Interesting. A Marxist/Labor-ist opinion on Afrocentrism. Pictured above is Molefi Asante, the self-proclaimed founder of the "theory of Afrocentricity".
The Fallacies of Afrocentrism: (Montclair State University | by Grover Furr)
A few days ago I posted an article I wrote back in '91 when the college's black student org. invited Leonard Jeffries to come to speak. In it I ran through, though very briefly (for space), some of the fallacies of Afrocentrism. Here is a little more about them, in no special order.
1. Afrocentrism seriously distorts Egyptian history. Egyptians were not "black" (Negroid) on the whole, though a few dynasties of rulers were. But Egyptians were also not racists, it seems, and people of different colors intermarried. We could do well to follow their lead in this!
There is no evidence that Nefertiti or Cleopatra were 'black', for example. Nefertiti was not "white" (i.e. European) either (Cleopatra was either 3/4 Greek or, perhaps, entirely so, not Egyptian at all).
2. Greeks did not "steal" their culture from Egypt. In the ancient Mediterranean world, cultural influences moved around a lot.
3. The Egyptian rulers and their acolytes (like all the "-hoteps", Imhotep, Ptahhotep, et al.) were an oppressive and expoitative aristocracy. Cheikh Anta Diop, whom Afrocentrists admire but, it seems, seldom read, has a very interesting review of Jacques Pirenne's History of Ancient Egypt in one of his books. Diop comments favorably about Pirenne's description of revolutions against the Egyptian rulers by lower-class Egyptians -- something one would expect in an exploitative society. But the Afrocentrists who so admire Diop never mention this aspect of Ancient Egypt! In short, what they admire is the aristocratic, exploitative aspect of it.
4. "African culture" is not a unity: there are many, many cultures in Africa. Ancient Egyptians are not the ancestors, either culturally or genetically, of the peoples of West Africa or of the American black population.
5. The whole "ice man-sun man" thesis of Francis Welsing is racist crap, without a shred of evidence to support it. Welsing seldom publishes her 'research'; same with Jeffries. I know: I've tried to get it; with lots of effort, I've gotten a very little bit. The infamous "Melanin" Conferences at which these ideas are promoted are virtually secret, their 'proceedings', if any, not available to anyone.
6. The premises of Afrocentrism are false and racist against blacks, among others.
* it is false and racist that anyone has any business taking "pride" in the "achievements" of one's distant ancestors, since intelligence, creativity, etc., are not inherited, and furthermore no one can take any credit for anything they have not achieved themselves. This is the case even if modern blacks were the descendants of ancient Egyptians, which they are not. Besides, if one takes credit for the "achievements" of one's distant ancestors, why not also assume the blame for the atrocities committed by the same ancestors?
* it is false and racist to say that "blackness", "melanin" (or "whiteness", etc.) confers intelligence, or any characteristics at all. If it were true, all blacks with any degree of white ancestry would be "sub-human" just as the "ice person" thesis claims whites are; most American blacks, if not all, therefore.
Where does Afrocentrism come from? Historically, it's a reaction to the tremendous upsurge of racism spurred by 18th and 19th century European imperialism. I think Bernal [Black Athena, Volume I] is right when he points out that after 1800 study of Egypt -- and also of the Semitic mid-east -- was systematically denigrated for racist reasons. Some scholars reacted against this marginalization of Egypt and the Mid-East, including some black scholars (but not only them). This is the ancestry of Afrocentrism, sketched by Bernal rather convincingly. What is not convincing about Bernal (Volumes 1 and 2) is his derivation of Greek civilization from Egyptian colonists. However, even if it were true, it would not mean what the Afrocentrists say it means.
Today, Afrocentrism is a racist, highly conservative, nationalist pseudo-science (by the latter term I mean: based upon phony scholarship and premises). It victimizes black students almost exclusively, since it is they who have this nonsense foisted off upon them as truth.
The fact that it is tolerated and even promoted at various universities, including the one I teach at, is a tribute to higher education's racism against black students. This kind of worthless, reactionary crap would never be tolerated if it were being purveyed to white students!
Afrocentrism is another form of authoritarianism. It tells black students: Believe "your leaders" because they are black! Since there's no evidence worthy of the name for these theses, "believe your black leaders" is all that's left.
Who are these misleaders, phony scholars? I do not see any division into "responsible" and "irresponsible." Asante and Karenga write the same kind of nonsense as Jeffries and Welsing. If you want to read some real authoritarian crap from somebody with a Jesus complex (i.e. he believes he's the chosen of God), read Asante's Afrocentricity, in which he claims the belief structure was "granted" him as a "vision", like Paul on the road to Damascus. He even reprints it!
Afrocentrism, being racist against blacks, is useful to the racist US ruling class, and I think that's why it's tolerated. It serves to inculcate racist, anti-white views among black students, and to keep them obedient to whatever the highly conservative 'authorities' tell them.
The same kind of nationalism flourished in the '60s, where it served to keep blacks from uniting with anti-racist whites to fight racism. That's the function of Afrocentrism today, and very valuable it is to the tactic of "divide and conquer", by which white and black workers and students are kept divided from one another.
However, Afrocentrism is nowhere near as influential as overt anti-black racism of the Murray/Herrnstein Bell Curve kind, or of the D'Amato/Christy Whitman/Joe Bruno kind. Anti-black racism is sharply on the increase, under the guise of "attacking Affirmative Action", attacks on welfare, and so on.
Racism is on the increase because the ruling class always uses racism to divide the working class against one another, the better to fleece it -- to lower the standard of living and increase profits. Afrocentrism helps them, and so continues to flourish, as do the right-wing fascists, militias, etc., all of which are also racist to the core.
Racism is the key issue here. If there were a mass anti-racist movement involving many whites, as there was in the '60s, the "cultural nationalists" like the Afrocentrists, like the Farrakhans, would be an insignificant force as they were then. As it is, with racism against blacks rising rapidly, and no multi-racial, anti-racist movement, it is the nationalists who appear, to some, to be at least 'doing something' about racism, something to assert the equality and dignity of black people. They are not doing this; but the appearance that they are is what attracts many black students and others.
You want to weaken Afrocentrism? Fight anti-Black racism!
-Grover Furr, English Department (source)
1 comments:
Interesting conversation guys. Yet, I find that though it seems like we’re all talking about the same thing, after probing a little deeper, it seems we’re working with some starkly contrasting definitional premises. This conversation vacillated from about historical identity (and its roots)→ cultural identity (and its roots) → scholarship discussing assumed cultural roots of “black” people → theories refuting Diop and his various predecessors.
I’m not going to insert my comments into the debate; however, I have some comments about the invisible power relationships that have mediated this conversation.
1) Afrocentrism is racist. Definition: racism is an institutionally backed power/ privilege system that denies certain privileges to others. When violations of institutional norms are deemed threatening to that system, punitive measures will occur.
a. Unless I’ve been living under a rock, adherents of Afrocentricity—a US African theory of “Black” cultural identity/history—are not in positions of deep structural power. For those like Asante who have the “power” to screw w/ someone dissertation, I hardly think that is on par with structural racism that has tangible punitive damages.
b. Hence, even in Asante’s wildest dreams, Afrocentricity could never be “racist.” Prejudicial, yes. Racist, never
2) Afrocentrism distorts Egyptian history as defined by “experts” and/ or “specialists.
a. Once again power: who/ what has the systematic control means to bestow the title “expert,” “specialist,” or even more basic, outline the contours of “the field.”
b. The field of “Egyptian” history…where is this Egypt? Which Egypt are we talking about? Are the current geographical boundaries of the nation-state Egypt the same as those acknowledged by the leaders Kmt. Note the different name terminology: even there, its problematic did the writers of the glyps appropriate their existence w/ the article marker of old, middle, and new?.. I sincerely doubt it…Partition of Africa 1880-1914 anyone?? (power for that…)
3) Greeks did not steal “African” culture (what the hell is and when did this “Africa” exist?). The “Mediterranean” had interfusing cultures. (LOL, the Mediterranean such an ethereal space—hasn’t even earned a space on “the” map yet)
a. Cultures are not autonomous or static units. They shift due to internal and external pressures/ fluxes. Agreed on that point
b. How can there be a stable “Greek” culture? Somehow (I’m being fictitious) it’s managed to remain autochthonous and w/o influence from “other” cultures in the region during the period in question.
4) “Egyptians” were not “black/Negroid”
a. Egypt as is the classification “black/Negroid” are social constructions.
b. Black as a racialized determination based on an assumed continent of origin did not gain currency until imperializing whiteness encountered an “African” other.
c. In the context of this conversation, Egyptians “are” black, as they are part of Africa. This is fallacious premise, but that is what it boils down to when you make arguments based on subjective 21st century definitions of race and place.
5) “Egyptians” were exploitative aristocrats (the one’s Afrocentrics revere anyway)
a. HISTORY IS ABOUT POWER. Only the ones who have the means/ minions are able to iscribe themselves in a knowable past. The means include preserving their heirlooms, documents, and artifacts. The lower-classed masses rarely are afforded this opportunity. So, in shor, don’t hate on a present people’s reverence of historical figures they can actually access. I’m pretty sure no one is perturbed by the reverence of Alexander the Great. Oh, no he killed millions of people to create the Western world. Let me hear a peep about “for the greater good.” Power obsessed I am, and rhetorically ask, “the good of whom”.
In general though, there are two other things that are problematic in conversations about the past and identity: Truth and the myth of objective science.
1) Objective science is the biggest myth. Yet, History and those who utilize history to identify their identities base it all on shifting sands of objective science. I would continue…but, there are too many bullet points to go through to get at the heart of this one.
2) Truth is always subjective. It is filtered through egotistic “I” versus “other.” There are undeniable “facts” though. (I won’t get into that here” It’s best to illustrate this through an example.
I slapped Joe –undeniable/ verifiable act (to a certain extent)
And then we ask why?
1) According to poor Joe: “She” (other) wanted to hurt me
2) According to egotistical “I”: He had a killer bee on his cheek and would’ve died if I didn’t slap the bee off his face
The interpretations of the act are typically plucked up and stamped w/ the badge of “Truth.” As the adage goes, “Until lions write their own history, the tale of the hunter will always prevail.” Ashe
Post a Comment