Not Out of Africa: How ""Afrocentrism"" Became an Excuse to Teach Myth as History

I'm interested in reading this book due to me having an open mind to hear out other perspectives different to my own. Not only do I believe it's important to hear out different perspectives but it's also important to discern what is bs and what isn't. What I find very sad, and unfortunate is that some people don't bother to seek their own knowledge and do their own research and will just run with whatever is told to them if they feel the entity giving them said information is reputable. African history and influence have been whitewashed and fallen prey to erasure for centuries. As a black woman I refuse to allow anyone that does not look like me to try and tell me about my own history. And anyone who looks like me telling me my history gets fact checked. I am in the business of doing my own research. It is so arrogant to say that Afrocentrism is an excuse to teach myth as history. The gall of people in our society just blows my mind sometimes. If we want to follow that logic and based off some of the research I have conducted, Eurocentrism is also an excuse to teach myth as history and uplift a race of people who believe they are superior.

Full of racist falsehoods!!!!! This book is KKK logic!!!

I have come to this issue of Afrocentrism late, and thus to this book late. As a teacher of ancient Greek philosophy, when I heard of these claims of Egyptian antecedents of Greek philosophy I felt compelled to look into them. I read two books: first Innocent C. Onyewuenyi's "The African Origin of Greek Philosophy," and Molefi Kete Asante's "The Egyptian Philosophers," and was unimpressed by the arguments (my reviews of both are on this site). I also read a part of the first volume of Martin Bernal's "Black Athena" and was equally unimpressed. Mary Lefkowitz's book is unfortunate in two respects. It is unfortunate that in certain areas of academe political aspirations have motivated tawdry scholarship of the sort that she feels compelled to respond to. Postmodernist fantasies and certain elements of radical feminist studies serve as other sad examples. Secondly, it is unfortunate that Lefkowitz must divert from her own productive research to write a book that goes back to the basics of classical studies to refute the many absurd claims made by afrocentrists. Indeed I think the reason that many reputed scholars don't do this yeoman work is that they don't wish to be distracted from their own work for what they quite correctly regard as nonsense. But unfortunately the nonsense is growing in influence, and so all scholars owe Lefkowitz a debt of gratitude for her willingness to take on such a thankless task. Lefkowitz is thorough in her approach. She doesn't simply correct the multitude of errors that afrocentrists make in the development of their arguments. In addition she does two other things to seal the case. For one, she tracks down the modern sources of the conceptualization of ancient Egypt which provide the framework for afrocentrist arguments. This framework is the so-called ancient Egyptian Mystery System-an imagined system of education administered by the Egyptians that was supposed to have branches throughout the ancient world. This she traces back to a fictional novel written in the 18th century by Abbe Jean Terrasson. Terrasson's fantasy was preserved as factual within Free Masonry since its publication, and is the "scholarly resource" upon which afrocentrists have based their arguments. The second thing Lefkowitz does is to point out various errant methodological principles upon which afrocentrists rely. There is what Lefkowitz calls "the argument from silence": the absence of any texts of Egyptian origin that might confirm the afrocentrist's argument is thought to bolster their view. Technically in logic this is ignoratio elenchi, or argument from ignorance. Martin Bernal argues in this manner when he insists that the traditional creation myths of ancient Egypt "must" have been for popular consumption, and there "must" have been a more abstract and theoretical basis for them preserved by the priests of Egypt. Where are the texts? Not only is this argument from ignorance, but it ignores the implausibility that an

The Afrocentrist argument seems to proceed as follows: Egypt was located in Africa, hence Egyptians were negroid. Egypt exerted an enormous influence on Greece. Greek accomplishments were "stolen" from Egypt, i.e. from Black Africa, and many famous Greeks were in fact black Africans, including Socrates and Cleopatra. Therefore, (white) European civilization, built on that of Greece, actually stole the heritage of black Africa and claimed it for itself. The argument is absurd, of course, for a great number of reasons. Firstly, Egypt had far more in common culturally with its Middle Eastern neighbors (which included Jews, Arabs, Midianites, Edomites, Nabateans, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Akkadians, Hittites, etc.) than with sub-Saharan Africa. Interestingly, the civilizations to the south of Egypt, Nubia and Ethiopia, could also be characterized as having greater ties with the Middle East than with sub-Saharan Africa. The ancient Egyptian language, and the descended Coptic language of the Coptic Christians in Egypt, was a Hamito-Semitic language (as is Ethiopic), rather than Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Congan, or Khoisan. A cursory glance at the Copts of Egypt (e.g. Bhoutros Bhoutros Ghali) will indicate that they are certainly not negroid. The art of the Egyptians depicts a people with large almond-shaped dark eyes, tan to reddish-tan skin (not black), and black hair. Some admixture with sub-Saharan Africans is undeniable, yet the Egyptian language was undeniably Hamito-Semitic and culture was Middle Eastern. And why is the race of the Egyptians so important, anyway? The Egyptians certainly had an influence on the Greeks, as did other peoples. But to erroneously claim that the Greek religion, art, music, mathematics, science, philosophy, literature, and government all came from Egypt or from anywhere else, and with no evidence, is absurd. Egyptian mathematicians were capable of solving linear equations, for example, but not quadratic equations (as could the Babylonians), nor did they know of the binomial theorem (as did the Chinese). The Greeks, on the other hand, developed mathematics to the point of a rudimentary calculus, and were capable of measuring the radius of the Earth to within 1%. Greek philosophy or literature had no rival in its sophistication. To claim that Socrates, an ethnic Greek, or Cleopatra, also an ethnic Greek of the Hellenistic period, were black, is ridiculous. This is not a racial thing. It is a matter of an ideology attempting to twist history and reality to conform to its theses. We saw it when Nazi Germany said that Slavs had stolen all the accomplishments of their cultures from the Germans, or that Jewish composers (like Mendelssohn) were cold and uncreative (and a lot worse things than that). Interestingly, we also saw it when Prussian racists claimed that the ancient Greeks were a largely blond people (so that they would be like the Germans), whereas Greek art (look at the amphorae) depicts a tan-skinned, dark eyed, black

Alright, I'll admit up front, it wasn't easy reading Lefkowitz' book, especially after having read both volumes of J.A. Rogers 'World's Great Men Of Color' as a teenager (I'm 46 now) and finding both those books fascinating. It wasn't easy having one's firmly established beliefs methodically deconstructed after having lived with them for more than 30 years. Being human, part of me WANTED to believe the claims laid down in Rogers books, but I've come to realize that the danger for self-deception is proportionate to the need to believe in what one is defending AT ALL COSTS. Such an attitude only blinds a person to perceiving what is true by burying it under layers of preconceived ideas and opinions, ideas and opinions often fueled by emotions, and must therefore distort what is read. The result is often a gross misunderstanding of what the person is saying, or worse yet, completely ignoring what is being said. After having read Lefkowitz' book with an open mind I found her arguments too persuasive to ignore, her proof too irrefutable to brush off. Anyone without an axe to grind can see that this woman CLEARLY knows what she's talking about. All of her assertions are backed up by evidence that can't be swept aside. And yes, as uncomfortable as it was this African-American was willing to make the sacrifice of walking away from his 'cherished beliefs'. BTW, for those who criticize Lefkowitz of 'being racist' all I can say is, man how childish. Just because someone disagrees with or says something you don't like DOESN'T MAKE THEM A RACIST. PERIOD. END OF STORY.

This book by the Wellesley professor of classics is a significant contribution not only to the study of classics, but for education in general. I have worked with several people who are the product of college level instruction in Afrocentrism. This view transcends cultural discussions and enters into their views of general logic used in the workplace. That is, when trained to believe in the use of pseudoscience, the individual also exercises this method in unrelated areas. This result is to be expected. The reason why logic and reasoning is valuable to teach in schools is not so that a person can later discuss Descartes, or Aquinas, but so that the student can transfer this empirical method into general life problems. This is the point of Lefkowitz's book. Afrocentrism is pseudoscience. It is defended, not with evidence, but with racial sentiments of anger. Regardless of pointing out factual inaccuracies, these so-called scholars take any contrary argument and charge that the other party is brainwashed into accepting a European view of culture. This has led to many absurd arguments such as Egyptians flew in gliders, or that George Washington Carver was successful not because of his scientific training, but because of the amount of "melanin" in his skin. At its best, Afrocentrism seeks to induce pride in a race. At worst, it devalues the African culture by using false claims and supporting anti-intellectualism. This makes the proponent of such methods no better than those who speak poorly of African heritage due to a belief of European superiority. The author's view is that African heritage should be valued on the many valid reasons to give acclaim, not on fantasy. I recall in grade school reading about how the USSR controlled press espoused claims that basically everything, including the washing machine, was really an invention of communism. These claims were both laughable and sad, and I feel the same for those who have given us Afrocentrism. Unfortunately, some of these falsehoods are making their way into grade schools as part of Black History Month.

In the fall of 1991 I was asked to write a review-article for The New Republic about Martin Bernal's Black Athena and its relation to the Afrocentrist movement. The assignment literally changed my life. Once I began to work on the article I realized that here was a subject that needed all the attention, and more, that I could give to it. Although I had been completely unaware of it, there was in existence a whole literature that denied that the ancient Greeks were the inventors of democracy, philosophy, and science. There were books in circulation that claimed that Socrates and Cleopatra were of African descent, and that Greek philosophy had actually been stolen from Egypt. Not only were these books being read and widely distributed; some of these ideas were being taught in schools and even in universities. Ordinarily, if someone has a theory which involves a radical departure from what the experts have professed, he is expected to defend his position by providing evidence in its support. But no one seemed to think it was appropriate to ask for evidence from the instructors who claimed that the Greeks stole their philosophy from Egypt. -Mary Lefkowitz, Not Out of AfricaOne is torn by two competing emotions in reading Not Out of Africa. On the one hand, there's the visceral thrill of watching idiotic ideas get an old-fashioned butt-whipping. But, on the other hand, there's something poignant about the need of black scholars to claim the accomplishments of the Greeks and Egyptians as their own. It is very nearly painful to watch the ease with which Ms Lefkowitz disposes of the lunatic ideas that make up Afrocentrism, though she deserves great credit for taking them seriously enough to lay them out systematically, and demonstrating that they actually do have ancient sources, before annihilating them. Still, as you near the end of the book, the contest has been so uneven that it's natural to wonder if this bloodbath was really necessary. However, in her conclusion, Ms Lefkowitz makes the case for why it is necessary to utterly destroy Afrocentrism, and here she is equally persuasive. Her reasons are as follows : (1) By claiming European civilization as a product of Africans, Afrocentrism has the perverse effect of making blacks responsible for the culture which justified their enslavement and oppression for centuries. (2) By focussing solely on the achievements of the Egyptians, Afrocentrism fails to consider genuinely black African cultures, like that of Nubia. (3) By teaching black students that white Europeans stole their culture, Afrocentrism fosters racial animosity. (4) Afrocentrism is not only antihistorical it is also antiscientific--denying genetic, archaeological, linguistic, and other forms of data. (5) It wastes precious educational time; the time that students spend learning the lies of Afrocentrism is time that they are not spending