle"s PHYSIOGNOMONICA.
"Those who are excesively black are cowards.This
is illustrated in the Egyptians and the Ethiopians.....
The skin color that lends toward courage must therefore
be a mean between the two.." Aristotle
Whilst we await Prof Willett"s response to a previous post
I ask the resident guru in source criticism, Peter Daniels,
to give us his thoughts on the above quotation. More
specifically I would like to know from Peter Daniels whether
there is any reason why I should not infer from the quotation
that the Egyptians are black skinned. All suggestions are welcome.
Gloria Emeagwali
----------------
Most of these cites come from Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop's article in
the UNESCO General History of Africa:
HERODOTUS:
"...several Egyptians told me that in their opinion the Colchidians
were descended from soldiers of Sesotris. I had conjectured as much
myself from two pointers, firstly because they have black skins and
kinky hair...and more reliably for the reason that alone among mankind
the Egyptians and the Ethiopian have practiced circumcision since
time immemorial." (Herodotus, Book II, 104)
ARISTOTLE:
"Those who are too black are cowards, like for instance, the Egyptians and
Ethiopians. But those who are excessively white are also cowards as we can
see from the example of women, the complexion of courage is between the
two." (?) (Aristotle, _Physiognomy_, 6)
"Why are the Ethiopians and Egyptians bandy-legged? Is it because
of that the body of itself creates, because of disturbance by heat, like
loss of wood when they become dry? The condition of their hair supports
this theory; for it is curlier than that of other nations..." (Aristotle,
_Problemata_ 909, 7)
LUCIAN:
Dialogue:
Lycinus (describing an Egyptian): 'this boy is not merely black; he
has thick lips and his legs are too thin...his hair worn in a
plait shows that he is not a freeman.'
Timolaus: 'but that is a sign of really distinguished birth in Egypt,
Lycinus. All freeborn children plait their hair until they
reach manhood...' (Lucian, _Navigations_, paras 2-3)
APOLLODORUS:
"Aegyptos conquered the country of the black-footed ones and called it
Egypt after himself" (Apollodorus, Book II, paras 3 and 4)
AESCHYLUS:
Dialogue:
Danaos (describing the Aegyptiads): 'I can see the crew with their black limbs
and white tunics.' (Aeschylus, _The Suppliants_, vv. 719-20, 745)
AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS:
"...the men of Egypt are mostly brown or black with a skinny desiccated look."
(Ammianus Marcellinus, Book XXII para 16)
M.C.F. VOLNEY (1787):
"All of them are puffy-faced, heavy-eyed and thick lipped, in a word, real
mulatto faces. I was tempted to attribute this to the climate until,
on visiting the Sphinx, the look of it gave me the clue to the enigma..."
"What a subject for meditation is the present-day barbarity and ignorance
of the Copts...that this race of blacks that nowadays are slaves and objects
of our scorn is the very one to which we owe our arts, our science and
even the use of the spoken word (writing). (M.C.F. Volney, _Voyages
en Syrie et en Egypte_, vol. 1, 74-77, Paris, 1787)
Paul Kekai Manansala
---------------
From: S. Thomas
Subject: Re: evading evidence
Sent On: 05/23 11:36 PM PM ET
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 23:33:42 -0400
From: S. Thomas [sthomas@erols.com]
Sender: owner-athena-discuss@info.harpercollins.com
[owner-athena-discuss@info.harpercollins.com]
Subject: Re: evading evidence
paul manansala wrote:
(( cuts ))
>
> However, I'm firmly convinced that it is mostly intuitive and
> mathematical thinking that leads to discovery in these sciences,
> and that axioms and analysis usually come later. So, to me its not
> much of a big deal whether they used axioms or not.
I quite agree. As it happens, I have been to Egypt, also to
Greece (India and China also but that's beside the point right
now). I remember having the same reaction that Ben-Jochanan
has spoken of. "But these Egyptians were black people!" I
had absorbed a Western education which told me first came the
Egyptians, who btw were white, then came the Greeks. The Egyptians
developed empirical methods of geometric mensuration because
the Nile flooded every year, and that served as a spur for
the methods developed. But it was the Greeks who took it to
a higher level, conceptually and theoretically. Well, the
first lie that was exploded was that the Egyptians were white.
By the overwhelming evidence of statuary and paintings that
I could see with my own eyes, it was clear that they were black
people, certainly what would count as black in the United
States or the Caribbean. The second was the expectation
that the glory of Greece would somehow surpass Egypt. Not so
at all. Not even by a long shot. You have to stand within
the temple, say, at Karnak, then go to the Acropolis, to very
quickly realize that the latter is first of all a copy, and
*much* less impressive in scale. And if you walk around the base
of the Great Pyramid at Giza, and contemplate the sheer
vastness of that structure, you quickly realize that this, and the
other pyramids, were built by men who knew what they were doing.
It was a matter of plan and execution -- calculation -- rather than
of general idea followed by a lot of empirical muddling through.
To see it is to be convinced that these master builders knew their
geometry, trigonometry, and statics. Geometry is to the pyramids
as climbing Mt. Everest is to building a Hilton Hotel atop it.
The first, impressive though it is, is as nothing compared to
the latter; and the latter may be taken as proof that you had
truly mastered the former. Nothing I saw in Greece came even close to
matching the Egyptian accomplishment. Which is why I have very
little difficulty crediting the Egyptians by inference from
indirect evidence. And I too do not feel the need for the
"smoking gun" direct evidence that would remove all doubt.
I do suspect, however, that the disparagers of a black ancient
Egypt would do the dance of distortion and denial even if there were
direct evidence.
> Paul Kekai Manansala
Regards,
S. F. Thomas
Ta_Seti, a premier online African-centered discussion group!
Report any problems to Paul Kekai Manansala at
Sponsored by AsiaPacificUniverse.com
Ta_Seti, a premier online African-centered discussion group!