Deeper Roots

[zhao]

as people have said i guess i'm pretty much preaching to the converted here... the difference of opinion on whether the world is still held sway by outdated eurocentric perceptions of history is unlikely to be resolved (the truth is probably a mixture of what we've been saying anyway -- maybe about 60% me and 40% you guys ) and i think we can agree to disagree and move on.

do think the casual poll is a good idea though. keep asking people and see what they say...

 

[polystyle]

The cooking ape ...

Evolution through fire.
Very ancient roots ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/books/27garn.html?hpw

 

[zhao]

i disagree with his basic premise. just more of the same old... i think we were human, doing a fine job of survival, and enjoying life more than after, in many ways, a loooooong time before cooking.

 

[Sick Boy]

Though I can see what's being said here in regards to a number of cultures pre-dating the Greeks having a culminating influence on where we are now, it is not too far off to say that our (Western) society is much more similar and has attitudes more similar to Greek culture than any of those before it.

The Greeks' religion and mythology were born more from scientific curiosity than fear, and were a celebration of mankind as being the centre of the universe. Far from being supernatural, formless or bestial entities with little regard for humanity, their gods were a heightened reflection of man's perceived glory and intelligence - a kind of celebrity culture, you could say.

Western society has progressed more or less along these lines ideologically ever since. If we're trying to determine where civilization itself first occured, then there were clearly civilized, advanced societies before the Greeks, but in terms of civilization as we know it now, the Greeks pretty much set the tone for the next couple thousand years.

 

[vimothy]

Maybe the sun does travel round the earth; it depends on your perspective.

 

[zhao]

ooo vimothy you are so cryptic.

went to pergamon museum which has a permanent display of greek art among other things, and thought it the perfect place to conduct a little informal survey. asked about 12 people randomly the question: "what are the roots of Greek Culture, or where did it come from?" ---

4 said they don't know;
4 said it was entirely invented by the Greeks themselves;
1 said "middle east",
1 said "mesopotamia",
1 said "jewish cultures",
and only 1 mentioned Egypt at all, identifying it as a main source of influence.

 

[massrock]

The Ishtar Gate there is I think the most impressive thing I have seen in a museum.

 

[josef k.]

Everyone knows that civilization originated in Ancient Atlantis, the better part of which which was destroyed by a nuclear catastrophe, following the discovery of cold fusion by Atlantean scientists. Only the ruling lizard-sorcerer-priest class of the civilization managed to escape annihilation, setting-up bases on the Moon and the Mars, while retaining a handful of agents on earth, secretly controlling the development of human progress. At key points in history (the building of the pyramids, the birth of Christ, the development of Islam, the fall of the Ming Dynasty) these creatures have intervened in order to deliver the optimum outcome for their lizard-sorcerer masters. Yet the masters have enemies; a secret race of advanced aliens beings who originally seeded the Earth with life at the dawn of the universe. These beings left behind them designs for a time-travel machine which would allow the reversal of time itself and a general escape from this universe into the sixteenth dimension, a realm of pure light. Fragments are buried under the great pyramid of Giza, Chichen-itza, Teotihuacan. If the fragments could be found and assembled...

 

[massrock]

This is just common sense.

 

[Sick Boy]

You'll find if you conduct a random survey that only 15% of men wearing hats knows this.

@massrock: I believe you about the Ishtar Gate.

 

[zhao]

Droid,

over the years you have been informative and inspirational on multiple topics from reggae to the Israeli/Palestine conflict, and i deeply appreciate and respect your indepth knowledge and understanding. but on the subject of whether Europeans and North Americans are aware of the ancient African and Hasidic roots of European civilization, you are simply, and completely, mistaken.

the vast majority of "westerners" have an entirely Eurocentric image of Greek culture, one that had nothing to do with ancient Africans or Jews, much less having borrowed heavily from these much older civilizations.

even the ones who are aware of "some" Egyptian influence, some of them have an idea of Egypt of not really having been African, but rather a mediterranean culture not much related to what went on down south, unaware of the thriving and at the time incredibly wealthy cultures in Mali, Ethiopia, etc. at that time and before. and some of them routinely, and heavily downplay the massive influence of these Afro-Asiatic cultures on Greece, choosing to stress the original innovations which took place during the second phase of Greek culture, and point to that as the real birth of European civilization.

you want "proof" of what i am saying, and it seems nothing short of ludicrous, for "proof" is everywhere one chooses to look, and to me it is not even a subject worth debating: without question the vast majority of westerners have entirely false or incredibly distorted ideas about the origins of Europe, born of racism and racist revisions of history which occurred during the 19th century.

not having access to official data or time to conduct proper surveys, i have cited the world wide reaction to Black Athena since its publication as testament, and you have dismissed this as insufficient.

Bernal's book was the first major work to address and seek to correct these fallacies and injustices, and the response to it, both from academics and the general population, have been predominantly, if not entirely, hostile. there have been numerous volumes published in opposition to Bernal's model of ancient history, dismissing it, deriding it, and in attempt to destroy it, in defense of the ubiquitous Eurocentric Greece, and the debate in scholarly circles continue to this day.

and while i know amazon.com ratings are not much to go by as far as determining consensus of the general public is concerned, but those of you who are familiar with their ratings system and how it is used know that 2.5 stars out of 5, from 76 ratings that the first volume of Black Athena received is a very rare thing for any work, especially those of substance.

i am honestly baffled by your assertion that the views expressed in Black Athena is "widely accepted" and "common knowledge", and can only speculate on why: perhaps you are surrounded by forward thinking, well read, and very educated people? perhaps Ireland is much more progressive and informed than other parts of the world? i have no idea, and it would be interesting to learn of the reasons for your false and skewed assessment.

 

[droid]

Zhao, I have repeatedly said that I don't necessarily disagree with your suggestion, what I do have a problem with is your methodology.

Amazon reviews and informal surveys of a handful of people, combined with subjective bias on your part - it wouldn't stand up in academic circles, its little more than opinion really. Amazon reviews in particular are no basis whatsoever to form an accurate picture. There are tons of good political books that get negative reviews because they are controversial and get trolled. I also object to being portrayed as part of some racist conspiracy to keep the truth hidden.

My own casual poll seemed to confirm that 1/3 people had no interest, one third of people said Egypt/mid east, one third said Greece. Ive searched a University library and an academic journal database and found a dozen or so books dedicated to the subject. This suggests to me that the idea is not half as controversial as you believe it is.

Now maybe things are different here, there could easily be geographical/academic/peadogological bias, which applies equally to your own experience. This is the point I'm trying to make. IMO, you shouldnt make such strident claims based on subjective perceptions and you should thoroughly examine your own possible bias and experience, but rather you should test your theories as rigourously as possible. Speaking to a few Ancient History professors might give a better over view of the field. If proof is "everywhere to see", why cant you produce it?

As for the book itself - Bernal's theory seems to be one amongst many. I haven't read it so I cant judge, but I seriously doubt that its the be all and end all on the subject. In the interest of balance, 'Black Athena revisited' might be worth a read.

So anyway. I'm not objecting to the idea as I haven't read the book in question, what I do object to is shoddy methodology and definitive claims based on that methodology. Im not saying your wrong necessarily, or that this wasn't true 20 or 30 years ago, but on the basis of my own meagre education, Im not convinced

That's all. No need for a debate about it really.

 

[zhao]

thanks Droid. but you are failing to consider the vehement attacks on Bernal after those books were published. from what i know world wide reaction was overwhelmingly, predominantly negative. (they supposedly drove him to the brink of madness)

going forward, as a debate it might not be very fruitful in terms of whether these ideas are popularly accepted or not alone, but there is plenty more to be said on the subject at large. so i will continue to read and think and communicate with who ever will engage with me... and lets use this as an opportunity to expand our horizons, instead of the sad alternative, the one of reinforcing our own calcified beliefs and notions...

 

[3 Body No Problem]

there have been numerous volumes published in opposition to Bernal's model of ancient history, dismissing it, deriding it, and in attempt to destroy it, in defense of the ubiquitous Eurocentric Greece, and the debate in scholarly circles continue to this day.

The reason Bernal's book has been heavily criticised in the ensuing academic discussion after its publication is that many of Bernal's claims are overblown, and his evidence is often flimsy.

This is not to say that Bernal's book is without merit.

 

[Sick Boy]

The reason Bernal's book has been heavily criticised in the ensuing academic discussion after its publication is that many of Bernal's claims are overblown, and his evidence is often flimsy.

This is not to say that Bernal's book is without merit.

This is also my position on this debate. Ancient history is Ancient history. It is hard to know definitively - the background and prejudices of the historian exploring it is always going to be a problem in getting an objective view of what actually went down. Bernal is a historian complete with these difficulties. And like other non-black non-afrocentrist historians, he has been accused of his studies being tailored to meet a theory while not quite standing up as objective proof.

He is definitely not without merit. You simply can't read Bernal as if his word is scripture just like you can't read anyone's word as scripture when the subject is what happened two thousand years ago.

 

[zhao]

The reason Bernal's book has been heavily criticised in the ensuing academic discussion after its publication is that many of Bernal's claims are overblown, and his evidence is often flimsy.

This is not to say that Bernal's book is without merit.

Ancient history is Ancient history. It is hard to know definitively - the background and prejudices of the historian exploring it is always going to be a problem in getting an objective view of what actually went down. Bernal is a historian complete with these difficulties. And like other non-black non-afrocentrist historians, he has been accused of his studies being tailored to meet a theory while not quite standing up as objective proof.

He is definitely not without merit. You simply can't read Bernal as if his word is scripture just like you can't read anyone's word as scripture when the subject is what happened two thousand years ago.

sigh... guess i have to explain this again:

we all know there is no such thing as hard proof when we are dealing with ancient history. but convincing models can be constructed based on probability: some versions are much more likely than others. for instance:

fact: European culture started in Greece, the southern most, eastern most part of Europe. why?
why did it not originate in Germany or the Alps?
because Greece was the closest to Africa and Asia -- this is the most likely answer.

have you guys who talk about Bernal's "over blown claims" and "flimsy evidence" read his books?
but regardless of whether you have or not, you are just repeating what his detractors say, without substantial examples.

Bernal wrote a 4th volume with a dozen or so chapters each dealing with a major work which attempts to discredit Black Athena. I look forward to reading that one after i finish the first 3 volumes.

but you see, droid, plenty of proof of what people think right here: Black Athena is not entirely rubbish, but it is not to be trusted.

it is a FUCK of a lot more trustworthy than a Eurocentric and whitewashed version of Greece that's for DAMN sure.

 

[Mr. Tea]

we all know there is no such thing as hard proof when we are dealing with ancient history.

I disagree with this. Imagine if a papyrus fragment containing a proof of Pythagoras's theorem were to be found in an Egyptian tomb dating back to the Old Kingdom? Or if an old Babylonian cuneiform tablet discussing ideal Forms, a thousand years before Plato, were to be discovered? Such a discovery would be a piece of very hard evidence that would hugely shake up our picture of the ancient world.

it is a FUCK of a lot more trustworthy than a Eurocentric and whitewashed version of Greece that's for DAMN sure.

Can you seriously not see how such partisan statements as this aren't going to win people over to your POV when your whole argument revolves around bias, prejudice and the availability (or otherwise) of evidence?

 

[zhao]

I disagree with this. Imagine if a papyrus fragment containing a proof of Pythagoras's theorem were to be found in an Egyptian tomb dating back to the Old Kingdom? Or if an old Babylonian cuneiform tablet discussing ideal Forms, a thousand years before Plato, were to be discovered? Such a discovery would be a piece of very hard evidence that would hugely shake up our picture of the ancient world.

goes without saying that when there is evidence it is used. the probability thing is regarding the very often lack of evidence.

Can you seriously not see how such partisan statements as this aren't going to win people over to your POV when your whole argument revolves around bias, prejudice and the availability (or otherwise) of evidence?

this and the accusation of Afro-centrism serving a political agenda is all shit that has been hurled at Bernal by his detractors for years and years.

1. it's not "my" argument. but rather one that i endorse.
2. it certainly does not revolve around bias, prejudice, and "lack of evidence", like the commonly accepted Eurocentric model.

what gives you the authority to make such sweeping claims? have you even read the books?

and are you confusing the debate on the competition of historical models and the debate on which one is more commonly accepted?

 

[3 Body No Problem]

fact: European culture started in Greece, the southern most, eastern most part of Europe. why? why did it not originate in Germany or the Alps?
because Greece was the closest to Africa and Asia -- this is the most likely answer.

No, this answer is bullshit. If geographic proximity to Asia or Africa was the determining factor why did the many other places that are near Asia or Africa not come up with anything like what Greece came up with? Disease, Weather, internal warfare etc i.e. luck play a big role here.

have you guys who talk about Bernal's "over blown claims" and "flimsy evidence" read his books?

I have read some Black Athena, in the 1990s but not much. Have you followed the scholarly discussion that ensued? Do you have anything substantial to say about counterarguments to Bernal?

but regardless of whether you have or not, you are just repeating what his detractors say, without substantial examples.

Several people in this thread and the deleted on did point you towards problems of the afrocentric theory. You didn't come up with any substantial counterpoints, except implicitly accusing anyone who's not agreeing with you/Bernal as eurocentric/racist, like here:

it is a FUCK of a lot more trustworthy than a Eurocentric and whitewashed version of Greece that's for DAMN sure.

 

[Mr. Tea]

what gives you the authority to make such sweeping claims? have you even read the books?

and are you confusing the debate on the competition of historical models and the debate on which one is more commonly accepted?

Note that I'm not making claims about Bernal's book per se, but about your arguments (which are based on Bernal's, of course) which I can read and have been following pretty closely.