Afrocentrism?

[Dr. Fascism]

So, I'm a college student that is finishing up my Intro to Black Studies course.

And my finely-tuned crap detectors have been telling me I've been fed political and racial ideology over the facts. Actually, I'm extremely certain of it; what is scary is that none of my peers seem to know that the class was essentially highly left-wing, perhaps racist indoctrination.

Our book? Karenga's Introduction to Black Studies (http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Black-Studies-Maulana-Karenga/dp/0943412234/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209521445&sr=8-1). Yes, the guy that invented Kwanzaa.

I want to sort the nonsense from fact, if there's anything of value to be gleaned from this class. I feel my mind may be poisoned and I'm hoping someone can help shed some light on this.

First of, the class blatantly speaks negatively of capitalism, individualism, and favors what I assume would be socialism and collectivism. If only I knew what to quote from the book to illustrate it...!?h Obviously, it seems to separate blacks from whites, Karenga's book going so far as to capitalize "Black" and keep "white" lowercase.

Here, we see talk of the "African" and "European" worldviews: http://www.edofolks.com/html/pub9.htm

This is essentially what was discussed in the very beginnings of the class and seems to be what much of this stuff is based on. I suspect this is complete and utter ideological hogwash based on political motivation and racist ideology. Unfortunately, I know very little about the actual developments of European and particularly African culture, but it seems to me that creating a false distinction and a grossly broad view of "European" and "African".

The book is filled with spelling errors and grammatical oddities. In one point, it mentions "bio-socialists", but I'm wondering if it means "sociobiologists" (anyone know???): ..."the bio-socialists who deny cultural differences..."; I am pretty sure there is no such thing as a bio-socialist and this surely either must be as terrible scholarship as I think it is, or I must be a very smart undergraduate student, for finding this (probable) error. I wish I could provide more examples but it's harder to find good single statements when the whole thing seems to be pure propaganda and nonsense at the very premises.

Afrocentrism I can find very little information about. The article on skepdic focuses mainly on the belief that Egyptians were "Black", or something. I'm coming here and hoping someone educated and knowledgeable about this subject can enlighten me over what I may have been told that's pure hogwash--it's really hard to sort fact from fiction in instances such as these.

[Complexity]

Why are you taking an 'Intro to Black Studies' course?

[Dr. Fascism]

Why are you taking an 'Intro to Black Studies' course?

...why the holy hell does that matter? Unless you're going to make an actual point:

We have cultural diversity requirements. Almost everyone in the class took it because they need to knock those off.

Actually, part of the reason really was, and I am not joking, to see if the Black Studies classes were filled with this sort of nonsense--can't fight nonsense until you view it first hand, I think. So yes, I came into the class and my expectations were exceeded. Two birds with one stone--satisfy my curiosity, and get a requirement out of the way.

...or is my own viewpoint wrong? Am I being paranoid. Tell me if I am.

And no, I'm not a racist.

[madurobob]

What complexity said. Why did you choose this course? I somehow doubt you signed up with wide-eyed innocence expecting nothing more than sanitized black history full of facts and devoid of opinion.

It sounds like your issue is that the opinion doesn't jibe with yours. Welcome to college.

What "facts" from the book are you having trouble with?

Yeah, I have no idea what a bio-socialist is. Sounds fun, though.

[quixotecoyote]

What I find most amusing about Afrocentrism is that it shows that some people weren't complaining about Eurocentrist history because it was unfair, they were complaining because it wasn't unfair in their favor.

Your link is a joke too. Eurocentrists believe in a 'distant impersonal god'? Then why is I'm always hearing about 'get closer to Jesus'?

"The highest value of life lies in the object, or in the acquisition of the object; "

This seems like a joke too.

It's also funny that with all those Natural African Values that they aren't any more of a harmonious society than anywhere else in the world.

[Zygar]

I agree that Afrocentrism is all about reversing the bias of the world and pointing the finger of blame at Europeans. I can't really blame them considering what Europe did to Africa in the Age of Imperialism.

Anyway, my opinion on this class is that you should give it a chance and see how it goes. It's not going to do you any good to get all militant. That will just cause people to get defensive and ignore your opinions. But if you carefully point out some flaws as you go, I think those in the class who actually are listening will realize that you've got a point.

[shadron]

I want to sort the nonsense from fact, if there's anything of value to be gleaned from this class. I feel my mind may be poisoned and I'm hoping someone can help shed some light on this.

Good luck with that. If you insist on finding fact, you'll never get anywhere, because, in something as slippery as "Black Studies" (not even Black "History") all is opinion - fact is not to be found. Who promised you your political beliefs would be coddled? How are you going to create informed opinions if you don't know what your opponent is thinking? Minds at your age should not be capable of being "poisoned".

First of, the class blatantly speaks negatively of capitalism, individualism, and favors what I assume would be socialism and collectivism. If only I knew what to quote from the book to illustrate it...!?hYou're having trouble finding stuff in the book which you can disagree with? You give new meaning to the copout about not being able to define art, but knowing what it is when you see it. If you went looking for validation of your conservative beliefs, I'm afraid you are looking in the wrong pew. You need to go find a course on Calvinist/Puritan history; that'll better support your feelings. Careful of that work ethic.

Think deeply about why you are going to college. If it is disagreeable to you to have your mind forced to stretch in odd directions, then you may not be in the optimal spot to promote your life's enjoyment.

[madurobob]

It's not going to do you any good to get all militant. That will just cause people to get defensive and ignore your opinions. But if you carefully point out some flaws as you go, I think those in the class who actually are listening will realize that you've got a point.

Sage advice there for you Dr Fascism! Heard it before?

[Dr. Fascism]

What complexity said. Why did you choose this course? I somehow doubt you signed up with wide-eyed innocence expecting nothing more than sanitized black history full of facts and devoid of opinion.

If you had read my posts--you didn't, naturally--you'd see that that's not the case at all, but I want other perspectives.

The other students, however, probably are.

Why the hell is everyone on this forum so *********** hostile? The elitist, ***hole mentality on here is huge.


It sounds like your issue is that the opinion doesn't jibe with yours. Welcome to college.

Yeah, OK, a professor making a random passing comment about peoples' belief about the weather possibly influencing the weather, yeah, I guess I'm just a jerk disagreeing with those more knowledgeable than I am.


What "facts" from the book are you having trouble with?

That's the thing--I'm unsure of whether the "facts" in this book--actually, more broadly, the class, the book was a small part of the class--are trustworthy. I want someone who knows about this issue--someone who won't come in and blast me for "not agreeing with my professor"--to give me an informed opinion over this. I'm not going to dismiss everything out of hand, but... wait a minute, you didn't even read my post, I doubt you're going to read this one as well.

European/African worldviews, etc etc. I can't really clarify it all. Here, let me quote another passage from the "Black psychology" section:

In 1968 the Association of Black Psychologists (ABP) was founded in the midst of criticism of the American Psychological Association (APA) for its limited vision and conscious and unconscious support of the racist character of American society.

Statements like that...

Things mentioned also just seem like the whole "Black Studies", if this book characterizes it correct, to be bunk, complete nonsense. Another example in the Black Psychology section since it's open:

The concerns of Black psychology revolve around the development of a discipline which not only studies the behavior of Black persons, but seeks to transform them into self-conscious agents of their own mental, emotional, and social liberation. This is achieved through: 1) a severe critique and rejection of white psychology, in terms of its methodology, conclusions, and the ideological premises on which it rests; 2) provision of Afrocentric models of study, prevention and treatment; and 3) self-conscious intervention in the social struggle to achieve and insure conditions of well-being and wholeness for African persons and people and a context of maximum human freedom and human flourishing in the world.


So... what's wrong with so-called "white psychology...?

[madurobob]

So... what's wrong with so-called "white psychology...?
Google "eugenics" and you may get a clue about what much of this was about.

FWIW I agree that the course you are in sounds rather biased. But, only a fool would be surprised by this.* Would you be surprised to learn a lot about Buddhism in an "Eastern Cultures" class?

(*I don't think you're a fool. I think you knew just what you were getting yourself into and found exactly what you went looking for.)

[Zygar]

Why the hell is everyone on this forum so *********** hostile? The elitist, ***hole mentality on here is huge.

Not sure where you're coming from, there. I didn't see any hostility aimed at you. Just a search for why you're so worked up.

[JoeEllison]

The whole thing sounds like a lie to me... the OP as well as his fictional class.

[Dr. Fascism]

Good luck with that. If you insist on finding fact, you'll never get anywhere, because, in something as slippery as "Black Studies" (not even Black "History") all is opinion - fact is not to be found. Who promised you your political beliefs would be coddled? How are you going to create informed opinions if you don't know what your opponent is thinking? Minds at your age should not be capable of being "poisoned".

On what grounds do you say "Black Studies" is supposed to be mere opinion? You're talking out of your ass.

Maybe poisoned was the wrong word. Unsure of whether to trust what I'm told. I initially thought skepticism was questioning and investigating things to see if they hold up, which is what I'm doing. Maybe I came to the wrong place for that.


You're having trouble finding stuff in the book which you can disagree with? You give new meaning to the copout about not being able to define art, but knowing what it is when you see it. If you went looking for validation of your conservative beliefs, I'm afraid you are looking in the wrong pew. You need to go find a course on Calvinist/Puritan history; that'll better support your feelings. Careful of that work ethic.

Ah, so the left-wingers are already getting all militant! I thank you for putting words in my mouth; I didn't say I had trouble finding things I disagree with so much as it is rather difficult to point to one entire thing and say "AH-HA! BIAS!", or what I'm more concerned about and hoping someone who isn't an ass to come around and provide me information on this instead of bullying.

Actually, I don't think professors should be injecting blatant political bias in the classrooms, left or right. I didn't come to hear a speech by Noam Chomsky. At least, partially not, though part of the reason I did take the class was to see if the stereotypes were true. Looks like a lot of them were.

Additionally, if the class is going to indoctrinate people into a political belief then it should not be under the guise of "cultural diversity".

If it helps, the whole African/European worldview seems to basically be an attack on the individualistic, capitalistic, "cold hard empiricism" western viewpoint. The African worldview is more "holistic", to quote a part of a handout that I have here that I kept, "Epistemology: knowledge comes through what is seen and unseen; self-knowledge; symbolic imagery and rhythm." If the scholarship of Black studies is based on this "African worldview" (and essentially that is what I was taught in that class) then I can only wonder what academic standards they hold themselves to!


Think deeply about why you are going to college. If it is disagreeable to you to have your mind forced to stretch in odd directions, then you may not be in the optimal spot to promote your life's enjoyment.

Basically, I disagree with the idea that professors should be normative and generally apolitical and instead should merely present information.

I've heard professors voice opinions I disagree with and thought silly (and later laughed about) but at least they didn't base their subject matter around their beliefs, at least, not to the extent seemingly done here, which seems to be more "suggesting" more than "informing", in many ways.

I have an opinion but I'm here to see if I'm wrong, and you're laying down not-so-subtle insults. I think it'd be pretty great if you were more polite, but... I may have hit a sore spot on your own political leanings... for that, I guess I apologize.

[Dr. Fascism]

The whole thing sounds like a lie to me... the OP as well as his fictional class.

You're right, I did not take a class that had a test question asking me if Taco Bell's use of the Taco Bell dog and using Spanish words was racist.

But I guess college tests grades in classes that are essentially required (alternatives exist, but they're mostly other "* Studies") should be based on politics and highly contentious issues.

:rolleyes:

Also, since you're willing to go the conspiracy theory route, Bush did 9/11, right? I have to laugh reading this because I'm quoting my own damn textbook and you're trying to tell people I'm lying for who knows what reason.

[Dr. Fascism]

Google "eugenics" and you may get a clue about what much of this was about.

I don't quite think that's what they are talking about. I don't recall the APA ever advocating eugenics, and I'm pretty sure that the eugenics movement was pretty much dead by that time anyway.


FWIW I agree that the course you are in sounds rather biased. But, only a fool would be surprised by this.* Would you be surprised to learn a lot about Buddhism in an "Eastern Cultures" class?


No, but I would be if the instructor tried to sell us on Buddhism ever day.


(*I don't think you're a fool. I think you knew just what you were getting yourself into and found exactly what you went looking for.)

Yes, but what is the bull and what isn't? Take a look at the skepdic entry; and see why I am here.

[Dr. Fascism]

Let me ask again: What scholarship is this so-called "European worldview" based on, and why haven't I heard of it before? And it just-so happens to be the opposite of this "African worldview", which is a bunch of nice things like "communalistic, matriarchal, holistic,etc".

I read The Skeptic's Dictionary entry on this and most of it seems to mesh with how I perceived the class. Do you have an issue with that, too? Or are you just here for some sadistic mental masturbation?

I suppose we should also teach creationism in college, because hey, not everyone agrees, and students shouldn't expect their beliefs to just be coddled.

[Dr. Fascism]

http://www.skepdic.com/afrocent.html

There's criticisms, but that's a little light, and there's books on the subject that I don't have immediate access to. I came here to see if anyone knew more but instead I was attacked for not appreciating political and social ideology being shoved down my throat. I suppose I made the mistake of being skeptical instead of eagerly embracing something I was suspicious of. How horrible of me to ask for other people familiar with this on the matter--instead of I get left-wingers skimming my posts bashing me for appreciating being suggested political beliefs--not matters of fact, but normative statements. I guess objectivity is out the window these days.

[LostAngeles]

Let me ask again: What scholarship is this so-called "European worldview" based on, and why haven't I heard of it before? And it just-so happens to be the opposite of this "African worldview", which is a bunch of nice things like "communalistic, matriarchal, holistic,etc".

I read The Skeptic's Dictionary entry on this and most of it seems to mesh with how I perceived the class. Do you have an issue with that, too? Or are you just here for some sadistic mental masturbation?

I suppose we should also teach creationism in college, because hey, not everyone agrees, and students shouldn't expect their beliefs to just be coddled.

I'm reading the new and expanded edition of Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong. There's very good passages in there on how racism basically developed. You can read appalling quotes in there from Christopher Columbus, Woodrow Wilson, Congressmen, segregationists, philosophers, and others on how low those with darker skin are. All men are created free, except for those who aren't. That was the American and European worldview for a while.

We got better and then we ********** it all up and we're starting to get better again.

Africa is more diverse than Europe is. You have sub-Saharan blacks, the !Kung, and Pygmies, three out of the five core groups of humans (Asian and Caucasian being the other two. It is acknowledged that the majority of the human population is a mix of these groups. See Guns, Germs, and Steel for more.) Whatever an, "African worldview," is would probably vary depending on who you asked. I doubt the Zulu would agree with the !Kung would agree with the Hutsi. On the other hand, Europe occupies a smaller space and shares a core religion. Ideas travel easier and the cultural exchange is faster. As another example, consider China, which became a nation about 6,000 years ago.

So, this bleeding-heart, multi-racial liberal utterly agrees with you that Afrocentrism isn't much better than Eurocentrism, because well, ********. It's one thing to teach about Africa and the cultures that were and are and look at what influence they maintain today in the black community, to talk about the empires and complex societies that did exist in Africa that aren't discussed in most schools, to consider where this country has failed and succeeded when dealing with matters of race, and an entire other thing to attempt to just lift your people up by talking about HOW AWESOME THEY ARE.

[Dr. Fascism]

I agree that Afrocentrism is all about reversing the bias of the world and pointing the finger of blame at Europeans. I can't really blame them considering what Europe did to Africa in the Age of Imperialism.

That's kind of silly.


Anyway, my opinion on this class is that you should give it a chance and see how it goes. It's not going to do you any good to get all militant. That will just cause people to get defensive and ignore your opinions. But if you carefully point out some flaws as you go, I think those in the class who actually are listening will realize that you've got a point.

Madurobob agreed with you.

What's revealing is that it shows both of you didn't even read the very first sentence of my initial post.

I never spoke up in class because I was afraid of offering the "wrong opinion" and having the instructor get angry. In all honesty, if the class is teaching a political viewpoint, not agreeing with that bias can probably have a big impact on your grade!

[LostAngeles]

That's kind of silly.



Madurobob agreed with you.

What's revealing is that it shows both of you didn't even read the very first sentence of my initial post.

I never spoke up in class because I was afraid of offering the "wrong opinion" and having the instructor get angry. In all honesty, if the class is teaching a political viewpoint, not agreeing with that bias can probably have a big impact on your grade!

Which is why your campus probably has an ombudsman. This is what they are for. If you legitimately did the work, even though you disagreed with the political viewpoint and completed the assignments as asked, then you deserve a grade based on your scholarship. If you have done all that and you think your poor grade is the result of politics, then you get your ass down to the ombudsman and the department and you have them serve you an ass.

[Dr. Fascism]

Which is why your campus probably has an ombudsman. This is what they are for. If you legitimately did the work, even though you disagreed with the political viewpoint and completed the assignments as asked, then you deserve a grade based on your scholarship. If you have done all that and you think your poor grade is the result of politics, then you get your ass down to the ombudsman and the department and you have them serve you an ass.

I'm not the type to place faith in that, too. I just keep my opinions to myself when possible in these situations.

Oh, and I truly am being sincere. I have a story about this, as back when I started taking the class, I was quoting some of the going-ons of it on a message board somewhere else (no longer able to retrieve those posts, and unable to remember much in them, but there was more interesting stuff there...).

Someone spoke up and said that they went to the same university I did some years ago (a surprise given that it's not a big-name university, but they knew the university...), and they (the guy had friends in the class, I guess) constantly voiced disagreement in their Black Studies course, and ended up being failed despite doing the work and such as you said. They went to the dean, and according to him, they got their A's and the professor "mysteriously" disappeared (fired, obviously). That's the gist of it, anyway, as I remember...

Hearing hijinks like that certainly compounds suspicion, don't you think? Also, the instructors I think have a fair amount of leeway over how they can grade essay assignments, and in truth I don't deal well with authority (no, not rebellious--shy).

Forgive me for having a great deal of difficulty trusting subject matter when ideology fuels it. I don't even trust a lot of the arguments I hear that validate my own political beliefs and so on so I'm not just whining over a simple disagreement.

I haven't even brought up the quality of the actual teaching in this class; a lot of my peers have expressed negative things about how she teaches (like getting angry when nobody volunteers to answer one of her questions). But that's not what I'm discussing.

[slingblade]

You think there's strife about a class called "Black Studies," try telling people you took a class called "White Identities." My ears are still ringing.

Those who are telling you college is "like that" are right. As a skeptic, the first big favor you can do yourself is realize the whole idea of college is pretty much a farce as far as expectations go. I heard of a professor at my school who would fail you if you disagreed with her, would make your time in her class utter hell if you dared to bring your own brain into the room. If your papers reflected your own opinion or scholarship and not hers...F. If your discussions didn't go along her lines of thinking...F. And yes, she got away with it. I never took her class, so I can't say how, but my classmates said the biggest thing you learned in it was how to kiss her butt and parrot her line.

I did have one prof whose first day of class speech was this:

If you are a man, and you are as smart as me, you'll get a B.
If you are a man, and you are smarter than me, you'll get an A.
And if you are a woman, and work your ass off, you might get a C.

I got a B. I was an object of wonder and amazement that semester, as in 40 years of teaching, the number of B's that man gave to women could be counted on one hand. Oh, and he made us write 144 essays, but graded only about 20 or 25 of them. Since you never knew which essays he would ask for at the end of the chapter, you had to do them all, but you only turned in maybe 4 to 9 of them. The rest, he never saw.

Professors develop favorite texts and have their own pet points of view like anyone else. Sometimes, they are not right, and not even wrong. Yes, you should be checking out what you're told, especially if it sets off your BS meter.

However, getting angry won't help, the others are very right about that. It sets up an immediate wall that your reason will come too late to ever breach. If you haven't done so yet, google your subject and see how it's being taught in other schools. You can often find class syllabi from other colleges online, and can compare and constrast the texts used, the topics to be covered, and even some sample tests or quizzes.

Start looking at some of the footnote sources from your text, and see what the entire article or essay actually said, what commentary was made about it, and what further sources are recommended. Then read those, too. Or at least scan them.

Check out what you're being told, but don't bother getting angry. In a college setting, it can sometimes be like teaching a pig to sing: it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

[Dr. Fascism]

Here's another:


Certainly, capitalism, racism, and sexism shape our relationships, but they are systems created by humans and they can be changed and rebuilt by humans.


Ah yes, that capitalism, brother to racism and sister to sexism. Very good form for a college textbook.

[LostAngeles]

I'm not the type to place faith in that, too. I just keep my opinions to myself when possible in these situations.

Oh, and I truly am being sincere. I have a story about this, as back when I started taking the class, I was quoting some of the going-ons of it on a message board somewhere else (no longer able to retrieve those posts, and unable to remember much in them, but there was more interesting stuff there...).

Someone spoke up and said that they went to the same university I did some years ago (a surprise given that it's not a big-name university, but they knew the university...), and they (the guy had friends in the class, I guess) constantly voiced disagreement in their Black Studies course, and ended up being failed despite doing the work and such as you said. They went to the dean, and according to him, they got their A's and the professor "mysteriously" disappeared (fired, obviously). That's the gist of it, anyway, as I remember...

Hearing hijinks like that certainly compounds suspicion, don't you think? Also, the instructors I think have a fair amount of leeway over how they can grade essay assignments, and in truth I don't deal well with authority (no, not rebellious--shy).

Forgive me for having a great deal of difficulty trusting subject matter when ideology fuels it. I don't even trust a lot of the arguments I hear that validate my own political beliefs and so on so I'm not just whining over a simple disagreement.

I haven't even brought up the quality of the actual teaching in this class; a lot of my peers have expressed negative things about how she teaches (like getting angry when nobody volunteers to answer one of her questions). But that's not what I'm discussing.

Yes, and the reason they do that is because if they don't, you can get a lawyer and have the school's ass.

Maybe I'm in the wrong department, but all the horror stories of college have not happened to me. My professors are interested in my succeeding. They make themselves very available. Some have promoted the undergraduate research programs. Grading turn-arounds are pretty good. They're firm, but can accommodate as needed. Most of my nightmares are workload and administrative in nature, but the latter works better when I go to my department, generally.

[LostAngeles]

Here's another:



Ah yes, that capitalism, brother to racism and sister to sexism. Very good form for a college textbook.

Capitalism does shape our relationships (DeBeers anyone?) but like religion and communism and science, it's a human tool which can be wielded for good or ill. No more, no less.

[slingblade]

Here's another:



Ah yes, that capitalism, brother to racism and sister to sexism. Very good form for a college textbook.

Actually, that's not untrue. Class, gender, and race are inextricably intertwined. They are not discreet entities that only bump uglies once in a blue moon.

You're starting to sound, and I don't mean this harshly, like a black-and-white thinker (no pun intended, srsly. ;)). College will teach you that the world and its human systems are largely grey areas, with few absolutes. This is a very good and handy thing to learn, and makes your mind more flexible, your thoughts broader and deeper.

[Dr. Fascism]

slingblade--that's the very assumption my posts are made off of. I'm not stupid.

I just was hoping to hear... other opinions (besides the patronizing) with people that may know something about this, since I can't find any other critical information on this "subject area"...just a few things which confirm and fueled my suspicions here and there. It seems to be one of those things that people avoid criticizing--after all, you disagree with something called "Black Studies"? You must be a racist, right?

But PLEASE read my posts. I said I am finishing up my class. I never said I was angry.. or rather, that I acted angry or such. Maybe both disgusted and amused at the same time. But not really "angry".

If you need to know, I expect to get a "B" in this class.

[slingblade]

slingblade--that's the very assumption my posts are made off of. I'm not stupid.

Never said you were, never thought you were. Sorry for trying to help and doing it so poorly.

[Dr. Fascism]

Actually, that's not untrue. Class, gender, and race are inextricably intertwined. They are not discreet entities that only bump uglies once in a blue moon.

You're starting to sound, and I don't mean this harshly, like a black-and-white thinker (no pun intended, srsly. ;)). College will teach you that the world and its human systems are largely grey areas, with few absolutes. This is a very good and handy thing to learn, and makes your mind more flexible, your thoughts broader and deeper.

Oh please. You're starting to sound like a villain out of an Ayn Rand (no, I'm not a fan) novel.

But seriously, yes, class, gender, and race are intertwined, but so are a lot of many other things--intelligence, good looks, health, and so on.

The point of what I was quoting was the obvious implication that capitalism is akin to racism and sexism. Silly Marxist tripe.

And your comment about me thinking in black-and-white terms is completely unsubstantiated, and I think you're really just trying to sell me a pill I don't want to swallow.

Also, I'd appreciate that I not be patronized just because I'm a college undergraduate. I know what college is about. I'm smarter than most of my peers who don't know how to question their damn instructors. I'm thoroughly insulted that I came here asking for real thoughts on the subject and if there's things I should know about it in particular, instead I'm being lectured like a 6 year old being told not to trust strangers that promise candy.

What are my concerns? That the vast majority of things I've seen taught is bogus nonsense fueled by racial and political ideology. Basically, I came in here asking for "more info" on the subject in general and instead it's assumed I'm an idiot, by people who didn't even read the damn first sentence of my initial post. Thanks for the warm reception, guys.

Is looking down on people typical of the "skeptic" movement, or just here? I don't post very often but when I lurk some of the hostility and arrogance here is amazing.

[slingblade]

Oh please. You're starting to sound like a villain out of an Ayn Rand (no, I'm not a fan) novel.

Am I? How so? I don't read Rand.

But seriously, yes, class, gender, and race are intertwined, but so are a lot of many other things--intelligence, good looks, health, and so on.

Yes, they are. You'd be amazed at how many people don't even consider that, much less know it.

The point of what I was quoting was the obvious implication that capitalism is akin to racism and sexism. Silly Marxist tripe.

Well, if I had to guess, this is your problem: you read things into text that aren't there. Point out the word "akin" in that sentence:

"Certainly, capitalism, racism, and sexism shape our relationships, but they are systems created by humans and they can be changed and rebuilt by humans."

I don't see it, and neither do you. You assumed it. Closed-mindedly.

Just because one can see problems with capitalism doesn't make him a Marxist or even a Socialist. It means only that he can see this system has flaws.

And your comment about me thinking in black-and-white terms is completely unsubstantiated,

It might be. I'll read more of what and how you write to see if my opinion has any substance.

and I think you're really just trying to sell me a pill I don't want to swallow.

What pill would that be?

Also, I'd appreciate that I not be patronized just because I'm a college undergraduate.

I'm not patronizing you for being something I was just two years ago, thanks. I was trying to help you, but I won't be making that mistake with you again. My Ed, you're pretty rude.


I know what college is about. I'm smarter than most of my peers who don't know how to question their damn instructors. I'm thoroughly insulted that I came here asking for real thoughts on the subject and if there's things I should know about it in particular, instead I'm being lectured like a 6 year old being told not to trust strangers that promise candy.

And not at all full of yourself, either.

What are my concerns? That the vast majority of things I've seen taught is bogus nonsense fueled by racial and political ideology

"Seen" taught? The passivity of construction here is a great indicator that you expect learning to be something that's done to you, not something you have to do yourself.

Basically, I came in here asking for "more info" on the subject in general and instead it's assumed I'm an idiot, by people who didn't even read the damn first sentence of my initial post.

I know what time of year it is. I know it's finals, thanks. What the fark does the fact that you came asking for "more info" after the class is done, have to do with what you were taught? And I NEVER ASSUMED YOU WERE AN IDIOT. I still don't.

Thanks for the warm reception, guys.

Up until your final post to me, I wasn't at all hostile to you. I was empathetic, having just gone through the same thing myself. And you are one very angry person--it's literally written all over your writing. I'd appreciate it if you'd back off me, bud, k?

Is looking down on people typical of the "skeptic" movement, or just here? I don't post very often but when I lurk some of the hostility and arrogance here is amazing.

You found your way in. One assumes you can find your way out if we're so unpleasant.

I can't tell you if what you're being taught is codswallop, largely because I wasn't in the class, didn't get the notes, and haven't read your text. What, you want me to pull answers out of my butt for you on something I haven't read?

You, sir, have already made up your mind that your course was bollocks, and you didn't come here for more info at all, but for agreement. Now you're pissed because you haven't gotten it. But I really resent the way you've portrayed me; you're so wrong it isn't funny.

Ah, well. No good deed goes unpunished.

[Dr. Fascism]

Oh, a book that I should check out is here:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0195095715/roberttoddcarrolA/
Something for summer reading.

I know I'm having trouble clarifying what I think; finals are coming up work is due and my mind is a little occupied elsewhere, though I had my mind on it so I decided to make this topic now.

Here's a quote that basically sums up what I feel:

Afrocentrism, however, attributes racial differences to biology, ascribing all virtues to blacks and all vices to whites

The "attributes racial differences to biology" is probably the biggest highlight. It was not really outright stated but taken more of an implicit premise in this class--sad, because most of the students going in probably think that "race doesn't exist" and aren't aware of this fact.

You have to understand that the teaching in this course was so sub-par that I don't have a concrete understanding of anything. Mostly we just read a bunch of politically-charged writings by a few authors the entire, then flew by the last few weeks with student presentations on parts of the book. Terrible format. Not much committed to memory, but a lot of stuff suspect.

Here's an article I found using completely different search terms. Rather interesting:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,164121,00.html

The science essay is a strange, error-filled melange of pseudoscience, the Egyptian religion Ma'at and other fanciful ideas, written by Hunter Adams, a former environmental technician at Argonne National Laboratories in Illinois. Yet despite the essay's bizarre claims, it has been accepted not only by Afrocentric extremists but also by apparently scientifically illiterate school boards.

This is more in-line with what I was talking about!

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=afrocentrism.php

Some of this stuff looks like things I have seen, including by authors such as Diop, particularly the whole Egypt dominated by blacks thing. I remember some of our readings mentioning "mystery religions", and such. But some of the more extreme stuff, I have did not see.

So, I'm uncertain--what is the crap? What isn't? I was hoping someone familiar with Karenga in particular (he was the guy that invented Kwanzaa, after all, hardly an unknown figure) could shed some light on things.

[slingblade]

From that Time article you linked:

Basing their beliefs largely on a speculative scientific paper published in 1983 by Dr. Frank Barr, a San Francisco physician, the melanists assert that blacks -- who indeed have more of the skin pigment than other races -- possess superior and supernatural traits that can be ascribed to the magical qualities of neuromelanin, a little-studied substance in the brain.

If this is what you were being taught, I'd have to say that based on that article you were being taught crap. The fact that "supernatural" traits are assigned to "magical" melanin content would have set off every bell, whistle, and BS alarm I have.

[Wolfman]

Having just come to this thread, I'm appalled at the responses from some people here.

Dr. Fascist states that he is taking a class in which he believes some/much of the information may be wrong, but he does not personally know how to verify or disprove that information. He asks for peoples' suggestions in this regard -- he does not state anywhere that he is taking a specific stance on this, only that he does not understand it well enough to be able to respond reasonably.

Now, he could have had the same problem in any course. The question of why he is taking it is, as he stated, entirely irrelevant.

Then people seem to go running off making wild assumptions about what he "really means"...that he must have ulterior motives for joining such a class, or that his questions must mean he has some sort of racist agenda. Again, I see nothing in what he said here that justifies such a response.

My god (or lack thereof), people! This forum is supposed to be for education!!! Someone comes here, asking for help, requesting that others who may know more than him on the subject help him better understand what he is studying, and people use it as an opportunity to dump on him!

No, not everyone acted that way, and there are certainly some who made an effort to actually answer his questions, as opposed to the rest of the stupidity here.

Now, for myself, I'd recommend that if Dr. Facism wants to pursue this, and better understand the arguments on both sides of the debate, he might want to get the book "Not Out Of Africa", by Mary Lefkowitz, which addresses many of the false claims made by Afrocentric 'historians', and puts them in their proper historical perspective (for example, the claim that Aristotle stole his ideas from books written by Africans, and contained in the Alexandrian Library. She points out that by even the most liberal historical dating, Aristotle died before the library was even built). Oh, and I should mention here (for those skeptics who may think that this book is racist), that I learned about it when it was recommended by Michael Shermer in his book "Why People Believe Weird Things" -- that's the Michael Shermer who is founder of Skeptic magazine, and a featured speaker at this year's TAM. Having read excepts of it myself, I found it to be a remarkably balanced perspective, relying on verifiable historical texts (multiple texts where possible) to make its arguments.

[Hokulele]

Having just come to this thread, I'm appalled at the responses from some people here.

Dr. Fascist states that he is taking a class in which he believes some/much of the information may be wrong, but he does not personally know how to verify or disprove that information. He asks for peoples' suggestions in this regard -- he does not state anywhere that he is taking a specific stance on this, only that he does not understand it well enough to be able to respond reasonably.

Now, he could have had the same problem in any course. The question of why he is taking it is, as he stated, entirely irrelevant.

Then people seem to go running off making wild assumptions about what he "really means"...that he must have ulterior motives for joining such a class, or that his questions must mean he has some sort of racist agenda. Again, I see nothing in what he said here that justifies such a response.


Or, you could go and review Dr. Fascism's posting history before making rash assumptions as you have here.

ETA: Although I often post to threads on racism, there is a specific reason I am avoiding this one.

[Dr. Fascism]

Well, if I had to guess, this is your problem: you read things into text that aren't there. Point out the word "akin" in that sentence:

"Certainly, capitalism, racism, and sexism shape our relationships, but they are systems created by humans and they can be changed and rebuilt by humans."

I don't see it, and neither do you. You assumed it. Closed-mindedly.

Just because one can see problems with capitalism doesn't make him a Marxist or even a Socialist. It means only that he can see this system has flaws.


Oh, please. I'm sure he's just pointing out the flaws of capitalism just like he's pointing out that racism and sexism also have flaws. Wait a minute...

"It is important to repeat that any solution that evolves must be a collective and community-affirming solution, one that honors the moral demands of equality, mutual respect, and reciprocity. "

These quotes are coming from the area on "Black men/women" relationships; nonetheless, the whole "African worldview is collective, communitarian!", the references to Marx, and this stuff isn't painting a rosy picture. I think you're the closed-minded one, bub...


I'm not patronizing you for being something I was just two years ago, thanks. I was trying to help you, but I won't be making that mistake with you again. My Ed, you're pretty rude.

And then you patronize me with "oh, I was that way once" crap. Thanks. Gonna give me a pat on the head too?



"Seen" taught? The passivity of construction here is a great indicator that you expect learning to be something that's done to you, not something you have to do yourself.

Oh please.


I know what time of year it is. I know it's finals, thanks. What the fark does the fact that you came asking for "more info" after the class is done, have to do with what you were taught? And I NEVER ASSUMED YOU WERE AN IDIOT. I still don't.

"More info" because I suspect I was being fed crap? If didn't really go over a lot of the stuff until we used the book in the last month.


Up until your final post to me, I wasn't at all hostile to you. I was empathetic, having just gone through the same thing myself. And you are one very angry person--it's literally written all over your writing. I'd appreciate it if you'd back off me, bud, k?

Treating me like I'm an idiot that doesn't know how to think for myself isn't going to get you any points with me. The fact is, though, that I can't actually find many criticisms laid out, only very broad ones.


You found your way in. One assumes you can find your way out if we're so unpleasant.

I'm tempted, but maybe later, doing so now would only be giving you what you want :)


I can't tell you if what you're being taught is codswallop, largely because I wasn't in the class, didn't get the notes, and haven't read your text. What, you want me to pull answers out of my butt for you on something I haven't read?

How about, if you have no idea about the subject matter... don't respond? I don't need a crash course in not trusting everything a professor says, I'm well aware of how college works, thank you very much. What I wanted was essentially someone familiar with Afrocentric garbage to help me sort out nonsense or point to a resource to compare with material taught in the class


You, sir, have already made up your mind that your course was bollocks, and you didn't come here for more info at all, but for agreement. Now you're pissed because you haven't gotten it. But I really resent the way you've portrayed me; you're so wrong it isn't funny.

Ah, funny how once you get angry you say what you really feel. I wanted more information on the claims of Afrocentrism and criticisms to, y'know, educate myself (this is the James Randi EDUCATIONAL Foundation... right...?) and instead I have people like you clowning around pretending to contribute but instead just insulting my intelligence and telling me I'm wrong when I went through the *********** class and sat through that garbage. Then, I show a passage lumping capitalism with sexism and racism and you try to find silly, ridiculous ways to justify the statement--and then claiming you have no idea about any of this, because you don't have the text...!

No, no I'm quite right about you...

Do you really think I'm going to appreciate stuff like "You're a black and white thinker! Don't worry, college will fix you right up!" when not only is it presumptuous, but I've heard that a thousand times.

And then telling me about how some professors are egotistical idiots. Again, telling someone rather obvious things, things they've already seen, as if you're imparting some great wisdom isn't going to make you friends. This isn't exactly my first college course, you know. It feels like you're telling me to dress up and brush my teeth for a job interview as if I couldn't possibly have figured that out for myself. Advice can be insulting if it's obvious, especially since I already came here expressing skepticism...




Ah, well. No good deed goes unpunished.
That's a mighty small violin...

[Dr. Fascism]

Having just come to this thread, I'm appalled at the responses from some people here.

Dr. Fascist states that he is taking a class in which he believes some/much of the information may be wrong, but he does not personally know how to verify or disprove that information. He asks for peoples' suggestions in this regard -- he does not state anywhere that he is taking a specific stance on this, only that he does not understand it well enough to be able to respond reasonably.

Now, he could have had the same problem in any course. The question of why he is taking it is, as he stated, entirely irrelevant.

Then people seem to go running off making wild assumptions about what he "really means"...that he must have ulterior motives for joining such a class, or that his questions must mean he has some sort of racist agenda. Again, I see nothing in what he said here that justifies such a response.

My god (or lack thereof), people! This forum is supposed to be for education!!! Someone comes here, asking for help, requesting that others who may know more than him on the subject help him better understand what he is studying, and people use it as an opportunity to dump on him!

No, not everyone acted that way, and there are certainly some who made an effort to actually answer his questions, as opposed to the rest of the stupidity here.

Now, for myself, I'd recommend that if Dr. Facism wants to pursue this, and better understand the arguments on both sides of the debate, he might want to get the book "Not Out Of Africa", by Mary Lefkowitz, which addresses many of the false claims made by Afrocentric 'historians', and puts them in their proper historical perspective (for example, the claim that Aristotle stole his ideas from books written by Africans, and contained in the Alexandrian Library. She points out that by even the most liberal historical dating, Aristotle died before the library was even built). Oh, and I should mention here (for those skeptics who may think that this book is racist), that I learned about it when it was recommended by Michael Shermer in his book "Why People Believe Weird Things" -- that's the Michael Shermer who is founder of Skeptic magazine, and a featured speaker at this year's TAM. Having read excepts of it myself, I found it to be a remarkably balanced perspective, relying on verifiable historical texts (multiple texts where possible) to make its arguments.

THANK YOU.

[CFLarsen]

Now, for myself, I'd recommend that if Dr. Facism wants to pursue this, and better understand the arguments on both sides of the debate, he might want to get the book "Not Out Of Africa", by Mary Lefkowitz, which addresses many of the false claims made by Afrocentric 'historians', and puts them in their proper historical perspective (for example, the claim that Aristotle stole his ideas from books written by Africans, and contained in the Alexandrian Library. She points out that by even the most liberal historical dating, Aristotle died before the library was even built). Oh, and I should mention here (for those skeptics who may think that this book is racist), that I learned about it when it was recommended by Michael Shermer in his book "Why People Believe Weird Things" -- that's the Michael Shermer who is founder of Skeptic magazine, and a featured speaker at this year's TAM. Having read excepts of it myself, I found it to be a remarkably balanced perspective, relying on verifiable historical texts (multiple texts where possible) to make its arguments.

I strongly recommend Mary Lefkovitz' Not Out of Africa (http://www.historyplace.com/pointsofview/not-out.htm). Well researched, well written.

Afrocentrism is nothing but racist pseudo-history.

[Dr. Fascism]

Or, you could go and review Dr. Fascism's posting history before making rash assumptions as you have here.

ETA: Although I often post to threads on racism, there is a specific reason I am avoiding this one.

That thread has almost nothing to do with this one. I've been meaning to make this thread here for a long time; the other one was born out of something completely irrelevant.

Or do you mean I get angry? Obviously I do. Compare Wolfman's post with the rest, if he can get it, why can't the rest? Of course I'm going to be angry if people are suddenly jumping on me the way they have!

Wolfman, thanks once again. Seriously, no sarcasm, you get it perfectly. You're spot-on...

[Dr. Fascism]

Oh, another thing to clarify:

they use the term "afrocentrism" throughout the book, but they don't really bring up a lot of this pseudohistory, which is part of my confusion--same term, different meaning? Or do they not spring the insane stuff on you until you get deeper in, like Scientology?

The most I've seen is references to Ma'at, mystery religions, Egypt, etc. My instructor has also adopted a... new name, one of obvious Egyptian influence. Yeah, like Malcolm X, in a sense...

I can't really go through the whole book obviously, but it certainly seems to be strongly Black Nationalist-separatist-influenced nonsense (and no surprise, Karenga wrote it!) with an implicit pseudo-scientific concept of race.

Slingblade and others might think I'm reading too much into some stuff, but I'm taking into account everything I've seen from the classes' intructor, everything I know about the author, Karenga, the whole "African/European Worldviews" stuff (which I suspect is based on nonsense scholarship motivated by certain political, social, and racial ideologies).

You want a sample, here's one... the instructor basically said that Hillary Clinton is the essence of the "European worldview". You can interpret that how you want.

[Wolfman]

Or, you could go and review Dr. Fascism's posting history before making rash assumptions as you have here.

ETA: Although I often post to threads on racism, there is a specific reason I am avoiding this one.I'm aware of Dr. Fascism's history. And do not agree with some of the views he expresses.

However, I disagree fundamentally with attacks that are based more on personal dislike, and on carrying over arguments and prejudices from other discussions. Where he says things that we actually disagree with, then we should express our disagreement, and do so vocally.

So tell me -- where do you disagree with a request to discuss where we can find more accurate information regarding black history, especially as it relates to Afrocentric studies? I provided a response that allows for further, intelligent, reasonable discussion of the question -- all that pretty much everyone else has done is engage in personal attacks that accomplish nothing whatsoever.

May I suggest that, besides Dr. Fascism, there will be others reading this thread who may have similar questions. They may be blacks, who've been taught these things as 'fact'; they may be whites, who are trying to understand it, and to put Afrocentric claims into a more accurate historical context.

People who click on this thread are doing so because, presumably, they are interested in a discussion about Afrocentrism.

What has anyone here done to actually engage in or expand upon an intelligent, reasonable discussion of that issue? Pretty much nothing. Instead, if people click on the thread, they just get another batch of petty bickering and personal attacks between Dr. F, and those who dislike him.

Let me ask -- if people had responded by simply answering the question, and pointing out resources that discuss Afrocentrism in a systematic, scientific manner, what would the harm have been? None. What would the benefit have been? Well, anyone reading the thread would have been informed, and hopefully found new information. And, if after presenting that information, Dr. Fascism used it to promote ideas or beliefs with which we disagreed, we could do so based on the facts of his statements, not based simply on "we don't like you, regardless of what you say."

I believe firmly that those who claim to be 'superior' in terms of their beliefs likewise have a responsibility to be 'superior' in terms of how they treat and respond to others. By that standard, people in this thread have failed miserably. It could have been an interesting, insightful, intelligent, and informative thread about an issue that is an important issue.

There are people in these forums who dislike me. That's fine, I don't come here to coddle people, or try to make everyone like me. But if someone who dislikes me comes into a thread that I've started, and responds based purely on their dislike of me, rather than based on what I've actually said, it pisses me off. And it likewise pisses me off when people do the same thing to others.

[Hokulele]

I'm aware of Dr. Fascism's history. And do not agree with some of the views he expresses.


It has nothing to do with his views, but rather his past admittance of starting flash-paper threads to get people worked up (trolling), and the appearance that this was just more of the same.

In addition, looking at the first several posts in this thread, other than madurobob, it looked like people were trying to address the issue, but DF was more interested in generating conflict rather than discussing the matter. If people had simply discussed this around him, I wouldn't have any problems. If you had chosen to address the issue and not the other posters, I would not have said anything and let people draw their own conclusions.

If you would like me to link to examples, say the word.

[slingblade]

Oh, please. I'm sure he's just pointing out the flaws of capitalism just like he's pointing out that racism and sexism also have flaws. Wait a minute...

"It is important to repeat that any solution that evolves must be a collective and community-affirming solution, one that honors the moral demands of equality, mutual respect, and reciprocity. "

These quotes are coming from the area on "Black men/women" relationships; nonetheless, the whole "African worldview is collective, communitarian!", the references to Marx, and this stuff isn't painting a rosy picture. I think you're the closed-minded one, bub...

Further down, you give me crap for responding to a thread when I hadn't read the material you were asking about. I rather thought you were going to give us examples, show us some pertinent excerpts so we could get an idea of what you mean.

I wish you'd done it sooner. I wish you'd do it some more.


And then you patronize me with "oh, I was that way once" crap. Thanks. Gonna give me a pat on the head too?

No. I was trying to show you that because I have been where you are now, and recently, I understand your frustration. College can be a crazy place sometimes. That was all I meant to do. I apologize for making you feel patronized and coddled.


Treating me like I'm an idiot that doesn't know how to think for myself isn't going to get you any points with me. The fact is, though, that I can't actually find many criticisms laid out, only very broad ones.

I'm dead serious here: you're about to make me cry. How many times do I have to tell you I don't think you're an idiot? Do I need to flog myself or something to prove my sincerity?

I DON'T THINK YOU'RE AN IDIOT! I think you're frustrated, and being somewhat assumptive in a few areas, and have been pretty rude to me for no reason, so I finally responded in kind. Neither of us likes it so why don't we stop it, okay?

I'm tempted, but maybe later, doing so now would only be giving you what you want :)

What I want? What the hell do you think I want? You can't just drop off these snide comments and expect me to babysit them.

How about, if you have no idea about the subject matter... don't respond? I don't need a crash course in not trusting everything a professor says, I'm well aware of how college works, thank you very much. What I wanted was essentially someone familiar with Afrocentric garbage to help me sort out nonsense or point to a resource to compare with material taught in the class

Fine. Mea culpa.


Ah, funny how once you get angry you say what you really feel. I wanted more information on the claims of Afrocentrism and criticisms to, y'know, educate myself (this is the James Randi EDUCATIONAL Foundation... right...?) and instead I have people like you clowning around pretending to contribute but instead just insulting my intelligence and telling me I'm wrong when I went through the *********** class and sat through that garbage. Then, I show a passage lumping capitalism with sexism and racism and you try to find silly, ridiculous ways to justify the statement--and then claiming you have no idea about any of this, because you don't have the text...!

I rather thought you'd give some examples, or point us to an essay or two, as you finally did later on. I could have wished to see that sooner, and once I did, I told you that if that's what you've been learning about, it's crap. I agree. Melanin isn't magic, and people don't have supernatural powers because of it or for any other reason. I can easily agree with your frustration at crap like that. I just thought I'd see these examples from the off.

No, no I'm quite right about you...

Actually, neither of us is right about the other, I think. I know you've misjudged me. If I've done the same to you, I'll apologize and mean it faster than sweat stinks. I promise.

Do you really think I'm going to appreciate stuff like "You're a black and white thinker!

Only if you are one, and my comment starts you considering that. If you aren't and I'm wrong, blow it off. I've been wrong before. ;)

Don't worry, college will fix you right up!"

I didn't say that. If anything, I'd substitute "fix" for another word that starts with F and can't be said here. That's what college will really do to you, in my opinion. It certainly did me. :mad:

And then telling me about how some professors are egotistical idiots. Again, telling someone rather obvious things, things they've already seen, as if you're imparting some great wisdom isn't going to make you friends. This isn't exactly my first college course, you know. It feels like you're telling me to dress up and brush my teeth for a job interview as if I couldn't possibly have figured that out for myself. Advice can be insulting if it's obvious, especially since I already came here expressing skepticism...

Never meant to do any of that. I thought you were expressing frustration with how crazy some profs can be, and I was simply saying I know. Oh boy, do I know. That's all. Sometimes when you're frustrated, knowing someone else gets it can help.

That's a mighty small violin...

Sigh. Yeah, I know. Can I borrow yours? :p (honestly just joking with you.)

[LostAngeles]

I'm aware of Dr. Fascism's history. And do not agree with some of the views he expresses.

However, I disagree fundamentally with attacks that are based more on personal dislike, and on carrying over arguments and prejudices from other discussions. Where he says things that we actually disagree with, then we should express our disagreement, and do so vocally.

So tell me -- where do you disagree with a request to discuss where we can find more accurate information regarding black history, especially as it relates to Afrocentric studies? I provided a response that allows for further, intelligent, reasonable discussion of the question -- all that pretty much everyone else has done is engage in personal attacks that accomplish nothing whatsoever.

May I suggest that, besides Dr. Fascism, there will be others reading this thread who may have similar questions. They may be blacks, who've been taught these things as 'fact'; they may be whites, who are trying to understand it, and to put Afrocentric claims into a more accurate historical context.

People who click on this thread are doing so because, presumably, they are interested in a discussion about Afrocentrism.

What has anyone here done to actually engage in or expand upon an intelligent, reasonable discussion of that issue? Pretty much nothing. Instead, if people click on the thread, they just get another batch of petty bickering and personal attacks between Dr. F, and those who dislike him.

Let me ask -- if people had responded by simply answering the question, and pointing out resources that discuss Afrocentrism in a systematic, scientific manner, what would the harm have been? None. What would the benefit have been? Well, anyone reading the thread would have been informed, and hopefully found new information. And, if after presenting that information, Dr. Fascism used it to promote ideas or beliefs with which we disagreed, we could do so based on the facts of his statements, not based simply on "we don't like you, regardless of what you say."

I believe firmly that those who claim to be 'superior' in terms of their beliefs likewise have a responsibility to be 'superior' in terms of how they treat and respond to others. By that standard, people in this thread have failed miserably. It could have been an interesting, insightful, intelligent, and informative thread about an issue that is an important issue.

There are people in these forums who dislike me. That's fine, I don't come here to coddle people, or try to make everyone like me. But if someone who dislikes me comes into a thread that I've started, and responds based purely on their dislike of me, rather than based on what I've actually said, it pisses me off. And it likewise pisses me off when people do the same thing to others.

Excuse me, but if you would kindly go back and identify where in my initial response to this thread or in any other response to this thread along with slingblade's initial response to this thread where we have not attempted to, "engage in or expand upon an intelligent, reasonable discussion of that issue," I would really appreciate it because I thought I was making an attempt to engage in the discussion as to some of the motivations behind Afro-centrism, which is a perfectly valid point in discussing the matter.

Thanks.

[Dr. Fascism]

It has nothing to do with his views, but rather his past admittance of starting flash-paper threads to get people worked up (trolling), and the appearance that this was just more of the same.

In addition, looking at the first several posts in this thread, other than madurobob, it looked like people were trying to address the issue, but DF was more interested in generating conflict rather than discussing the matter. If people had simply discussed this around him, I wouldn't have any problems. If you had chosen to address the issue and not the other posters, I would not have said anything and let people draw their own conclusions.

If you would like me to link to examples, say the word.

Are you kidding me? People hadn't even read my first post! I said I was finishing up the class in the very first line, and a few people responded with "oh, so you're starting this class...?"

Yeah, I'm a real ace troll here, trolling over afrocentrism. Man, those skeptics are so going to be TROLLED when I say I suspect I may be being fed afrocentric crap in a Black Studies course.

....What?!

I don't appreciate you trying to psychoanalyze me. In fact, you're not contributing still. Why are you still here?

No, Wolfman is right on the money on this, and he is describing exactly what I think and feel. The responses were not helpful, and instead were insulting, patronizing, and second-guessing my motives--for asking for information I can't really find--look on Google, you'll find very little relevant things and almost nothing concrete or specific.

Hell, there aren't even very many books about this.

[Hokulele]

Uh huh (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3486088#post3486088).

[Dr. Fascism]

I rather thought you'd give some examples, or point us to an essay or two, as you finally did later on. I could have wished to see that sooner, and once I did, I told you that if that's what you've been learning about, it's crap. I agree. Melanin isn't magic, and people don't have supernatural powers because of it or for any other reason. I can easily agree with your frustration at crap like that. I just thought I'd see these examples from the off.

I was trying to paint a specific picture rather than find examples, because when you do, people try to find ways to misconstrue it to mean something it obviously doesn't to try to show that I'm wrong (when I'm not). You did that very thing with in the part that lumps capitalism in with sexism and racism--an obvious Marxist position to anyone familiar with Marxist philosophy, but to anyone else, pure hogwash as capitalism is in no way analogous to sexism or racism.

My emphasis was on this "African worldview" stuff, and the fact that the author was a Black Nationalist. It's not really that hard to draw conclusions.

Actually, let me quote something I sent wolfman in a PM...

The book I'm referring to goes through "Black sociology", "Black psychology", "Black economics", etc. Given that the author was a Black Panther and is strongly influenced by black nationalism, among other things I've seen, it's not a leap for me to interpret, I think, that there is the insinuation that "white psychology", "white economics", "white sociology" are racist fields based on the bad, negative, "European worldview".

In my opinion, all that truly exists is "sociology", "psychology", and so on. But again, given the black nationalist roots of the author I'm sure he disagrees.

I've been reluctant to quote specific parts because... well, look what happens when I have? The antagonists will just find a way to interpret it to mean something it could, but clearly doesn't.

OK, here's a choice bit I JUST found:

"Myers contrasts this African worldview to the Eurocentric worldview with the former representing an optimal psychology and the latter a suboptimal psychology. The latter is racist, sexist, materialist, and utterly unworkable. Its fatal flaw is the socialization of its adherents to seek the key values of life, i.e. self-worth, peace, happiness, etc. through externals. But the reality is "identity and self-worth are intrinsic" and peace and happiness are generated from within. This in turn requires self-realization of the spirit within."

I ask, is this really the case? Can you really just brush over "Europe" and Europeans and the various cultures with that? And the same goes for the broad-brushing of Africa and African cultures with a single "African worldview" that is quite strangely in almost complete opposition to a "European Worldview" that is portrayed as some sort of boogeyman philosophy.. I wanna know what it's based on. Pretty sure it's simply political Black Nationalist ideology...

Now, if only I could show the entire chapter on "Black psychology", it makes me wonder what the hell they think "psychology" is. Karenga brings up the "existentialists" as an example of "white psychology" somewhere; I don't think any more needs to be said...

[slingblade]

Oh, and just a note: I often read and post in threads on topics I don't yet know much or anything about. I'm learning from them. You've taught me a bit about a new topic tonight, and that's pretty cool.

If I stay only on familiar ground, I see only my own footprints.

[Dr. Fascism]

Uh huh (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3486088#post3486088).

Oh, you're an ace detective! Hokulele, forums investigator extraordinaire!

You do realize that that whole post was making fun of the quality of arguments on the Politics forum, right? Namely, taking political philosophies (and I am referring not to claims of fact but merely the base moral premises not able to be derived from nature) as a sign of whether someone is "skeptical" or not. I'll bring up Penn Jillette--no, I don't think he's the best the skeptical movement has, either, but I'd seen attacks on his skepticism based on his political beliefs on government. It would be like me saying Richard Dawkins isn't a proper skeptic because he's left-leaning. Or Christopher Hitchens, whom I'm no fan of, isn't a skeptic because of his views (or even his pro-Iraq war viewpoint). The fact is, most skeptics are left-leaning and yes, I'm not exactly in that camp, but I'm not going to bring up political beliefs as a litmus test for "proper" skepticism. I don't think they are any more or less skeptical because of that. Skepticism is apolitical, and some people have made comments thinking it isn't.

I'm glad I have good people like you to force me to defend myself over completely irrelevant topics whenever I post. Like an annoying puppy that won't go away--and one that enjoys taking a piss on your shoes.

[LostAngeles]

Are you kidding me? People hadn't even read my first post! I said I was finishing up the class in the very first line, and a few people responded with "oh, so you're starting this class...?"

Yeah, I'm a real ace troll here, trolling over afrocentrism. Man, those skeptics are so going to be TROLLED when I say I suspect I may be being fed afrocentric crap in a Black Studies course.

....What?!

I don't appreciate you trying to psychoanalyze me. In fact, you're not contributing still. Why are you still here?

No, Wolfman is right on the money on this, and he is describing exactly what I think and feel. The responses were not helpful, and instead were insulting, patronizing, and second-guessing my motives--for asking for information I can't really find--look on Google, you'll find very little relevant things and almost nothing concrete or specific.

Hell, there aren't even very many books about this.

Well, maybe you can answer where I was insulting, patronizing, and second-guessing your motives. In fact, anyone can answer that for me.

[slingblade]

I was trying to paint a specific picture rather than find examples, because when you do, people try to find ways to misconstrue it to mean something it obviously doesn't to try to show that I'm wrong (when I'm not). You did that very thing with in the part that lumps capitalism in with sexism and racism--an obvious Marxist position to anyone familiar with Marxist philosophy, but to anyone else, pure hogwash as capitalism is in no way analogous to sexism or racism.

I did it, because I don't agree. Capitalism has a lot to do with, and is in certain ways analagous to, racism and sexism.

Have you never experienced the power structure of capitalism? Never seen that he who has the most money makes at least some of the rules? In much the same way as he who has the least melanin and the most testosterone makes the rules?

They are connected, they have many similarities, and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with comparing those systems and seeing those connections. One informs the others. It's important we understand that, for a few reasons.

My emphasis was on this "African worldview" stuff, and the fact that the author was a Black Nationalist. It's not really that hard to draw conclusions.

Actually, let me quote something I sent wolfman in a PM...

Okay. Did you mean there, or in another post? 'S ok, I'll wait.

[CFLarsen]

Your link is a joke too. Eurocentrists believe in a 'distant impersonal god'? Then why is I'm always hearing about 'get closer to Jesus'?

It's not that wrong. There is a distinctive difference between Christianity in Europe and Christianity in the US. Where Christianity in Europe historically was centered around - and therefore controlled by - the Church (be it the Roman Catholic, or the various state churches), religious groups in the US was - and are - much more decentralized. You don't generally have these behemoth, all-encompassing churches.

Roughly speaking, in the US, there is nothing - or very little - standing between you and your God. It may go through your local preacher. In Europe, your way to God goes through the Big Church. It's not as dependent on the person preaching, as much as it is dependent on what the Church decrees.

As for getting closer to Jesus: Jesus isn't (necessarily) seen as God in Europe. He is much more the son of God, especially in the Protestant churches. So, you can get closer to Jesus without getting closer to God.

I know, I know: It makes little sense, but you don't really expect sense to enter the picture here, are you?

It's also funny that with all those Natural African Values that they aren't any more of a harmonious society than anywhere else in the world.

That's because they were stolen!

Well, that's the argument. I didn't say it was coherent, made sense or was true. :)

[Hokulele]

Oh, you're an ace detective! Hokulele, forums investigator extraordinaire!

You do realize that that whole post was making fun of the quality of arguments on the Politics forum, right? Namely, taking political philosophies (and I am referring not to claims of fact but merely the base moral premises not able to be derived from nature) as a sign of whether someone is "skeptical" or not. I'll bring up Penn Jillette--no, I don't think he's the best the skeptical movement has, either, but I'd seen attacks on his skepticism based on his political beliefs on government. It would be like me saying Richard Dawkins isn't a proper skeptic because he's left-leaning. Or Christopher Hitchens, whom I'm no fan of, isn't a skeptic because of his pro-Iraq war viewpoint. The fact is, most skeptics are left-leaning and yes, I'm not exactly in that camp, but I'm not going to bring up political beliefs as a litmus test for proper skepticism.

I'm glad I have good people like you to force me to defend myself over completely irrelevant topics whenever I post. Like an annoying puppy that won't go away--and one that enjoys taking a piss on your shoes.


Sure (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3129994#post3129994).

[Wolfman]

It has nothing to do with his views, but rather his past admittance of starting flash-paper threads to get people worked up (trolling), and the appearance that this was just more of the same.

In addition, looking at the first several posts in this thread, other than madurobob, it looked like people were trying to address the issue, but DF was more interested in generating conflict rather than discussing the matter. If people had simply discussed this around him, I wouldn't have any problems. If you had chosen to address the issue and not the other posters, I would not have said anything and let people draw their own conclusions.

If you would like me to link to examples, say the word.
First response:
Why are you taking an 'Intro to Black Studies' course?How does this address the issue, or how is it even relevant?

Second response, Madurobob's which you yourself say wasn't intended to answer the question.

Third and fourth responses, good.

Fifth response:
If you went looking for validation of your conservative beliefs, I'm afraid you are looking in the wrong pew. You need to go find a course on Calvinist/Puritan history; that'll better support your feelings. Careful of that work ethic.Sixth response...Madurobob again, just poking Dr. F with a stick, blatantly trying to provoke a response.

Up until this point, Dr. F's OP, and his single response, have neither been provocative, nor particularly inflammatory...certainly not as much so as some of the comments by others in the thread. Dr. F does not react negatively to either the third or fourth posts, which seek to answer his question and further the discussion...he responds negatively only to those who have already responded negatively to him. Which, quite frankly, is pretty much the same way I'd respond. His response to Complexity, while angry, is similar to how I'd tend to respond if I asked a question seeking information, and instead of trying to answer, the first response was to question my intent or motivations.

From there, it degenerates pretty damn quickly into personal arguments...but really, I don't see how this can be interpreted as Dr. F trying to incite anything.

Summary:

Dr. F. asks a question.

Out of the first six responses, four are negative, not seeking to answer the question being asked at all, and in most cases directly criticizing Dr. F.

Dr. F's rebuttals, where he gets negative are purely in response to those who did not answer his questions, but rather questioned his motives, and/or directly attacked him.

From there, things go directly downhill. To the point where the entire thread has been hopelessly derailed, and any real hope of a rational discussion is lost.

Had people responded by actually answering the question, and Dr. F had turned around and used their answers to try to start a flame war, I'd agree with you. But I cannot, by any rational examination, see that as a valid interpretation of what happened here. Rather, people poked and prodded him, cast insinuations, refused to answer his question...and then, when he responded angrily, he gets blamed for it?

This thread has pretty much become a waste of time and energy. No decent, informative results are going to come out of it. And while I cannot say for sure what Dr. F's motivations were, one way or another, I can state quite unequivocally that if his intent was to start a flame war, the other members played into it perfectly...and share fully any credit/blame for the results.

Perhaps someone would care to start a new thread on this subject; the topic itself is a worthwhile topic.

[LostAngeles]

****. I know I wasn't the third or the fourth response, but I would still love to know what I did wrong.

[Dr. Fascism]

Sure (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3129994#post3129994).

Similar motivations. I came out and said I was being sarcastic; ironically enough, I got PMs with people expressing sympathy to that idiotic garbage I wrote. It was not without good reason. So I'm sarcastic to make a point. Regardless, that was in NOVEMBER.

If I was trolling, you'd think I'd pick a better topic than being skeptical of possible Afrocentrism on a skeptic's board.

Of course, you know damn well that I was being serious in this topic. You've got some chip on your shoulder and you're just trying to destroy my topic and my credibility when it's completely irrelevent to get your jollies.

Can someone make a new topic since the people that have felt keen to destroy this one seem to have won out?

[slingblade]

From there, things go directly downhill. To the point where the entire thread has been hopelessly derailed, and any real hope of a rational discussion is lost.

Pish tosh. We can fix it. I'm trying to discuss it with him right now.

I haven't read his PM reply that he just edited in, or at least, I've only scanned it. I think there are a couple of areas in it where we agree, and a couple where we don't. If I can't discuss with him the parts we don't agree about without it getting nasty, then we can't have a discussion anyway.

Now let me go read that more carefully and frame a reply if I can. I'll try to behave. I promise I will.

[slingblade]

****. I know I wasn't the third or the fourth response, but I would still love to know what I did wrong.

Nothing that I can see. Your remarks were more pertinent and to the point than mine, and you were quite civil.

Come sit by me and we'll have tea and suspirations. :p

[Hokulele]

First response:

How does this address the issue, or how is it even relevant?


When you read the OP ("poisoning my mind", "left-wing something or other"), asking why someone is taking such a class is reasonable. If you just read the question as being neutral, it makes perfect sense. If the OP were serious about the topic, why not answer that question?

Are you sure you aren't bringing your issues with other posters into your reading of that post?

Second response, Madurobob's which you yourself say wasn't intended to answer the question.


Yep, agreed.

Third and fourth responses, good.


Yep, unfortunately they were not addressed.

Fifth response:


Sixth response...Madurobob again, just poking Dr. F with a stick, blatantly trying to provoke a response.

Up until this point, Dr. F's OP, and his single response, have neither been provocative, nor particularly inflammatory...certainly not as much so as some of the comments by others in the thread. Dr. F does not react negatively to either the third or fourth posts, which seek to answer his question and further the discussion...he responds negatively only to those who have already responded negatively to him. Which, quite frankly, is pretty much the same way I'd respond. His response to Complexity, while angry, is similar to how I'd tend to respond if I asked a question seeking information, and instead of trying to answer, the first response was to question my intent or motivations.


No, his OP was provocative. Read the language used there. I agree that the topic is interesting, and normally I do post to threads about racism of various stripes. To me, it looked too much like flamebait and as I mentioned earlier, I would have stayed out of it until drawn in by your first post.

From there, it degenerates pretty damn quickly into personal arguments...but really, I don't see how this can be interpreted as Dr. F trying to incite anything.


Read his responses to slingblade in context of her posts.

Summary:

Dr. F. asks a question.

Out of the first six responses, four are negative, not seeking to answer the question being asked at all, and in most cases directly criticizing Dr. F.

Dr. F's rebuttals, where he gets negative are purely in response to those who did not answer his questions, but rather questioned his motives, and/or directly attacked him.

From there, things go directly downhill. To the point where the entire thread has been hopelessly derailed, and any real hope of a rational discussion is lost.

Had people responded by actually answering the question, and Dr. F had turned around and used their answers to try to start a flame war, I'd agree with you. But I cannot, by any rational examination, see that as a valid interpretation of what happened here. Rather, people poked and prodded him, cast insinuations, refused to answer his question...and then, when he responded angrily, he gets blamed for it?


His angry responses were pretty much the only ones. It's a standard pattern judging by his other threads. I just don't like to see people who are seriously trying to hold a conversation such as LA and sling get crapped on for trying to help.

But hey, we can disagree on this.

This thread has pretty much become a waste of time and energy. No decent, informative results are going to come out of it. And while I cannot say for sure what Dr. F's motivations were, one way or another, I can state quite unequivocally that if his intent was to start a flame war, the other members played into it perfectly...and share fully any credit/blame for the results.


Yep, with a caveat. I would say that some posters tried to carry the conversation, many of them were ignored or were sent off on unrelated tangents.

Perhaps someone would care to start a new thread on this subject; the topic itself is a worthwhile topic.


Yes, I completely agree.

[Dr. Fascism]

When you read the OP ("poisoning my mind", "left-wing something or other"), asking why someone is taking such a class is reasonable. If you just read the question as being neutral, it makes perfect sense. If the OP were serious about the topic, why not answer that question?

I said that the whole "poinsoned mind" metaphor was bad. Regardless, the meaning is clear: I've been told things and I'm unsure of what is true and false.

The class was highly political, and I feel that's in terrible form because I believe classes should remain as objective as possible. It's not really easy to give ever example or to be able to write down anecdotes from memory. Besides,, it's not exactly unheard of to have an instructor that lets politics interfere with actual content...


Are you sure you aren't bringing your issues with other posters into your reading of that post?

And what about you? Table's turned.


Yep, unfortunately they were not addressed.

I thought I addressed one of them... I was going to reply to the other but forgot--it was basically agreement with me, though--I couldn't really add anything to it. I was hoping someone else would.


No, his OP was provocative. Read the language used there. I agree that the topic is interesting, and normally I do post to threads about racism of various stripes. To me, it looked too much like flamebait and as I mentioned earlier, I would have stayed out of it until drawn in by your first post.
Your dislike of me is causing you to read too much into my post.
Yes, you know my opinions. Great, okay, so I didn't like the ultra-left wing slant that was above and beyond objectivity. That doesn't change the rest of my post.


Read his responses to slingblade in context of her posts.
They were essentially non-replies, more lecturing me for no reason than an actual contribution to the topic, and then accusing me of misreading and misinterpreting things when I've sat through the class and have the book in front of me. I don't like being told I'm closed-minded and reading into things that aren't there when anyone familiar Marx and views on racism, capitalism, etc, would recognize it.


His angry responses were pretty much the only ones. It's a standard pattern judging by his other threads. I just don't like to see people who are seriously trying to hold a conversation such as LA and sling get crapped on for trying to help.

I had almost NOTHING to reply to!


Yep, with a caveat. I would say that some posters tried to carry the conversation, many of them were ignored or were sent off on unrelated tangents.


There was almost nothing relevant, and with slingblade, highly patronizing posts that I felt were pretty insulting. Seriously, go read them and tell me how you can NOT view them as overly patronizing, as if I'm some dumb kid that isn't away of how college works or how clownish some profs. can be? I'm not some naive chump and treating me like I am makes me pretty angry especially when this topic is about something ottally different.

[arthwollipot]

Wolfman, you know I respect you. But I think you're wrong in this matter. The first thing that struck me about this thread was DF's response to Complexity. Check it again:

Why are you taking an 'Intro to Black Studies' course?...why the holy hell does that matter? Unless you're going to make an actual point...This respose strikes be as a belligerent overreaction to a genuine question. I didn't see Complexity's question as other than legitimate, and as soon as the question was asked, DF's jaws came down.

I think that there's been vitriol on both sides - from DF and from others - but I think that the first shot was fired by DF.

[Dr. Fascism]

Wolfman, you know I respect you. But I think you're wrong in this matter. The first thing that struck me about this thread was DF's response to Complexity. Check it again:

This respose strikes be as a belligerent overreaction to a genuine question. I didn't see Complexity's question as other than legitimate, and as soon as the question was asked, DF's jaws came down.

I think that there's been vitriol on both sides - from DF and from others - but I think that the first shot was fired by DF.

Wolfman already addressed this--why the hell would you ask that question? It's second-guessing me and questioning my motives. If someone talked about their Bio 101 instructor talking about evolution being a fraud, would you ask, "Why are you taking Biology 101"?

I answered the question, nonetheless, although I should have ignored it. Of course, if I did, I'd have people banging me on around now for not answering an "innocuous" post like that (proving, of course, I'm some devious troll that uses skepticism as a means to troll SKEPTICS).

Lost Angeles, I totally missed your post there on page 1. I've gotten too riled up over people ************ up my topic...

I've missed enough sleep. Off for now.

[arthwollipot]

Wolfman already addressed this--why the hell would you ask that question? It's second-guessing me and questioning my motives.True, but the question was asked politely and without apparent malice. You overreacted.

Oh, and the replies to that more than confirmed my suspicions. Don't try to tell me it wasn't warranted, or you can't see what his insinuation was, because it's rather obvious.I agree, it was. That was why I said that there was vitriol on both sides.

I answered the question, nonetheless, although I should have ignored it. Of course, if I did, I'd have people banging me on around now for not answering an "innocuous" post like that (proving, of course, I'm some devious troll that uses skepticism as a means to troll SKEPTICS).Possibly. But if you'd remained polite and not lashed out in a defensive attack, perhaps you would have had answers to your questions earlier.

I will repeat - you are not the only one at fault. Others are too. But in my opinion you do bear some responsibility. And I disagree with Wolfman for being so completely supportive.

Has a new thread been created? I'd like to lurk there, if that's okay.

[slingblade]

The book I'm referring to goes through "Black sociology", "Black psychology", "Black economics", etc. Given that the author was a Black Panther and is strongly influenced by black nationalism, among other things I've seen, it's not a leap for me to interpret, I think, that there is the insinuation that "white psychology", "white economics", "white sociology" are racist fields based on the bad, negative, "European worldview".

In my opinion, all that truly exists is "sociology", "psychology", and so on. But again, given the black nationalist roots of the author I'm sure he disagrees.

I've been reluctant to quote specific parts because... well, look what happens when I have? The antagonists will just find a way to interpret it to mean something it could, but clearly doesn't.

I understand that, but these are emotionally charged issues and people have very strong opinions about them.

OK, here's a choice bit I JUST found:

"Myers contrasts this African worldview to the Eurocentric worldview with the former representing an optimal psychology and the latter a suboptimal psychology. The latter is racist, sexist, materialist, and utterly unworkable. Its fatal flaw is the socialization of its adherents to seek the key values of life, i.e. self-worth, peace, happiness, etc. through externals. But the reality is "identity and self-worth are intrinsic" and peace and happiness are generated from within. This in turn requires self-realization of the spirit within."

I ask, is this really the case? Can you really just brush over "Europe" and Europeans and the various cultures with that?

No, you can't. Not and do the topic justice. But I ask you to consider that there may be grains of truth in it: I do think, especially here in America, that we do tend to get our sense of self-worth from externals, from things and possessions and almost anything but our own individual worth. I think this author got that much of it right, as far as broad generalizations go.

Is the bit you quoted from your text, or from an analysis of your text? Nothing wrong with the latter, but can I see a bit of what your text author has to say, as well? Can I see his words, and not just someone else's assessment of his words? It would help me see his biases, and not just the biases of the critic.

And the same goes for the broad-brushing of Africa and African cultures with a single "African worldview" that is quite strangely in almost complete opposition to a "European Worldview" that is portrayed as some sort of boogeyman philosophy..

All right; as a skeptic and critical thinker, you know diametric opposites like these are often fallacious and flawed. I can't see, and think I agree with LA in this, the many and varied peoples of Africa all sharing exactly the same homogeneous "worldview."

And yet, I do seem to see a somewhat more homogeneous worldview arising from Europe and informing our current social structures in those nations that are either in Europe or which arose from it, like the U.S.

I know that I can say this largely because I know a lot about this European worldview, but admittedly not very much about an African one. I'm arguing a bit from ignorance. That's not good, I admit.

I wanna know what it's based on. Pretty sure it's simply political Black Nationalist ideology...

I can't say that you're entirely wrong, but I'd caution against thinking of it as "simply." These constructs are never simple, or sourced from only one point of view, one ideology alone.

Now, if only I could show the entire chapter on "Black psychology", it makes me wonder what the hell they think "psychology" is. Karenga brings up the "existentialists" as an example of "white psychology" somewhere; I don't think any more needs to be said...

I want to think it does, though. I am probably utterly wrong, but isn't existentialism as a philosophy a creation of European minds? What did anyone from Africa, or anyone non-white, have to do with the rise of this philosophy? How can it not, at least in some way, be indicative of white/European psychology?

[Hokulele]

There was almost nothing relevant, and with slingblade, highly patronizing posts that I felt were pretty insulting. Seriously, go read them and tell me how you can NOT view them as overly patronizing, as if I'm some dumb kid that isn't away of how college works or how clownish some profs. can be? I'm not some naive chump and treating me like I am makes me pretty angry especially when this topic is about something ottally different.


I did not see any of that in slingblade's post. When you mentioned you were upset by that, she apologized.

If you are really interested in this subject, how about answering LostAngeles' questions and addressing slingblade's post rather than bickering with arthwollipot and me.

I would be interested in seeing a thread on racism, and would be happy to put this aside should you or anyone choose to agree to respond only to the relevant points. A Moderated thread, maybe?

[arthwollipot]

If you are really interested in this subject, how about answering LostAngeles' questions and addressing slingblade's post rather than bickering with arthwollipot and me.To be fair, I did make a post that was not very flattering of him. He had the right to respond.

[Hokulele]

To be fair, I did make a post that was not very flattering of him. He had the right to respond.


Sure, I have made even more. But if he were here for the discussion and not the bickering, he could ignore us and focus on the important points.

Bah, whatever. Pass me the popcorn. ;)

[mrbaracuda]

Uh huh (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3486088#post3486088).

Yep. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3486100&postcount=4) Got to say though, starting a thread like that and expressing your thoughts in this way isn't the best way.

That said, it really seems you have a problem with authority and respect the people here too much. With the combined "I am shy and do not vent my frustration at the people I'm frustrated with" and resulting overreaction on zee Internetz!, I'd like to suggest getting back on topic! :D

You could also all relax a little!

s3Eu8wdH3zQ

It eases the mind. Did to mine while reading this thread anyway heh.

[MarkCorrigan]

The point of what I was quoting was the obvious implication that capitalism is akin to racism and sexism. Silly Marxist tripe.


You know, I used to find what people attributed to Marxism amusing.

Now it just annoys me. This is NOT a claim of Marx. In fact, Marx made very few claims. He gave a very basic description of why he thought capitalism was a bad thing and then he discussed how wonderful Communism would be. He never claimed capitalism engendered sexism or racism. If you can find evidence of where he did, please, quote it to me.

Marxism isn't a big bad ghoul in the cupboard waiting to snatch your children away and force them to act like Stalin. Stalin wasn't even a Marxist, he was a Stalinist. There have, in fact, been zero Marxist states in the world. No one knows what Marxism would do because no one has TRIED. Gah.

[/derail][/rant]

[The Painter]

Why the hell is everyone on this forum so *********** hostile? The elitist, ***hole mentality on here is huge.


This really sums it up. True words.

[ponderingturtle]

Africa is more diverse than Europe is. You have sub-Saharan blacks, the !Kung, and Pygmies, three out of the five core groups of humans (Asian and Caucasian being the other two. It is acknowledged that the majority of the human population is a mix of these groups. See Guns, Germs, and Steel for more.)

Is that really a prefered source? Has it been updated to include genetic evidence?

The main point is certainly true when examined geneticaly, but I am not sure if it works out quite that way geneticaly.

[madurobob]

First off, I apologize for my post #6 - the "poking you with a stick" post per Wolfman. I had been having an exactly similar discussion with DF in another thread and allowed that to drift into this thread. My bad.

Wolfman already addressed this--why the hell would you ask that question? It's second-guessing me and questioning my motives. If someone talked about their Bio 101 instructor talking about evolution being a fraud, would you ask, "Why are you taking Biology 101"?
You get very worked up about this but its a valid question. If you took the class because you where honestly interested in learning what the course abstract and syllabus outlined then thats one thing. If you took the class intending to disagree with everything taught and to be outraged, thats quite another. Understanding your reason for taking the class is key to understanding what you are upset about in your OP whether you like it or not.

Although you were upset by the question, you did answer it later: you signed up because of diversity requirements at your school. Fair enough.

Back in my college days we had no diversity requirement and I never considered taking any of the "Black Studies" courses offered. Mostly because I considered the simple existence of such a class as racist and divisive. I wish now I had taken at least one of those courses. I doubt my mind would have been changed, but I would have been better able to understand the opposite viewpoint.

Your OP said you thought the class textbook was BS, but you couldn't offer any excerpts or any debatable concepts from the book to substantiate this claim. Alarm bells go off.

On a self-proclaimed skeptical forum can you honestly blame people for questioning the motives behind an OP like that? You go on about typos and poor writing and made-up words that we're simply supposed to take your word on. Whats the point? Do the typos and poor writing make the information in the book wrong? You've slowly begun to offer some excerpts that can be debated, but its like pulling teeth. Why the huge chip on your shoulder?

I've read Guns, Germs & Steel. My father has Not out of Africa on his bookshelf and I'll pick it up this weekend (thanks for the recommendation, Wolfman). So, I'll join you on your quest for good information on this subject. Are you going to also take Wolfman's suggestion?

[arthwollipot]

This really sums it up. True words.Not in my experience. I find the posters here to be generally friendly and supportive. But then again, I stay out of CT. Hang out in Community more - that's where all the cool people are.

Is there another thread, or are we taking this one back to the topic? It's a topic I'm genuinely interested in learning more about.

[Beerina]

You're right, I did not take a class that had a test question asking me if Taco Bell's use of the Taco Bell dog and using Spanish words was racist.

What was the "correct" answer?


I'm reading the new and expanded edition of Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong. There's very good passages in there on how racism basically developed. You can read appalling quotes in there from Christopher Columbus, Woodrow Wilson, Congressmen, segregationists, philosophers, and others on how low those with darker skin are. All men are created free, except for those who aren't. That was the American and European worldview for a while.

For the longest time, if your tribe or city lost a battle with the neighbors, they killed most men and made slaves or concubines of everybody else. You were a slave because you lost, not because you were inferior. You were just transferred forcibly to the slave class.

With the growing realization that slavery was wrong, people who wanted slaves had to come up with a new reason than just "well, they lost the war" as a reason. Hence "they must be inferior", with it's attendant laws about not teaching slaves to help keep them stupid to help with the facade.

[Complexity]

If you had read my posts--you didn't, naturally--you'd see that that's not the case at all, but I want other perspectives.

The other students, however, probably are.

Why the hell is everyone on this forum so *********** hostile? The elitist, ***hole mentality on here is huge.


I first encountered you in the OP of this thread. I asked a reasonable question. Some others made reasonable comments. You went off the deep end.

I'm unimpressed with your name. 'Dr. Fascism' just doesn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy. I hope you'll outgrow it.


I used to teach computer science in a black catholic college. I've been exposed to enough intellectual garbage for a lifetime, including
blacks can't be racist
non-black (especially Asian) students shouldn't be allowed in the school because they make the black students look bad by getting good grades
non-black faculty shouldn't be allowed in the school because they're not worthy enough to teach the black students
non-black staff shouldn't be employed by the school because its mission is to educate black people
faculty should start to teach black versions of each academic field and stop suppressing knowledge of these black fields and their accomplishments
black mathematics must be taught instead of racist white mathematics
one must never criticize a student or his/her work because that may damage his/her self-esteem
one must teach much more slowly than one did at other schools but must never let the students know that this is being done
biology and chemistry faculty must teach to the Test (i.e. MCAT - medical school admissions test) to the exclusion of all else, even though very few will get admitted to medical school and the rest won't be qualified for anything, except on paper.In case you think I misinterpreted something I heard, 1 was heard everywhere; 2,3, 4, and 5 were presented forcefully and repeatedly by student leaders in an assembly that all faculty were required to attend; 1,2,5, and 6 were often heard from my advisees and students; 7 and 8 were instructions repeated more than once by my department chair directly to me; 9 was stated directly to me by the faculty member who had helped design the 'successful' pre-med program.

The mission of the school was admirable, but it was betrayed.

Much of the faculty was good, but it had been worn down and had, largely, given up.

Much of the administration had become corrupted and were enablers of the worst of what was happening in the university.

Two years at this place was more than enough. I left teaching because of my experiences there.

[Wildy]

You think there's strife about a class called "Black Studies," try telling people you took a class called "White Identities." My ears are still ringing.

"White Identities"???

What the hell is that?

I'm so glad that my humanities topics are really restricted...

[Complexity]

Wolfman already addressed this--why the hell would you ask that question? It's second-guessing me and questioning my motives. If someone talked about their Bio 101 instructor talking about evolution being a fraud, would you ask, "Why are you taking Biology 101"?


Wolfman and Dr. Fascism were both wrong in their responses. My question was valid, relevant, and unprovocative - I really wanted an answer.

Why did I ask the question? An answer to it would help me understand Dr. Fascism's reasons for taking the course, the expectations he had of it, and why he's had the reaction to it that he's had.

I asked because I wanted to know.

I knew nothing of Dr. Fascism, his background, his posting history, or his beliefs - nothing beyond what he put in the OP.

My feelings towards racism, <minority>-studies, diversity requirements, etc. are complicated. I think that the way things are handled are nearly always disasterously awful.

So, without regard for Dr. Fascism and Wolfman's opinions, I'll continue to participate in this thread, asking questions as I wish, and sharing what I will.

[madurobob]

I don't quite think that's what they are talking about. I don't recall the APA ever advocating eugenics, and I'm pretty sure that the eugenics movement was pretty much dead by that time anyway.
in 1997 the APA awarded one of the big names in eugenics, Ray Cattel, what amounted to a "lifetime achievement award". Cattel eventualy asked to have his name removed due to the knee-jerk reactions of folks aligning him with racist ideas. Eugenics is far from a dead subject.

But the point I was trying to make goes beyond eugenics; eugenics was simply an example. The point is that "white psychology" has done a lot to justify keeping the black US populace in a subservient position - in part due to the reasons Beerina points out. "white psychology" may have also done as much or more to do just the opposite, but "one bad apple spoils the bunch".

Do you deny that there has been institutional racism in the US and that various disciplines, psychology included, have been used to justify it? Can you really not see how the victims of this institutional racism might be a bit reluctant to embrace that which was used to discriminate against them?

[Complexity]

One further post on That School.

When I started teaching there, one of the math faculty took me aside and told me a joke:

"When you give them a review before an exam, they'll want to know what the questions will be and what the answers should be. Preferably, you'll give the questions and answers in the same order that you will ask them on the exam. In that case, you can leave off the questions."

I took this as a dark sign but didn't let it ruin my day.

When I started to give my first review for an exam, a student raised her hand and said, "Dr. X? This isn't the right kind of review." When I said that it was, that I was reviewing the material that would be covered by the exam and giving some broad hints, she replied, "No, that's not a review. A review is when you write on the board what questions will be on the exam and what the answers are." Heads nodded all around the room.

I was flabbergasted. After a moment, I said, "Well, that's not the way we're going to do things here. I won't give you the questions or the answers. I will help you learn the material." I then went on with the review, much to the dismay of the class.

I found this expectation for 'reviews' in the rest of my classes. I was regarded as a monster for not giving in to it.

[LostAngeles]

Nothing that I can see. Your remarks were more pertinent and to the point than mine, and you were quite civil.

Come sit by me and we'll have tea and suspirations. :p

Cool, I'll get the Chinese tea that looks suspiciously... Jamaican. (But it's tea. Honest.)

...

Lost Angeles, I totally missed your post there on page 1. I've gotten too riled up over people ************ up my topic...

I've missed enough sleep. Off for now.

It's cool. Sorry I was getting kind of pissy there for a bit. I have to take off due to a goddamned fire by Hollywood and Vine that's going to disrupt my route.

...

If you are really interested in this subject, how about answering LostAngeles' questions and addressing slingblade's post rather than bickering with arthwollipot and me.

...



Is that really a prefered source? Has it been updated to include genetic evidence?

The main point is certainly true when examined geneticaly, but I am not sure if it works out quite that way geneticaly.

I can't parse that last sentence.

...
For the longest time, if your tribe or city lost a battle with the neighbors, they killed most men and made slaves or concubines of everybody else. You were a slave because you lost, not because you were inferior. You were just transferred forcibly to the slave class.

With the growing realization that slavery was wrong, people who wanted slaves had to come up with a new reason than just "well, they lost the war" as a reason. Hence "they must be inferior", with it's attendant laws about not teaching slaves to help keep them stupid to help with the facade.

Actually, it was a bit more complicated than that. Is it ok if I address this later? My commute is about to suck and I just wanted you to know that I did see this though.

[quixotecoyote]

It's not that wrong. There is a distinctive difference between Christianity in Europe and Christianity in the US. Where Christianity in Europe historically was centered around - and therefore controlled by - the Church (be it the Roman Catholic, or the various state churches), religious groups in the US was - and are - much more decentralized. You don't generally have these behemoth, all-encompassing churches.

Roughly speaking, in the US, there is nothing - or very little - standing between you and your God. It may go through your local preacher. In Europe, your way to God goes through the Big Church. It's not as dependent on the person preaching, as much as it is dependent on what the Church decrees.

As for getting closer to Jesus: Jesus isn't (necessarily) seen as God in Europe. He is much more the son of God, especially in the Protestant churches. So, you can get closer to Jesus without getting closer to God.


You are correct. I was, how you say, Amerocentric?

[Tony]

I initially thought skepticism was questioning and investigating things to see if they hold up, which is what I'm doing. Maybe I came to the wrong place for that.


Don't get discouraged, this is a great place for skeptical viewpoints and opinions. Asking questions is ALWAYS good. I've learned a lot from coming to JREF.

However, there are some who react to skepticism of right/left wing orthodoxy with hostility. And then there are others who interpret questioning of certain religious ideas/groups and sensitive issues as inherently racist and bigoted. Ignore those people and learn what you can from the genuinely skeptical members.

[slingblade]

"White Identities"???

What the hell is that?

I'm so glad that my humanities topics are really restricted...

Nah, restrictions don't expose you to new things. And as mom always said, how do you know you don't like it until you try it? :)

This is a difficult class to encapsulate in a sentence or two, so my explanation won't do it justice. But I'll try.

It was a sociology class, and in essence, it explored racism and what it means to be white in modern society, especially insofar as race and racism is concerned. I found it quite eye-opening, and found it helped me understand racism much better.

Just a short for instance: I learned that black women in the '60s suffered quite an identity crisis betwen the Women's Movement and the Civil Rights Movement. If they wanted to fight for equal rights for women, they were given flak for not fighting only for civil rights. And in the Feminist camp, they felt as if they didn't belong, because many (most?) of those women were white and upper-class. It was as if they were told, "You can fight for civil rights or women's rights, but not both, even though you're a member of both groups."

It was a fascinating class, and I'm very glad I took it.

[Suddenly]

which is a bunch of nice things like "communalistic, matriarchal, holistic,etc".


Whoa.

Jedi Knight flashback.



A class that as advertised more or less as supplying a different viewpoint as to the assumptions that make up the values and norms a society goes by is probably going to, you know, clash with a more conventional viewpoint.

Those that are unable to appreciate a different viewpoint are going to obviously claim it is all gibberish. Yawn.

[dudalb]

I strongly recommend Mary Lefkovitz' Not Out of Africa (http://www.historyplace.com/pointsofview/not-out.htm). Well researched, well written.

Afrocentrism is nothing but racist pseudo-history.


I don't know about the racist, but I agree that Afrocentrism is crap history.
I particularly love their insistence about how the Ancient Egyptian ruling classes were black, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
I particularly like the "Cleopatra was black" routine.Hell,she was not even an Egyptian in ancestary. She was Greek.
Same with the "Hannibal was Black" crap. He was a Cathiginian.
"African" and "Black" are not the same thing.
What is scary to me is the number of people in this thread who are defending nonsense like this being taught as a "differing viewpoint". Why not teach the theory that the Sun revolves around the Earth in Astronomy as well since it is a differing viewpoint.
I really expected better from some of the people here. Political Correctness is woo.

[dudalb]

And it is amazing how many people will throw critical thinking out the window when it comes to a political ideology.

[WildCat]

What is scary to me is the number of people in this thread who are defending nonsense like this being taught as a "differing viewpoint". Why not teach the theory that the Sun revolves around the Earth in Astronomy as well since it is a differing viewpoint.
Exactly! As the saying goes, people are entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts.

I really expected better from some of the people here. Political Correctness is woo.
Same here. I have no problem with hearing different points of view, but teaching those points of view that are demonstrably nonsense as facts is very troublesome.

[fuelair]

So, I'm a college student that is finishing up my Intro to Black Studies course.

And my finely-tuned crap detectors have been telling me I've been fed political and racial ideology over the facts. Actually, I'm extremely certain of it; what is scary is that none of my peers seem to know that the class was essentially highly left-wing, perhaps racist indoctrination.

Our book? Karenga's Introduction to Black Studies (http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Black-Studies-Maulana-Karenga/dp/0943412234/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209521445&sr=8-1). Yes, the guy that invented Kwanzaa.

I want to sort the nonsense from fact, if there's anything of value to be gleaned from this class. I feel my mind may be poisoned and I'm hoping someone can help shed some light on this.

First of, the class blatantly speaks negatively of capitalism, individualism, and favors what I assume would be socialism and collectivism. If only I knew what to quote from the book to illustrate it...!?h Obviously, it seems to separate blacks from whites, Karenga's book going so far as to capitalize "Black" and keep "white" lowercase.

Here, we see talk of the "African" and "European" worldviews: http://www.edofolks.com/html/pub9.htm

This is essentially what was discussed in the very beginnings of the class and seems to be what much of this stuff is based on. I suspect this is complete and utter ideological hogwash based on political motivation and racist ideology. Unfortunately, I know very little about the actual developments of European and particularly African culture, but it seems to me that creating a false distinction and a grossly broad view of "European" and "African".

The book is filled with spelling errors and grammatical oddities. In one point, it mentions "bio-socialists", but I'm wondering if it means "sociobiologists" (anyone know???): ..."the bio-socialists who deny cultural differences..."; I am pretty sure there is no such thing as a bio-socialist and this surely either must be as terrible scholarship as I think it is, or I must be a very smart undergraduate student, for finding this (probable) error. I wish I could provide more examples but it's harder to find good single statements when the whole thing seems to be pure propaganda and nonsense at the very premises.

Afrocentrism I can find very little information about. The article on skepdic focuses mainly on the belief that Egyptians were "Black", or something. I'm coming here and hoping someone educated and knowledgeable about this subject can enlighten me over what I may have been told that's pure hogwash--it's really hard to sort fact from fiction in instances such as these.
Since I have not read the book, I cannot speak of it directly - and Kwanzaa is a perfectly reasonable idea based on any number of harvest celebrations. The only major problem with the form of Afrocentrism I have encountered in the past is that it overstates (a lot for some things) the importance of certain African contributions in the development of Western Civ - and sometimes acts/implies that there is a conspiracy to hide their true importance. However, unless known historical records are really wrong/very badly interpreted there is no real evidence of that. It's the equivalent of leaving out the War of Jenkins Ear when discussing the War of 1812 in an American History Class.

[fuelair]

Check out what you're being told, but don't bother getting angry. In a college setting, it can sometimes be like teaching a pig to sing: it wastes your time and annoys the pig.That's why the FSM invented barbecue!!!

My wife had profs like that. In classes we were both taking. I had to prove to her (by writing both our papers on occasion - always giving her the one that should get the higher grade) that some "educators" really did operate that way.

[Suddenly]

Same here. I have no problem with hearing different points of view, but teaching those points of view that are demonstrably nonsense as facts is very troublesome.


Which describes most American History as taught in U.S. public schools. It is likewise a political animal used for political purposes, although the problems with US history are more of a matter of omission and obfuscation than good old fashioned "making things up." Although that will pop up here or there in the textbooks to assist in the building of a strong historical mythology where the student is to develop an almost religious reverence for a collection of Great Leaders.. I mean founding fathers... whose influence is to reach through centuries of unimaginable change to determine our basic ideas of justice.

A lot of common factual claims associated with black studies type classes are, when all available evidence is weighed, extremely unlikely, and generally irrelevant to a serious study of history anyway. However, this is largely criticising the whole based on problems with the fringe. Black studies, as a sociological field concentrating on the processes inherent to the development of a historical record and cultural historical mythology and the effect of same as to present day society is one thing. 2AM dorm bull session quality discussions as to Socrates' skin color is quite another.

It is unfortunate that the latter dominates discussion of the matter, but this should probably be expected. There are always those that should know better that will let the ends determine the facts in an attempt to right the sociological effect of centuries of European bias in how we see the past... an attempt to right a wrong with another wrong.

[Hokulele]

Regarding the book in question, it has been many years since I read it, but from what I recall, it was mostly an attempt to redefine the black stereotype. Basically, there are three main ways to fight any negative stereotype: 1 - Act as a living counter-example and try to develop as many of these counter-examples as possible (W.E.B. DuBois, for example), 2 - Redefine and embrace a different stereotype (Karenga), or 3 - Embrace the stereotype, often in a defiant or mocking way (as can be seen in the gangsta culture). Of course, these aren't the only ways to do this, but they are the most common.

This can be done for any group, whether it is women, homosexuals, or yes, even white men. Which response to negative stereotyping is the "best"? Your guess is as good as mine.

[Professor Yaffle]

I don't know about the racist, but I agree that Afrocentrism is crap history.
I particularly love their insistence about how the Ancient Egyptian ruling classes were black, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
I particularly like the "Cleopatra was black" routine.Hell,she was not even an Egyptian in ancestary. She was Greek.
Same with the "Hannibal was Black" crap. He was a Cathiginian.
"African" and "Black" are not the same thing.
What is scary to me is the number of people in this thread who are defending nonsense like this being taught as a "differing viewpoint". Why not teach the theory that the Sun revolves around the Earth in Astronomy as well since it is a differing viewpoint.
I really expected better from some of the people here. Political Correctness is woo.

Shakespeare was black...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKYvDn095Ew

[WildCat]

Which describes most American History as taught in U.S. public schools. It is likewise a political animal used for political purposes, although the problems with US history are more of a matter of omission and obfuscation than good old fashioned "making things up." Although that will pop up here or there in the textbooks to assist in the building of a strong historical mythology where the student is to develop an almost religious reverence for a collection of Great Leaders.. I mean founding fathers... whose influence is to reach through centuries of unimaginable change to determine our basic ideas of justice.
I don't know about you, but i had very good history teachers in middle and high school. Problem is, in many places very little actual history is taught past the 9th or 10th grade, and much of that is rolled into "social studies" classes. The result is that most people have what is basically a 5th grade understanding of history, simplified and dumbed down.

A lot of common factual claims associated with black studies type classes are, when all available evidence is weighed, extremely unlikely, and generally irrelevant to a serious study of history anyway. However, this is largely criticising the whole based on problems with the fringe. Black studies, as a sociological field concentrating on the processes inherent to the development of a historical record and cultural historical mythology and the effect of same as to present day society is one thing.
Which is another problem! History, by definition, deals witht he written record. And there is very little written records of sub-Saharan Africa prior to 500 years ago or so, and much of that was written by Europeans. It's not so much that there's a conspiracy afoot to ignore that history, but the fact that it simply doesn't exist. History in the Middle East goes back 4,000 years or so, China and Egypt a little later, Greece a little later than that, and western Europe not until Roman times. That's really all there is to work with, beyond that all we have is archeology and handed-down myths and legends.

[LostAngeles]

...
For the longest time, if your tribe or city lost a battle with the neighbors, they killed most men and made slaves or concubines of everybody else. You were a slave because you lost, not because you were inferior. You were just transferred forcibly to the slave class.

With the growing realization that slavery was wrong, people who wanted slaves had to come up with a new reason than just "well, they lost the war" as a reason. Hence "they must be inferior", with it's attendant laws about not teaching slaves to help keep them stupid to help with the facade.

I'm sorry, I misread you this morning. As I was mentally prepping the post and still trying to get out the door, I realized you said precisely what I was going to say.

Nevermind. Getting back to my work now.

[Darth Rotor]

Let me ask again: What scholarship is this so-called "European worldview" based on, and why haven't I heard of it before? And it just-so happens to be the opposite of this "African worldview", which is a bunch of nice things like "communalistic, matriarchal, holistic,etc".

Afro woo seems to be of a certain character. A data point contra the "matriarchal" is the King of Swaziland, who is a polygamist.
The head of state is the king or Ngwenyama (lit. Lion), currently King Mswati III, who ascended to the throne in 1986 after the death of his father King Sobhuza II in 1982 and a period of regency. By tradition, the king reigns along with his mother or a ritual substitute, the Ndlovukati (lit. She-Elephant). The former was viewed as the administrative head of state and the latter as a spiritual and national head of state, with real power counter-balancing that of the king, but during the long reign of Sobhuza II the role of the Ndlovukati became largely symbolic. As the monarch, the king not only appoints the prime minister — the head of government — but also appoints a small number of representatives for both chambers of the Libandla (parliament). The Senate consists of 30 members, while the House of Assembly has 82 seats, 55 of which are occupied by elected representatives, (elections are held every five years in November).

The Westminster-style constitution that was adopted in 1968 was suspended by King Sobhuza in 1973 under a royal decree backed by the royalist majority of parliament, in effect a coup by the government against its own constitution. The State of Emergency has since been lifted, or so the government claims even though political activities, especially by pro-democracy movements, are suppressed. In 2001 King Mswati III appointed a committee to draft a new constitution. Drafts were released for comment in May 2003 and November 2004. These were strongly criticized by civil society organizations in Swaziland and human rights organizations elsewhere. In 2005, the constitution was put into effect, though there is still much debate in the country about the constitutional reforms. From the early seventies, there was active resistance to the royal hegemony.

Despite calls for international solidarity against the oppressive royal regime, Swaziland's human rights record remains largely ignored by the international community. The South African trade union COSATU has been the most vocal supporters of the rights of the Swazi people to govern themselves by democratic means.
I note that he rules with his mother, so maybe matriarchal is correct.
The king has 13 wives and 23 children.

Inkhosikati (Queen) LaMatsebula—Ritual wife. Has a degree in Psychology.
Son: HRH Prince Sicalo
Son: Prince Maveletiveni
Inkhosikati LaMotsa—Ritual wife. UNDP Goodwill Ambassador since 1996. [2]
Son: Prince Majahonkhe (1991)
Son: "Prince Buhlebenkhosi"
Son: "Prince Lusuku"
1986 Inkhosikati LaMbikiza—(born 16 June 1969 as Sibonelo Mngomezulu) Daughter of Percy Mngomezulu; an advocate, received her degree from UNISA. LaMbikiza is involved in the Swazi Royal Initiative to Combat AIDS (RICA). The initiative involves the recording of songs by Swazi, South African and international artists and the proceeds of the sales are allocated to programmes aimed at helping people affected by AIDS.
Daughter: Princess Sikhanyiso Dlamini (1987)
Son: Prince Lindaninkosi Dlamini (Lindani) (1989)
Inkhosikati LaNgangaza —(born Carol Dlamini) [Patron of world organisation "Hospice at Home" previously headed by Princess Diana]
Daughter: Princess Temaswati Dlamini (1988)
Daughter: Princess Tiyandza Dlamini (1992)
Daughter: Princess Tebukhosi Dlamini (1994)
Putsoana Hwala—(born 1974 ??) Known as Inkhosikati LaHwala She left the king on June 24, 2004 and moved to South Africa.[3]
Son: Prince Bandzile (1990)
Daughter: Princess Temashayina (1994)
Delisa Magwaza—(born 1974 ??) Known as Inkhosikati LaMagwaza. She also left the king in 2004, after having an affair.[3]
Daughter: Princess Temtsimba Dlamini (1992)
Daughter: Princess Sakhizwe Dlamini (1999)
August 2000 Inkhosikati LaMasango—(born 1981 ?? as Senteni Masango)
Daughter: "Princess Sentelweyinhosi" (2000)
Daughter: "Princess Sibusezweni" (2003)
December 1998 Inkhosikati LaGija—(born Angel Dlamini)
Daughter: "Princess Yenziwe" (2003)
June 2002 Inkhosikati LaMagongo—(born Nontsetselo Magongo) Niece of Chief Mlobokazana Fakudze, Chief at Mgazini.
Son: Prince Mcwasho (2002)
November 2002 Inkhosikati LaMahlangu—(born 1984 as Zena Soraya Mahlangu) (see below)
Son: Prince Saziwangaye (2004)
May 2005 Inkhosikati LaNtentesa (born 1981 Noliqhwa Ayanda Ntentesa), betrothed November 2002, married in a traditional function held at Ludzidzini Royal Residence May 26, 2005.
June 2005 Inkhosikati LaDube (born Nothando Dube) a Miss Teen Swaziland finalist at age 16, chosen at the Umhlanga (Reed Dance) ceremony on August 30, 2004 while she was a grade 9 pupil at Mater Dorolosa High School. Married 11 June 2005.
Daughter: Princess Makhosothando (2005)
Son: "Prince Betive" (2007)
14 April 2007 Inkhosikati LaNkambule (born Phindile Nkambule), chosen at the Umhlanga (Reed Dance) ceremony in 2005.
Daughter: "Princess Buhlebetive" (2007)
It seems that this polygamy is OK with the general Swazi culture, but I am not sure.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

I'm aware of Dr. Fascism's history. And do not agree with some of the views he expresses.

However, I disagree fundamentally with attacks that are based more on personal dislike, and on carrying over arguments and prejudices from other discussions. Where he says things that we actually disagree with, then we should express our disagreement, and do so vocally.
It's a people thing, I'd hope a cross species rose carrier would understand. :D
There are people in these forums who dislike me.
Oh?

*Bristles*

Who are they? Let me at 'em!

DR

[Darth Rotor]

I found this expectation for 'reviews' in the rest of my classes. I was regarded as a monster for not giving in to it.

My hero. :)

I take it that over time people figured out what it took to meet your standards?

DR

[Complexity]

My hero. :)

I take it that over time people figured out what it took to meet your standards?

DR


Some did, some did not.

Where I'd taught before, I was highly regarded and rated as being able to motivate students and bring them through courses successfully.

Many of the students at this school regarded me and other teachers like me (there were some) as obstacles between them and their degrees.

So many students had been socially passed through grade school and high school and told that they were doing 'A' work when, in fact, they were being taught to tests and regurgitating what would satisfy the sham process.

So many students came to college without knowing how to study and how to learn, and they were told they'd done well.

Once in college, they were told that they were going to be prepared for graduate study (mission of the university). The classes that they would take in college were softened so that pain (and progress) would be minimal, and courses in the pre-med area were taught to the test.

To make matters worse, everyone understood that there were more companies competing for black graduates than there were black graduates, and that everyone (except the non-black students) was pretty much guaranteed a job.

We really were standing between these students and a degree / job.

The main instructional language there was Java. The Intro to Programming sequence was a two-semester course on programming in Pascal. We weren't allowed to introduce pointers until the second term.

In general, each course began with a review of its prerequisites. For example, if the second intro course was taken in the spring semester, the first three-four weeks would be a mandatory review of the fall course's material. If the second intro course was taken in the fall, the review could take six-eight weeks, since they'd had the summer to forget things.

I went to teach at this university because I respected its mission - to prepare black students from educationally impoverished areas (e.g. Louisiana, Mississippi) for graduate study. I wanted to teach, to help.

Instead, I encountered some horrible consequences of affirmative action, reduced my standards below what I could live with, touched only a few lives in positive ways, and gave up teaching, probably for life.

Sadness is all that remains.

[John Blonn]

To return to an earlier point in the thread, re:

"Certainly, capitalism, racism, and sexism shape our relationships, but they are systems created by humans and they can be changed and rebuilt by humans."

I think the OP's objection (or skepticism) to this triad lies in the jarring lack of parallel structure.

Racism - discrimination based on race
Sexism - discrimination based on sex/gender
Capitalism - discrimination based on...capital?

Strictly considered, this use of capitalism is incorrect and is not common usage.

Rewrite the sentence to read "...classism, racism, and sexism" and I, and perhaps the OP, would not find the sentence overtly objectionable. The idea that entities like class, race, and gender are social constructs is, for the most part, correct and important to note given the course matter.

The use of capitalism in this sentence is, at best, sloppy scholarship, eliding important distinctions, and, at worst, politically-grounded woo.

ETA: This is not an objection of the notion that capitalism shapes our relationships - clearly it does (a trivial observation). However, the objection I (and the OP?) have is with the rhetorical move of treating capitalism as a form of unfair discrimination.

ETA2: To those who accept the original sentence, you certainly would have no problem rewriting the sentence as follows, no?

"Certainly, liberalism, socialism, racism, and sexism shape our relationships, but they are systems created by humans and they can be changed and rebuilt by humans."

[Dr. Fascism]

Finally this topic is on track.

Exactly! As the saying goes, people are entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts.


Same here. I have no problem with hearing different points of view, but teaching those points of view that are demonstrably nonsense as facts is very troublesome.

Naturally--and I also do think, that if you favor a certain point of view, you also need to make sure you give the opposite point of view a fair shake.

[Dr. Fascism]

To return to an earlier point in the thread, re:

"Certainly, capitalism, racism, and sexism shape our relationships, but they are systems created by humans and they can be changed and rebuilt by humans."

I think the OP's objection (or skepticism) to this triad lies in the jarring lack of parallel structure.

Racism - discrimination based on race
Sexism - discrimination based on sex/gender
Capitalism - discrimination based on...capital?

Strictly considered, this use of capitalism is incorrect and is not common usage.

Rewrite the sentence to read "...classism, racism, and sexism" and I, and perhaps the OP, would not find the sentence overtly objectionable. The idea that entities like class, race, and gender are social constructs is, for the most part, correct and important to note given the course matter.

The use of capitalism in this sentence is, at best, sloppy scholarship, eliding important distinctions, and, at worst, politically-grounded woo.

ETA: This is not an objection of the notion that capitalism shapes our relationships - clearly it does (a trivial observation). However, the objection I (and the OP?) have is with the rhetorical move of treating capitalism as a form of unfair discrimination.

ETA2: To those who accept the original sentence, you certainly would have no problem rewriting the sentence as follows, no?

"Certainly, liberalism, socialism, racism, and sexism shape our relationships, but they are systems created by humans and they can be changed and rebuilt by humans."

You have it!

Part of the problem is Karenga's book is so poorly written that you simply cannot know what his meaning is, I guess. I'm pretty sure. given the whole Marxist-to-the-extreme bent this class had, that he really does mean "capitalism", as only those who identify as "Marxist" (yes, I'm aware of the objection raised earlier over the term, but popular meaning trumps that here) tend to do that. Look at some actual socialist, communist, or self-labeled "anarchist" message boards and you'll see exactly this.

It is those people that view capitalism as an inherently discriminating system, much like sexism or racism.

[Dr. Fascism]

Regarding the book in question, it has been many years since I read it, but from what I recall, it was mostly an attempt to redefine the black stereotype. Basically, there are three main ways to fight any negative stereotype: 1 - Act as a living counter-example and try to develop as many of these counter-examples as possible (W.E.B. DuBois, for example), 2 - Redefine and embrace a different stereotype (Karenga), or 3 - Embrace the stereotype, often in a defiant or mocking way (as can be seen in the gangsta culture). Of course, these aren't the only ways to do this, but they are the most common.

This can be done for any group, whether it is women, homosexuals, or yes, even white men. Which response to negative stereotyping is the "best"? Your guess is as good as mine.

I wouldn't go so far as to even say "best", I would say which is more "correct"?

Your post is very insightful, however, and this observation is a good way to explain some of my beef with this...

Karenga's book, and this class, seemed based on the premise that there is something inherent with "Black people" that is not just skin color. That a certain "race" has a certain "worldview" about it, a certain culture to associate to, maybe even a certain way of thinking. That is essentially the premise behind Black Nationalism, as I understand it, and it's pretty bogus.

As I was taught in this class, Black Studies is not just the "study of blacks", but studying blacks through this "African Worldview".

Here is a quote from Azibo's Articulating the Distinction Between Black Studies and the Study of Blacks: The Fundamental Role of Culture and the African-Centered Worldview--hopefully it will also help you understand why I've been unable to clarify things--what the hell is "Memphite Theology"? and so on:
(I removed all the citations for easier reading)
The essence of pedagogy and curriculum of Black Studies must certainly consist of this Afrocentric body of human sciences (sciences broadly defined), not unlike that in the ancient days of the Mystery System. Indeed, on this point, the reader is queried what conceptual system:

a) substantiates the knowledge that made Kemet "The Light of the World?"
b) did Imhotep, Ptahotep, and the authors of the Memphite Theology employ in their work?
c) substantiates the political, military, and cultural aspects of Pharaoh-Queen Hatsepshut? and
d)substantiates authentic Black theology and its scripture?

The African worldview is the answer. When Africans do not embrace it, our wretchedness ensues; when Africans cleave to it, sustentation and great achievement are attained. "That is why, if we are to return to the source culturally, it [the worldview window on Kemetic/classical African civilization knowledge] must be at the foundation of our humanities [and sciences, i.e., our Black Studies]. "We must teach it systematically," opined C. A. Diop.

Later:

What makes Black Studies a singular discipline at the most fundamental level is its African worldview conceptual basis, i.e., its Afrocentricity. What makes White Studies a singular discipline is its European worldview conceptual basis, the artificial boundaries that separate its so-called disciplines (psychology, religion, sociology, etc.) notwithstanding. That Black Studies must avoid the artificial boundary distinction that characterizes White Studies has been pointed out by many writers. Semaj has understood this in articulating the "cultural science" concept: the African worldview base makes our work culturally centered. That is, applying the African patterns for interpreting reality (cultural deep structure, see Table 1) as the conceptual starting point for our work perforce locates what we do in the African worldview and thereby provides the unifying disciplinary basis. This is an actual point of fact, not just a logical derivation. For example, consider the position that there is no distinction between African (Black) psychology and Black religion, because each owes its existence and unfolding to the dictates of the African worldview.

So, according to this paper, and this class, it seems to me that if this is really Black Studies, it seems to be based on the holism hogwash we see elsewhere; furthermore, let me quote exactly what this so-called "African worldview" entails, from yet another handout (the entire time I have been unable of pointing to single examples because it seems this underlying system of premises and the implications is not stated in just one place):
(formated to make it easy to understand)
(NOTE THE BOLDED SECTION)

-Southern Cradle-
family/community structure: matrifocal
environmental characteristics: primarily warm temperature, temperate, numerous water resource and primarily fertile lands, with numerous salt resources
sustenance: primarily sedentary
essence: connection with the cosmos

-Afrikan Worldview-
Cosmology: all things are interconnected and interdependent through spiritual networks within the universe

Ontology [note... I think a portion was cut off in the handout!: (extrasensory fasion) and material (known through the five senses) are one

Epistemology: knowledge comes through what is seen and unseen; self-knowledge; symbolic imagery and rhythm

Axiology (nature of value): Highest value is in interpersonal relationships between persons

Logic (reason): Diunital--emphasizes union of opposites (both/and conclusions); circular

Aesthetics Orientation: Tied to ethics and character

Life-space: Infinite and unlimited (spirit manifesting)


So, what's the European woldview of ours?


-Northern Cradle-
family/community structure: patriarchal
environmental characteristics: primarily cold temperature, arid/low water resources, poor resources and barren land
sustenance: primarily nomadic
essence: disconnection with the cosmos (note: ...what?)

-European Worldview-
Cosmology: independent and separate entities within the universe

Ontology: Material with possible spiritual aspects that are separate and secondary

Epistemology: knowledge comes through counting and measuring

Axiology: Highest value is in objects or the acquisition of objects (note: damn capitalist westerners?)

Logic: Dichotomous -- emphasizes (either/or conclusions); linear

Aesthetics Orientation: External, superficial (note: superficial....?!

Life-space: Finite and limited (beginning with birth and ending with death).


I think this may clarify where I'm coming from.

[John Blonn]

Dr. Facism:

Given the taxonomies laid out above, is there any course material that takes a normative position vis à vis these taxonomies?

In other words, is part of the argument that follows from these dichotomies something like:

A spiritual ontology is "better" or "preferable" to materialist ontology.
or
An essence that is 'connected to the cosmos' is better or preferable than an essence that is 'disconnected with the cosmos.'

[Dr. Fascism]

Dr. Facism:

Given the taxonomies laid out above, is there any course material that takes a normative position vis à vis these taxonomies?

In other words, is part of the argument that follows from these dichotomies something like:

A spiritual ontology is "better" or "preferable" to materialist ontology.
or
An essence that is 'connected to the cosmos' is better or preferable than an essence that is 'disconnected with the cosmos.'

No, not outwardly stated. But I felt it was more implied, after all, realize that this is a highly left-wing field already, and then see lumping capitalism with the "European worldview" and it's no stretch at all to see that. Oh yeah, I almost forgot: the "European worldview", remember, is exclusionary--i.e., racist, and I suspect, also meaning "non-Marxist". In this class we are taught that we have the European worldview, and also taught a bit about "white privilege" (not an invalid concept, though.. not necessarily, at least, though I think it was stretched a bit) and the "systematic racism" inherent in our capitalist system, the government, and society.

Again, there's the instructor lumping the "European worldview" with Hillary Clinton; she herself seemed to have some Obama sympathizes. And let's face it, being lumped with Hillary is not the highest compliment one can be paid.

If there were others, I cannot recall them and only the residual disgust is being brought up. Though, I'm pretty sure there were.

And, not all communication is directly verbal, tone of voice and demeanor were also a big part of it.

[Dr. Fascism]

I hope some of you see what I've quoted and see why I've had trouble finding information on this. I can't really find criticisms of that kind of scholarship, but it sure seems shoddy and ridiculous to me.

---

I think it's important to note the following:

If what they say is true about having the "African worldview", and their "epistemology" is looking inward, intuition, etc, I can only wonder what standards of scholarship they hold themselves to.

[leonAzul]

Afrocentrism I can find very little information about. The article on skepdic focuses mainly on the belief that Egyptians were "Black", or something. I'm coming here and hoping someone educated and knowledgeable about this subject can enlighten me over what I may have been told that's pure hogwash--it's really hard to sort fact from fiction in instances such as these.

Pick up and read just about anything written by John McWhorter. Losing the Race deals with this most explicitly.

[Dr. Fascism]

Pick up and read just about anything written by John McWhorter. Losing the Race deals with this most explicitly.
Ah, yes, and then there's that viewpoint. Not something we were well-acquainted with in that class, if you know what I mean.

Thanks for the recommendation. I'll add it to my summer reading.

[arthwollipot]

Finally this topic is on track.Better late than never :)

Interestingly enough, the two "worldviews" (African and European) that you quote here are almost identical to some lists that I've seen before. Except that instead of black and white worldviews, they were female and male worldviews. The correspondences are uncanny.

[LostAngeles]

Better late than never :)

Interestingly enough, the two "worldviews" (African and European) that you quote here are almost identical to some lists that I've seen before. Except that instead of black and white worldviews, they were female and male worldviews. The correspondences are uncanny.

Let's be honest, our social structure is not ideal. We have inequity, abuses, suffering, etc, etc. The average person in our society feels rather powerless and the members of traditionally oppressed groups are going to feel even more so. Who's at the top of the structure? Generally white males with a professed trend towards Christianity. They're not all concentrated up there, to be sure, and the upper echelons have been penetrated by members of other groups in the last century or so, but they're the ones who are seen wielding the power.

I'd estimate that around 60% of the populace thinks that if they were in charge, things would be better. Combine this with the romanticization of ancient peoples and the, "affluent savage," hypothesis (hunter-gathers tend to live more comfortably than people in complex societies) and this is what you get.

I maintain that there is a good amount of value in teaching the other side of history and the accomplishments of non-Europeans where relevant. Malcom X has a quote about not being able to do anything if you believe you've never done anything. He makes a good point. However, (and I'd bet in his later years, he'd agree with me) you shouldn't lie about it and this is the problem with Afro-centrism (and Euro-centrism when it lionizes certain historical figures *coughColumbusthehandhackingasswipecough*). As a minority of about two, I'd feel angrier if it turned out I'd been lied to about the accomplishments of my ancestors. Fake pride is no pride.

[Dr. Fascism]

Interestingly enough, the two "worldviews" (African and European) that you quote here are almost identical to some lists that I've seen before. Except that instead of black and white worldviews, they were female and male worldviews. The correspondences are uncanny.

...you're right...!

Certain segments of the racial and feminist movements have some sort of... almost postmodernist, influence (yeah, what's new huh?), along with of course radical left-wing politics (much to the chagrin of many leftists!)

That's a very interesting observation to make.

The constants seem to be a rejection of empirical observation in favor of intuition/internal ways of knowing, anti-individualistic, anti-capitalist and collectivistic politics and view of social, Marxist/conflict theory, and of course the patriarchy is bad since women were oppressed so having women be the head is much better.

I knew there was something very familiar about this all but couldn't think of what. Well, I knew it conformed to a general picture of the ideologies in the humanities (feminism, anti-capitalistim/Marxism, etc) but it's quite interesting that the parallels are so blatant.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I think it's a real shame that an intro to Black Studies would be so heavily predicated on Afrocentrist historical revisionism. There are myriad areas of study for an intro course that wouldn't even need to discuss Africa per se like literature (Ellison), social criticism (Douglas, de Bois), science (Carver) how sports and the military effected integration and the end of Jim Crow, military history (54th Mass., Tuskeegee Airmen, The Black Panthers). Hell, you could probably spend half of the course discussing African American Lives I and II.

Afrocentrism isn't as bad IMO as Holocaust denial in the annals of revisionist history, but I'd place it on par with the "femicentrism" based on the writings of Marija Gimbutas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimbutas).

Capitalism does shape our relationships (DeBeers anyone?)...

Wouldn't that be more like Colonialism or Merchantilism as opposed to free market capitalism?

[LostAngeles]

...

Wouldn't that be more like Colonialism or Merchantilism as opposed to free market capitalism?

Oh, you know, I can't believe I'd forgotten about that level of shitheadery from the diamond companies. I just meant the pushing of diamonds as a show of, "true love," since that influences our relationships. That aspect of diamonds is the result of one heck of a PR push. The Straight Dope had a nice column on it:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040903.html

...On the marketing side, De Beers hired advertising firms, starting with N.W. Ayer in the late 1930s, to render axiomatic the idea that diamonds = true love. De Beers and Ayer didn't invent diamond engagement rings but did rescue a fading concept--in 1932 worldwide diamond sales had been only $100,000. Ayer's ploys ranged from planting news stories about newly betrothed celebrities flaunting big rocks to positioning diamonds as heirlooms, preventing the market from being flooded with secondhand goods. (The market for used diamonds is dismal, by the way.) The campaign worked--U.S. wholesale diamond sales increased from $23 million in 1939 to $2.1 billion in 1979. The J. Walter Thompson agency performed a similar miracle in Japan in the 1960s, essentially creating a tradition of diamond engagement rings out of thin air...

[Dr. Fascism]

Let's be honest, our social structure is not ideal. We have inequity, abuses, suffering, etc, etc. The average person in our society feels rather powerless and the members of traditionally oppressed groups are going to feel even more so. Who's at the top of the structure? Generally white males with a professed trend towards Christianity. They're not all concentrated up there, to be sure, and the upper echelons have been penetrated by members of other groups in the last century or so, but they're the ones who are seen wielding the power.

I'd estimate that around 60% of the populace thinks that if they were in charge, things would be better. Combine this with the romanticization of ancient peoples and the, "affluent savage," hypothesis (hunter-gathers tend to live more comfortably than people in complex societies) and this is what you get.

I maintain that there is a good amount of value in teaching the other side of history and the accomplishments of non-Europeans where relevant. Malcom X has a quote about not being able to do anything if you believe you've never done anything. He makes a good point. However, (and I'd bet in his later years, he'd agree with me) you shouldn't lie about it and this is the problem with Afro-centrism (and Euro-centrism when it lionizes certain historical figures *coughColumbusthehandhackingasswipecough*). As a minority of about two, I'd feel angrier if it turned out I'd been lied to about the accomplishments of my ancestors. Fake pride is no pride.

Oh, naturally. I feel that everyone in history needs to be taken down a peg--the founding fathers, "great leaders", and many other people. Of course they end up doing the same thing just on their side, proving they're not that different.

My policy is "have no heroes" and this is part of the reason.

HOWEVER, I don't believe in "black pride" or any other sort of pride. Your accomplishments are who you are, you are not what someone who just-so happened to have some genes in common with you did. I am a large portion of a certain ethnicity myself, and I feel no "pride" towards that group of people, because I'm myself and no one else. But I am digressing too much on my individualistic outlook, I think---

---though, the very opposite is the premise of these sorts of Studies, isn't it?

It's also true that we don't learn enough about Eastern and African civilizations in school, although for historical reasons the west "won out" in terms of influence...

Part of why I took a Black Studies was the curiosity--would this class be what I thought it would be (oh, I was more right than I expected!) or would it be a more fair and critical assessment of all sides with a focus on "Blacks" and what's generally been ignored in normal curriculum for reasons resulting from history, like accomplishments of African civilizations, black leaders, and things that history books generally don't mention? Along with the obvious race relation issues (being black in a white society).

[Dr. Fascism]

Oh, you know, I can't believe I'd forgotten about that level of shitheadery from the diamond companies. I just meant the pushing of diamonds as a show of, "true love," since that influences our relationships. That aspect of diamonds is the result of one heck of a PR push. The Straight Dope had a nice column on it:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040903.html

I have to confess myself that I judge people in my head when they express some sort of preference or love for overpriced hunks of compressed carbon.

[Dr. Fascism]

I think it's a real shame that an intro to Black Studies would be so heavily predicated on Afrocentrist historical revisionism. There are myriad areas of study for an intro course that wouldn't even need to discuss Africa per se like literature (Ellison), social criticism (Douglas, de Bois), science (Carver) how sports and the military effected integration and the end of Jim Crow, military history (54th Mass., Tuskeegee Airmen, The Black Panthers). Hell, you could probably spend half of the course discussing African American Lives I and II.

Afrocentrism isn't as bad IMO as Holocaust denial in the annals of revisionist history, but I'd place it on par with the "femicentrism" based on the writings of Marija Gimbutas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimbutas).



Wouldn't that be more like Colonialism or Merchantilism as opposed to free market capitalism?

One of my online friends said much the same thing--so much you could learn about African Americans in history and African American contributions, and instead it's just indoctrination (his word as well).

[Dr. Fascism]

I think now would be the time to reveal that this African worldview also views time as nonlinear and all that which I'm sure you've heard before--that's the reason my instructor once gave for occasionally being late.

No joke.

[LostAngeles]

Oh, naturally. I feel that everyone in history needs to be taken down a peg--the founding fathers, "great leaders", and many other people. Of course they end up doing the same thing just on their side, proving they're not that different.

My policy is "have no heroes" and this is part of the reason.

HOWEVER, I don't believe in "black pride" or any other sort of pride. Your accomplishments are who you are, you are not what someone who just-so happened to have some genes in common with you did. I am a large portion of a certain ethnicity myself, and I feel no "pride" towards that group of people, because I'm myself and no one else. But I am digressing too much on my individualistic outlook, I think---

---though, the very opposite is the premise of these sorts of Studies, isn't it?

It's also true that we don't learn enough about Eastern and African civilizations in school, although for historical reasons the west "won out" in terms of influence...

Part of why I took a Black Studies was the curiosity--would this class be what I thought it would be (oh, I was more right than I expected!) or would it be a more fair and critical assessment of all sides with a focus on "Blacks" and what's generally been ignored in normal curriculum for reasons resulting from history, like accomplishments of African civilizations, black leaders, and things that history books generally don't mention? Along with the obvious race relation issues (being black in a white society).

I'm with you on the, "pride," thing. I take public transit and they've put in TVs. They advertise this program called, "American Latino," and show segments. One of the ads had a guy saying, "I have brown pride," and I really wanted to know when the Latinos started speaking for the Indians, Middle Easterners, Native Americans, Mediterranean Europeans, North Africans, and mutli-racial folk like me. How can you be proud of an accident of birth anyway?

For me, being mutli-racial and having made your own identity and then coming into an area where identity politics are the norm is a bit weird. You have the opportunity to check out your ethnic groups, but you have to explain to them that, yes, you are one of them. On the other hand, you don't feel attached to a particular group, and pride yourself on being who the individual you made yourself (with outside influences of course).

I do think that there can and should be a real value to these Ethnic Studies. If we don't talk about how we've treated race in this country, I don't think we're going to get any better (did you see Metapedia yet? If so, do it on an empty stomach as you try to read their pages on race. We're still dealing with this). We need that and we need better history classes.

There aren't a lot of heroes, but there are a lot of humans who managed to some impressive things and occasionally, the right thing. Knowing Malcom X was a thug and a separatist at one point is vital to knowing who he was when he died.

I wonder, is there some way you could express what you had wanted from the class to the professor? The department? Do they do course evals regularly?

[LostAngeles]

I think now would be the time to reveal that this African worldview also views time as nonlinear and all that which I'm sure you've heard before--that's the reason my instructor once gave for occasionally being late.

No joke.

Ask him if s/he remembers the 2008 United States Presidential Election.

I bet it, "doesn't work that way."

But y'know, I have some math models in my class that I'm not allowed to, "let time run backwards," maybe s/he can help me with that.

Oh and, which African group views time that way?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Oh, you know, I can't believe I'd forgotten about that level of shitheadery from the diamond companies. I just meant the pushing of diamonds as a show of, "true love," since that influences our relationships. That aspect of diamonds is the result of one heck of a PR push. The Straight Dope had a nice column on it:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040903.html

Ah, missed that angle and agree with you completely! I remember seeing a documentary on diamonds where workers in Botswana were crawling along the ground with tin cans picking up diamonds as they went. Rare my patoot.

[Dr. Fascism]

I do think that there can and should be a real value to these Ethnic Studies. If we don't talk about how we've treated race in this country, I don't think we're going to get any better (did you see Metapedia yet? If so, do it on an empty stomach as you try to read their pages on race. We're still dealing with this). We need that and we need better history classes.

Of course.


There aren't a lot of heroes, but there are a lot of humans who managed to some impressive things and occasionally, the right thing. Knowing Malcom X was a thug and a separatist at one point is vital to knowing who he was when he died.

I say "no heroes" because once you idolize someone, it's very hard to admit to their flaws.


I wonder, is there some way you could express what you had wanted from the class to the professor? The department? Do they do course evals regularly?

They don't care what a lowly undergraduate thinks, and they'd probably think I'm a racist for saying. Bleh, they probably have a separate course on "Black History" or something.

I also prefer to keep a low profile, that way I can pretend to have some sympathies to the instructor's biases when I write papers (take a wild guess why I feel the need to do so), and I don't want to get a reputation and have it possibly come back to haunt me.

[LostAngeles]

...
I say "no heroes" because once you idolize someone, it's very hard to admit to their flaws.

Very true.

They don't care what a lowly undergraduate thinks, and they'd probably think I'm a racist for saying. Bleh, they probably have a separate course on "Black History" or something.

I also prefer to keep a low profile, that way I can pretend to have some sympathies to the instructor's biases when I write papers (take a wild guess why I feel the need to do so), and I don't want to get a reputation and have it possibly come back to haunt me.

Evals are anonymous (or supposed to be) so unless you really think you can be identified, I'd take that route.

It sucks having to keep your head down.

[Big Les]

I just want to say, as someone very much interested in the misrepresentation of the past who has lurked this thread, congratulations to everyone who helped get it back on the rails - it's an interesting subject and it didn't need forum baggage weighing it down.

<back to lurking>

[fuelair]

Very true.



Evals are anonymous (or supposed to be) so unless you really think you can be identified, I'd take that route.

It sucks having to keep your head down.But you still have it to aim with when you pop up to snipe the bad guys!!
:)

[FarmallMTA]

You're absolutely right about the "diversity" class, DrFascism. You're ******** meter is pegging because it detects absolute racist ******** from a black racism viewpoint.

You got suckered. You're paying money to a college that is deliberately trying to indoctirnate instead of educate. It's populated by left wing fascists who love getting hold of young minds and turning them into crap-spouting ignoramuses in their own image.

First, for today... unless you love debate and dirty looks from your professors, keep your mouth shut during the scheduled indoctrination sessions (elsewhere called classes), study the bare minimum to get your "C" and then get the hell out and never go back... your mind doesn't need the ******** and you don't need the aggravation.

Second, for the future... avoid "Gender Studies," "Black Studies", "Queer Studies, "LitCrit" and all other latter day propagandistic ******** courses that are taught by looney-tunes left wing zealots. I call them "Jehovah's Witnesses for Amway about (fill in the blank, in this case "Black Racism).

By the way, the problem you're encountering here at the forums is not "elitism." It's leftism. The most fun thing in the world it to tweak the noses of these unthinking socialist idiots. Stay with us... it's a blast!

[madurobob]

(blustery stuff)

Yeah, thats the ticket. Stick your head in the sand and don't let any new and different ideas clog you beautiful mind. You know whats right and there is no need to be open to anything that drives any level of cognitive dissonance for you.

Please.

You can only be "indoctrinated" if you wish to be and allow yourself to be. DF's class sounds like a nightmare and amazingly poorly conceived. But note that he still points out:
It's also true that we don't learn enough about Eastern and African civilizations in school, although for historical reasons the west "won out" in terms of influence...

So, clearly some level of afro-centrism is needed to counter the bias that even DF recognizes in our education. The problem is some folks take it way too far.

Stay in class and get a "C". Yeah, thats brilliant. Personally, I'd stay in class, ask the tough questions, do all the work at my usual high level, nail all the exams, and be a good example of a critical mind willing to tackle a tough subject. If I didn't get the "A" I deserved, I'd ask for outside review. Why be a bad example and help solidify the prof's and other's idea of me as an underachieving white devil?

[Wildy]

Nah, restrictions don't expose you to new things. And as mom always said, how do you know you don't like it until you try it? :)

Well I can't try it. I'm studying science.

The only humanities subject I did for my main degree was Legal Studies and that was a core topic.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I just want to say, as someone very much interested in the misrepresentation of the past who has lurked this thread, congratulations to everyone who helped get it back on the rails - it's an interesting subject and it didn't need forum baggage weighing it down.

I made a post concerning Afrocentrism as a form of historical revisionism a number of years ago. Afrocentrism isn't the problem per se, but as DF noted in his response paraphrasing his on-line friend earlier, it's tantamount to a crime against history since it ingores all of the valid African-American and African history that an Intro to Black History course could consist of.

I want to learn about the Tuskegee Airman. I want to learn about the Bus Boycott. I want to learn about the slave trade... and weep when African Americans visit Goree Island as I did during an Amazing Race episode. I want to learn about Greater Zimbabwe and Timbuktu and the Bantu expansion. But don't pollute that learning with 1960s socialist liberation theology.

[billydkid]

[quote=Dr. Fascism;3662318
And no, I'm not a racist.[/quote]Of course you are and the more you deny it, the more you prove that it's true.

[dudalb]

I am all in favor of teaching about Black History.
I am against teaching a bunch of crap masquerading as Black History .

[Dr. Fascism]

You're absolutely right about the "diversity" class, DrFascism. You're ******** meter is pegging because it detects absolute racist ******** from a black racism viewpoint.

You got suckered. You're paying money to a college that is deliberately trying to indoctirnate instead of educate. It's populated by left wing fascists who love getting hold of young minds and turning them into crap-spouting ignoramuses in their own image.


I think it's more of a quality issue. Poor scholarship and such tends to come from already sloppy minds, and these people don't understand trying to remain objective in education.

I didn't get suckered. I wanted to see if this type of course was as bad as my cynicism warranted, and course more importantly to get a cultural diversity class out of the way (well, I was suckered that way, because those classes tend to be... yeah, what you said).

But what was worrying is that either, like me, all the students that knew it was crap kept silent (smart move), or the kids thought it was interesting and didn't want to speak because the instructor was often grouchy.


First, for today... unless you love debate and dirty looks from your professors, keep your mouth shut during the scheduled indoctrination sessions (elsewhere called classes), study the bare minimum to get your "C" and then get the hell out and never go back... your mind doesn't need the ******** and you don't need the aggravation.

Hahahaha, yeah, I know. Even if I were bold enough it's not worth arguing to put your grade on the line. This is really the worst class I've had on it.


Second, for the future... avoid "Gender Studies," "Black Studies", "Queer Studies, "LitCrit" and all other latter day propagandistic ******** courses that are taught by looney-tunes left wing zealots. I call them "Jehovah's Witnesses for Amway about (fill in the blank, in this case "Black Racism).

Yeah, I considered this class an experiment in seeing whether the stereotype was true.... it was. Most of my other classes have been taught mostly objectively, I don't mind hearing an opinion as long as I am sure I will not be graded on mine and the course doesn't revolve around the instructor's ideologies.

Wading through this, though, I've found crap that I haven't seen before, and can't really find online, like this African/European worldview nonsense. When I get the time I'll show more of the crap from this class, hopefully it'll be a good reference for others in the future.


By the way, the problem you're encountering here at the forums is not "elitism." It's leftism. The most fun thing in the world it to tweak the noses of these unthinking socialist idiots. Stay with us... it's a blast!

These forums do have a left-wing biases (no, I am not going to debate this with people) and obviously most of the posters are pretty left but I think it's more of a general tendency towards antagonism here.

[Dr. Fascism]

I made a post concerning Afrocentrism as a form of historical revisionism a number of years ago. Afrocentrism isn't the problem per se, but as DF noted in his response paraphrasing his on-line friend earlier, it's tantamount to a crime against history since it ingores all of the valid African-American and African history that an Intro to Black History course could consist of.

I want to learn about the Tuskegee Airman. I want to learn about the Bus Boycott. I want to learn about the slave trade... and weep when African Americans visit Goree Island as I did during an Amazing Race episode. I want to learn about Greater Zimbabwe and Timbuktu and the Bantu expansion. But don't pollute that learning with 1960s socialist liberation theology.

Yeah, I think all that stuff would be in a "Black History" class, judging from the writing I wrote earlier (I think it directly says this, actually).

Making me wonder what "Black Studies" and probably all the * Studies really are, if the "* History" is what you'd think the "* Studies" class would be.

[arthwollipot]

Didn't I hear a soundbite on The Daily Show last night where Rev Wright said that white people think with their right brain and black people with their left brain?

This guy's on national television. International television, in fact, saying exactly the same thing that Dr Fascism has been getting in his class. It's not something that's about to go away. I wonder how many African-Americans actually believe it.

[WildCat]

I wonder how many African-Americans actually believe it.
How many of them learned it as fact in their Afrocentric educations? That isn't something black people learned shooting the bull at the barber shop, but was taught to them at a school under the guise of boosting their self-esteem.

[LostAngeles]

Didn't I hear a soundbite on The Daily Show last night where Rev Wright said that white people think with their right brain and black people with their left brain?

This guy's on national television. International television, in fact, saying exactly the same thing that Dr Fascism has been getting in his class. It's not something that's about to go away. I wonder how many African-Americans actually believe it.

Considering that they either get that or that with few exceptions only white-skinned people had ever done anything? Without realizing there's a third option, putting yourself in that place, might not you believe as well?

And does Wright realize he plays into the hands of the racists?

No.

ETA: I want to be clear, I'm not justifying the belief, I'm speculating on why it might be the case that it gets believed.

[Dr. Fascism]

Considering that they either get that or that with few exceptions only white-skinned people had ever done anything? Without realizing there's a third option, putting yourself in that place, might not you believe as well?

And does Wright realize he plays into the hands of the racists?

No.

ETA: I want to be clear, I'm not justifying the belief, I'm speculating on why it might be the case that it gets believed.

My instructor essentially defended him with, "he's saying things blacks have been saying for years."

Yeah.

[balrog666]

Some did, some did not.

Where I'd taught before, I was highly regarded and rated as being able to motivate students and bring them through courses successfully.

Many of the students at this school regarded me and other teachers like me (there were some) as obstacles between them and their degrees.

So many students had been socially passed through grade school and high school and told that they were doing 'A' work when, in fact, they were being taught to tests and regurgitating what would satisfy the sham process.

So many students came to college without knowing how to study and how to learn, and they were told they'd done well.

Once in college, they were told that they were going to be prepared for graduate study (mission of the university). The classes that they would take in college were softened so that pain (and progress) would be minimal, and courses in the pre-med area were taught to the test.

To make matters worse, everyone understood that there were more companies competing for black graduates than there were black graduates, and that everyone (except the non-black students) was pretty much guaranteed a job.

We really were standing between these students and a degree / job.

The main instructional language there was Java. The Intro to Programming sequence was a two-semester course on programming in Pascal. We weren't allowed to introduce pointers until the second term.

In general, each course began with a review of its prerequisites. For example, if the second intro course was taken in the spring semester, the first three-four weeks would be a mandatory review of the fall course's material. If the second intro course was taken in the fall, the review could take six-eight weeks, since they'd had the summer to forget things.

I went to teach at this university because I respected its mission - to prepare black students from educationally impoverished areas (e.g. Louisiana, Mississippi) for graduate study. I wanted to teach, to help.

Instead, I encountered some horrible consequences of affirmative action, reduced my standards below what I could live with, touched only a few lives in positive ways, and gave up teaching, probably for life.

Sadness is all that remains.


I gave up teaching after two years of dealing with the "graduates" of Detroit - but then, industry paid twice what I was getting paid and rewarded success every d@mn time! what the hell, I had a great career and loved every minute of it, let some other fool waste his time!

[LostAngeles]

Some did, some did not.

Where I'd taught before, I was highly regarded and rated as being able to motivate students and bring them through courses successfully.

Many of the students at this school regarded me and other teachers like me (there were some) as obstacles between them and their degrees.

So many students had been socially passed through grade school and high school and told that they were doing 'A' work when, in fact, they were being taught to tests and regurgitating what would satisfy the sham process.

So many students came to college without knowing how to study and how to learn, and they were told they'd done well.

Once in college, they were told that they were going to be prepared for graduate study (mission of the university). The classes that they would take in college were softened so that pain (and progress) would be minimal, and courses in the pre-med area were taught to the test.

To make matters worse, everyone understood that there were more companies competing for black graduates than there were black graduates, and that everyone (except the non-black students) was pretty much guaranteed a job.

We really were standing between these students and a degree / job.

The main instructional language there was Java. The Intro to Programming sequence was a two-semester course on programming in Pascal. We weren't allowed to introduce pointers until the second term.

In general, each course began with a review of its prerequisites. For example, if the second intro course was taken in the spring semester, the first three-four weeks would be a mandatory review of the fall course's material. If the second intro course was taken in the fall, the review could take six-eight weeks, since they'd had the summer to forget things.

I went to teach at this university because I respected its mission - to prepare black students from educationally impoverished areas (e.g. Louisiana, Mississippi) for graduate study. I wanted to teach, to help.

Instead, I encountered some horrible consequences of affirmative action, reduced my standards below what I could live with, touched only a few lives in positive ways, and gave up teaching, probably for life.

Sadness is all that remains.

Would it surprise you that I occasionally hear the things you talk about from different races, but from the liberal arts/humanities/social science folk at school?

[luchog]

So, clearly some level of afro-centrism is needed to counter the bias that even DF recognizes in our education. The problem is some folks take it way too far.

No, I'd strongly disagree with this. It's centrism itself that's the problem. Whether it's ethno-centrism, cultural-centrism, gender-centrism, or whatever. The practical definition of centrism is taking something way too far.

What's needed is a complete lack of centrism. To look at history, like everything else, as objectively and rationally as possible (but of course, objectivity and reason are just products of evil Euro-centrism). There's nothing wrong with a particular class focussing on a particular region and historical period; but it should confine itself to observable fact, presenting all pertinent observable fact, not merely those which cast a "proper" light on the subject; and limit theories and conjectures to those which are supported by substantial evidence. Leave the unsupported speculation to the writers of fiction.

Teaching anything with a "center" on a particular worldview will inevitably distort the results.

[madurobob]

No, I'd strongly disagree with this. It's centrism itself that's the problem. Whether it's ethno-centrism, cultural-centrism, gender-centrism, or whatever. The practical definition of centrism is taking something way too far.

What's needed is a complete lack of centrism. To look at history, like everything else, as objectively and rationally as possible (but of course, objectivity and reason are just products of evil Euro-centrism). There's nothing wrong with a particular class focussing on a particular region and historical period; but it should confine itself to observable fact, presenting all pertinent observable fact, not merely those which cast a "proper" light on the subject; and limit theories and conjectures to those which are supported by substantial evidence. Leave the unsupported speculation to the writers of fiction.

Teaching anything with a "center" on a particular worldview will inevitably distort the results.
Sure, in an ideal world thats what we'd have. But in our far from ideal world we have "history" being taught that is far from "a complete lack of centrism". DF pointed this out himself.

We may all agree that in theory all of History is clear cut and objective. It is what it is. But, try to apply that to real life - Try to write a history of the past 30 years of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that does nothing but record the facts. How easy do you think it will be to get historians to agree on the "facts"?

ETA: my point being that history has a necessary subjective side. Not just that X happened, but why it happened, what led up to it happening, what was the impact of it happening. None of this is cold hard facts and all of it is prone to bias and valid differences in interpretation.

[luchog]

Sure, in an ideal world thats what we'd have. But in our far from ideal world we have "history" being taught that is far from "a complete lack of centrism". DF pointed this out himself.

No one is disputing that.

ETA: my point being that history has a necessary subjective side. Not just that X happened, but why it happened, what led up to it happening, what was the impact of it happening. None of this is cold hard facts and all of it is prone to bias and valid differences in interpretation.
I don't think it is necessary for history to be subjective. I believe that a certain amount of subjectivity is human nature certainly, but the point of education and skepticism is, or at least should be, to minimize the effect of subjectivity as much as humanly possible.

That can't be achieved by simply adding another subjective viewpoint. When you add subjectivities, you don't magically arrive at an objective result. Or at best, a confused muddle where no one is really sure what the truth is. What you encounter more often is a clashing and entrenchment of subjectivity. The solution to the problem of discrimination against a particular group is not to simply discriminate against someone else; the solution is to form policies that do not discriminate against anyone. Likewise, the solution to an incomplete, biased view of history, is not to present someone else's incomplete, biased view of history, because the end picture is still incomplete and a mishmash of various conflicting biases.

[madurobob]

No one is disputing that.

I don't think it is necessary for history to be subjective. I believe that a certain amount of subjectivity is human nature certainly, but the point of education and skepticism is, or at least should be, to minimize the effect of subjectivity as much as humanly possible.

That can't be achieved by simply adding another subjective viewpoint. When you add subjectivities, you don't magically arrive at an objective result. Or at best, a confused muddle where no one is really sure what the truth is. What you encounter more often is a clashing and entrenchment of subjectivity. The solution to the problem of discrimination against a particular group is not to simply discriminate against someone else; the solution is to form policies that do not discriminate against anyone. Likewise, the solution to an incomplete, biased view of history, is not to present someone else's incomplete, biased view of history, because the end picture is still incomplete and a mishmash of various conflicting biases.

Again, what happened and when it happened is usually fairly clear. Thats the objective piece. Why it happened and what ramifications there were are very subjective and yet are often the bulk of many History tomes. If we teach kids just one viewpoint we do them a disservice, but we certainly can't teach them every viewpoint because, for one thing, some of those viewpoints are rubbish. Some combination of multiple viewpoints seems necessary to give kids a well-rounded education. They at least need to know that there are other viewpoints out there to explore.

History is written by the winners. But, that doesn't meant the winners' viewpoint is the only one that matters. There is a lot of fine scholarship on History of the American South that covers a lot of ideas not generally included in US History textbooks (outside of specific college level courses). These valid viewpoints explain Southern life, movements and motivations often quite differently that the mainstream texts.

There is nothing wrong with teaching other historical viewpoints. There is something wrong with teaching that this one specific viewpoint is the only "correct" one and no others should be considered.

[Earthborn]

There's nothing wrong with a particular class focussing on a particular region and historical period; but it should confine itself to observable factI don't think you'll find many historians who believe such a thing is even possible. The problem is that when it comes to history, there are no observable facts. Everything a historian might want to study has already happened in the past, and s/he has no direct access to it. The observable facts are no longer observable, sometimes haven't been for hundreds of years. History also relies on the ideas and actions of people, and the ideas and intentions behind actions are never objectively observable facts.
Historic research usually relies heavily on the written accounts of people who were there at the time; people who were of course subjective and wrote their accounts from specific viewpoints.

A historian tries to combine as many viewpoints as possible to form a more or less complete picture of a certain aspect of history, but a good historian also knows that s/he cannot escape having a subjective viewpoint him/herself and that this necessarily influences which aspects of history s/he choses to study and which sources s/he choses to write his/her history. A good historian will not claim that what s/he writes is an objective truth, only that s/he has tried their best to make the lives of people from the past understandable to people of the present. Demanding that historians limit themselves to observable facts and to only come to objective conclusions is like demanding of a physicist not to use mathematics or experiments. It's not going to produce any meaningful work.

[Dr. Fascism]

I don't think you'll find many historians who believe such a thing is even possible. The problem is that when it comes to history, there are no observable facts. Everything a historian might want to study has already happened in the past, and s/he has no direct access to it. The observable facts are no longer observable, sometimes haven't been for hundreds of years. History also relies on the ideas and actions of people, and the ideas and intentions behind actions are never objectively observable facts.
Historic research usually relies heavily on the written accounts of people who were there at the time; people who were of course subjective and wrote their accounts from specific viewpoints.

A historian tries to combine as many viewpoints as possible to form a more or less complete picture of a certain aspect of history, but a good historian also knows that s/he cannot escape having a subjective viewpoint him/herself and that this necessarily influences which aspects of history s/he choses to study and which sources s/he choses to write his/her history. A good historian will not claim that what s/he writes is an objective truth, only that s/he has tried their best to make the lives of people from the past understandable to people of the present. Demanding that historians limit themselves to observable facts and to only come to objective conclusions is like demanding of a physicist not to use mathematics or experiments. It's not going to produce any meaningful work.

Oh please, I think we both know what was meant.

[luchog]

Again, what happened and when it happened is usually fairly clear. Thats the objective piece. Why it happened and what ramifications there were are very subjective and yet are often the bulk of many History tomes.

Again, I disagree. There are certainly objective causes and consequences of any event. There is always going to be some room for conjecture, particularly with periods and regions for which little data exists; but that's all it is, conjecture. The more speculation not grounded in hard fact, the more subjective, and the less useful. Schools should not be involved in teaching speculation and conjecture. Kids are going to get more than enough of that outside the classroom.

If we teach kids just one viewpoint we do them a disservice, but we certainly can't teach them every viewpoint because, for one thing, some of those viewpoints are rubbish.

Which viewpoints you dismiss as rubbish is based entirely on what your own personal viewpoint is.

Some combination of multiple viewpoints seems necessary to give kids a well-rounded education. They at least need to know that there are other viewpoints out there to explore.

Presenting the fact that there are multiple viewpoints is fine. Actively teaching any particular viewpoint, or group of viewpoints, unavoidably requires enforcing your own viewpoint, at least indirectly. Presenting viewpoints indiscriminately results in a muddled mess that ultimately obscures facts. Kids need to be taught facts and critical thinking, not how to interpret facts according to someone else's viewpoint.

There is nothing wrong with teaching other historical viewpoints. There is something wrong with teaching that this one specific viewpoint is the only "correct" one and no others should be considered.
But that's inevitably what happens. The moment you begin leaving out viewpoints, you're making an implicit judgement that the viewpoints you're teaching are the only valid ones, and that all others are invalid, or at least less valid. The moment you bring any sort of subjectivity into the classroom, you're going to be making value judgements based on your own viewpoint.

[luchog]

Historic research usually relies heavily on the written accounts of people who were there at the time; people who were of course subjective and wrote their accounts from specific viewpoints.
[quote]
And which are highly suspect. Historical documentation can be useful; but should be presented with the strong caveat that they're not necessarily reliable.

Some historical information can be verified objectively through archeology and other sciences. What cannot be so verified should not be presented as anything other than conjecture. It should certainly not be used to form any conclusions.
[quote].
A good historian will not claim that what s/he writes is an objective truth, only that s/he has tried their best to make the lives of people from the past understandable to people of the present.

There are very very few "good" historians, by that measure.

Demanding that historians limit themselves to observable facts and to only come to objective conclusions is like demanding of a physicist not to use mathematics or experiments. It's not going to produce any meaningful work.
Mathematics and the scientific method are objective and not prone to subjectivity of viewpoint. Absolutely no reason to think they won't produce meaningful work, unless you're coming from a purely woo mindset.

[madurobob]

Schools should not be involved in teaching speculation and conjecture. Kids are going to get more than enough of that outside the classroom.
Interesting. Please educate me: give me a link or a title to one of these history textbooks that is entirely made up of objective facts.


Which viewpoints you dismiss as rubbish is based entirely on what your own personal viewpoint is.
Exactly. I do it, you do it, every history textbook and every history professor does it. So, why do you insist that differing viewpoints should not be taught?

But that's inevitably what happens. The moment you begin leaving out viewpoints, you're making an implicit judgement that the viewpoints you're teaching are the only valid ones, and that all others are invalid, or at least less valid. The moment you bring any sort of subjectivity into the classroom, you're going to be making value judgements based on your own viewpoint.
Bingo. It is inevitable throughout the subject of "History" that subjectivity will permeate everything. Thats exactly what earthborn was saying. So why do you get to decide that a given viewpoint is wrong? Its perfectly acceptable to have a class on Afrocentrism because the name of the course itself tells students that they are getting a specifically slanted viewpoint - and the implication is that this is a viewpoint excluded from other classes. Its up to the student to use his own intellect to determine what makes sense and what doesn't and to critically analyze the information offered in any class - History is no different. DF is doing just that in his class mentioned in the OP and he admits he's learned something in the process. Sounds good to me.

[Tormac]

You might find some of the articles on this site interesting Dr. Fascism,

http://thehallofmaat.com/modules.php?name=Topics

Although for the sake of your grade I would not recommend arguing with your instructor.

Still the articles on some of the extremes of “Afrocentrism” may help you remain sane.

[Dr. Fascism]

You might find some of the articles on this site interesting Dr. Fascism,

http://thehallofmaat.com/modules.php?name=Topics

Although for the sake of your grade I would not recommend arguing with your instructor.

Still the articles on some of the extremes of “Afrocentrism” may help you remain sane.

The class is over; I've taken the final and I expect to pass with a strong "B"; if she curves I might get an A.
I really, really appreciate this link. THIS is addressing a lot of the stuff from the class and our book. Again, I can't express how relevant this link is.

New World Contacts

A number of Afrocentrists, led by Ivan Van Sertima, claim that the civilizations in the New World are greatly indebted to Egypt (or Nubia) for their most important accomplishments. Supposedly, black Egyptians sailed to Mexico about 700 B.C., propelled the Olmec civilization to greatness, and laid the foundation for all the civilizations of Mesoamerica. Yet, the best evidence for contact between peoples is supplied by genuine artifacts scientifically excavated by archaeologists. While the presence of Vikings around A.D. 1000 at L'Anse-aux-Meadows, Newfoundland, has been thus documented (Ingstad 1969), no genuine African or Egyptian pre-Columbian artifacts have ever been found in the New World.

The next best type of evidence for contact between cultures is the presence of domesticated plants native to another continent. Two species found in the New World, the bottle gourd (Lagenaria siceraria) and New World cotton, originated in Africa. However, they were present and utilized in the Americas thousands of years before they were used in Africa and were carried to the New World naturally rather than by humans (Cowan and Watson 1992).

The most striking visual evidence cited by Afrocentrists for an African presence in the New World is the massive Olmec basalt heads with flat noses and thick lips. However, Nubians, the purported carriers of Egyptian civilization to the Olmecs, are desert dwellers with thin noses and could not have been the models for those sculptures (Haslip-Viera and Ortiz de Montellano n.d.). Additionally, the Olmec heads were all carved before 900 B.C., several hundred years before the contact claimed by Van Sertima (Lowe 1989).

This was a test question on the final! I can't remember what I put but I strongly suspect that I put the correct answer--the "wrong" answer.

This is in our book, as well, of course. Perfect example of what I was talking about.

I must confess I didn't make this class a priority for studying. I had a bunch greater concern over my serious classes, the ones where I learned facts.

[Dr. Fascism]

Next up, madurobob argues that creationism be presented alongside evolution so "differing viewpoints" can be taught. His rhetoric is straight out of the playbook of the IDers.

[madurobob]

Next up, madurobob argues that creationism be presented alongside evolution so "differing viewpoints" can be taught. His rhetoric is straight out of the playbook of the IDers.

Woohoo - I've gradumicated! I've never been accused of having "rhetoric" before. That makes me an official disinformation provocateur level 5!

I for one have absolutely no problem with schools teaching ID. provided, of course, it is in a class called "ID" and not "Science". Just like your acfrocentric class was appropriately labeled "Black Studies" and not "History". With the slant of the class called out in the class title there is no "indoctrinization" that occurs and only a fool would be surprised at its content.

[Dr. Fascism]

Woohoo - I've gradumicated! I've never been accused of having "rhetoric" before. That makes me an official disinformation provocateur level 5!

I for one have absolutely no problem with schools teaching ID. provided, of course, it is in a class called "ID" and not "Science". Just like your acfrocentric class was appropriately labeled "Black Studies" and not "History". With the slant of the class called out in the class title there is no "indoctrinization" that occurs and only a fool would be surprised at its content.

I'm sure you also have no problem with a course on "Psychic Healing & Communication" where they teach Reiki and treat Sylvia Browne as a scholar.

[madurobob]

I'm sure you also have no problem with a course on "Psychic Healing & Communication" where they teach Reiki and treat Sylvia Browne as a scholar.
You are correct. Students can choose from a wide variety of electives and I have no problem if one is as you describe above. As long as the class title and abstract are clear on what the course covers only a fool will be confused and only a fool would not recognize the obvious conflict with what he learned in his science classes.

I assume from your stance that you feel there should be no class on religion, correct? No chance for students in a predominantly Christian community to learn about other religions, other viewpoints?

I'm sorry differing viewpoints frighten you. As you move further along in your education I expect this fear will subside.

[MaGZ]

This explains why people with college degrees tend to support Obama.

[MaGZ]

...why the holy hell does that matter? Unless you're going to make an actual point:

We have cultural diversity requirements. Almost everyone in the class took it because they need to knock those off.

Actually, part of the reason really was, and I am not joking, to see if the Black Studies classes were filled with this sort of nonsense--can't fight nonsense until you view it first hand, I think. So yes, I came into the class and my expectations were exceeded. Two birds with one stone--satisfy my curiosity, and get a requirement out of the way.

...or is my own viewpoint wrong? Am I being paranoid. Tell me if I am.

And no, I'm not a racist.

You will be by the time you finish the course, if you are an independent thinker.

[Dr. Fascism]

You are correct. Students can choose from a wide variety of electives and I have no problem if one is as you describe above. As long as the class title and abstract are clear on what the course covers only a fool will be confused and only a fool would not recognize the obvious conflict with what he learned in his science classes.

I assume from your stance that you feel there should be no class on religion, correct? No chance for students in a predominantly Christian community to learn about other religions, other viewpoints?

[quote]I'm sorry differing viewpoints frighten you. As you move further along in your education I expect this fear will subside.

I'm sure the majority of people here, people who disagree with you, are all uneducated fools, like me.

There is such a thing as legitimate and illegitimate things to teach. Basic Principles of Alchemy, not as a historical inquiry but as a pseudo-scientific one, is not a valid subject to teach. I'm sure if an Instructor viewed Alchemy as the same thing as chemistry, and taught alchemy in a chemistry class, you'd be fine with it, because it's simply the instructor's point of view--after all, if you said he couldn't teach alchemy in a chemistry class then you'd be against his point of view and wouldn't let him be teaching it, would you?

First of all, students don't attend classes knowing what is fact and what isn't. Most students have no way to immediately being able to tell that Ancient Africans likely did not travel to South America, unlike what is being taught in the class.

Madurobob, you have some very scatter-shot thinking, and have been going everywhere this entire thread, voicing opinions on things you really don't understand at all, and bashing me for it. Are you sure you're completely collected in your thoughts?

Your guise of "teach all the viewpoints!" is ridiculous as, by the very nature of having a class taught on it, students assume that it's a legitimate field of study. They don't go into a class already knowing everything about it, whether you think they should or not.

[Dr. Fascism]

MaGZ, it's clear you haven't read through the thread, so I'm unsure what you are trying to say.

[madurobob]

I'm sure the majority of people here, people who disagree with you, are all uneducated fools, like me.
I regret to inform you that your sad attempt at an Appeal to Authority has failed to impress me

Madurobob, you have some very scatter-shot thinking, and have been going everywhere this entire thread, voicing opinions on things you really don't understand at all, and bashing me for it. Are you sure you're completely collected in your thoughts?
Oh yes, lets do get on with the ad homs, shall we? I've seen your work on this before. Scattered? Well, honestly, considering the myopic source that is quite a compliment. Your turn!

For the record, my points have been fairly consistent. I'll lay them out here for you to peruse at your leisure:
You took a Black Studies course because you had to have a "diversity"class. You were bitter about this and went looking for a reason to be offended.
The course was happy to oblige. It fed you BS that you recognized right away as BS (yaay you!).
In spite of the problems with your particular course, the concept of a "Black Studies" course is perfectly valid and reasonable. History, by its very nature, is highly subjective and having a different viewpoint such as afrocentrism adds to the debate rather than detract.
College electives are intended to be broad in scope, expose students to ideas they otherwise would not be exposed to, and drive thoughtful debate.
Its fine for colleges to offer such electives, it is not fine to offer such electives in place of (or pretending to be) core curriculum classes. As long as the intent of the class is spelled out in the class name and the class abstract then no-one will be confused or, heaven forbid, "indoctrinated".


There is such a thing as legitimate and illegitimate things to teach. Basic Principles of Alchemy, not as a historical inquiry but as a pseudo-scientific one, is not a valid subject to teach.
Reading comprehension not a strong point with you? Try again. If the class is called "Alchemy" it is fine, if its called "Chemistry" but they teach alchemy it is not fine. I've made that quite clear.

First of all, students don't attend classes knowing what is fact and what isn't. Most students have no way to immediately being able to tell that Ancient Africans likely did not travel to South America, unlike what is being taught in the class.
This says a lot about the quality of student at your little college. Most of the slower students at my kid's high-school have already taken a few years of History and know what the conventional wisdom says about this.

Your guise of "teach all the viewpoints!" is ridiculous as, by the very nature of having a class taught on it, students assume that it's a legitimate field of study.
An interesting thing to say from someone who admitted to taking a "Black Studies" class because he suspected it to be a fraud. So, you're that much smarter than everyone else? Must be nice.

Nonetheless, I never championed "teach all the viewpoints!" Thats your own private strawman.

[arthwollipot]

Aaaand back to the defensiveness and the attacks. We were going so well for a while there too.

[Dr. Fascism]

Aaaand back to the defensiveness and the attacks. We were going so well for a while there too.

I'm just going to put madurobob on ignore, and I advise everyone else to do the same. We don't need the crazies trying to derail the topic by peddling their nonsense.

I suspect Madurobob is trying to troll, but since I can't be sure all we can do is just ignore him for now and hope the topic gets back on track. It's also possible that madurobob has his own agenda he wants pushed in college classes but whatever. Now's not the time and place madurobob, just leave; nobody's into your crap.

[luchog]

I regret to inform you that your sad attempt at an Appeal to Authority has failed to impress me

Wow, you can't even get your logical fallacy accusations right, either.

The fallacy, if it was one, would have been argumentum as populum, not argumentum ad authoritatum. But since it wasn't actually being used to make an argument, your accusation is tending to the specious.
[quote]

[madurobob]

Wow, you can't even get your logical fallacy accusations right, either.

The fallacy, if it was one, would have been argumentum as populum, not argumentum ad authoritatum. But since it wasn't actually being used to make an argument, your accusation is tending to the specious.

Nope. appeal to popularity, to common practice and even to belief are really the same general concept outlined in appeal to authority. Its really rather pointless to focus on the additional granularity when appeal to authority adequately explains the issue. I remain unimpressed with the argument.

[leonAzul]

I must confess I didn't make this class a priority for studying. I had a bunch greater concern over my serious classes, the ones where I learned facts.

I remember the crunch, so I offer this:


You are so much on the right track; please do not derail your education by thinking that the point of education is the acquisition of "facts", nor that the value of a particular course is the "facts" with which it informs you. Any database, or "technical institute", can give one "facts". A college course ought to give one so much more.

The point of education IMHO is to cultivate the skills that facilitate the acquisition, analysis, and application of data within a given context. Quizzes that prompt one to regurgitate "facts" are designed to provide evidence that one has paid attention--no more, no less. Being able to articulate those "facts" in plain language, without resort to jargon, demonstrates understanding of those "facts". Doing something useful with that understanding, and then positing a principle that guides further understanding, analysis, and application...

With respect to context: apply, lather, rinse, and repeat. (by way of analogy ;) )

In short, while pursuing your degree, please don't neglect your education.