On May 2, 2008, at 10:39 AM, Angela Mailander wrote:
I am not a student of Afrocentrism, nor am I expert in the mainstream history of the slave trade on this planet. That said, however, there are several red flags that go up for me in reading the piece "Moral Stains: Slavery and Reality."
It's actually a small part of part 2 of a considerably longer article.
1. The two paragraphs preceding the last one blatantly ignore white complicity in Africa's plight.
The white complicity is a given IMO as they're the ones who brought them over here! What he's addressing is the incorrect history so common in Afrocentrist writings. Such bad history is often used to support Black acceptance of Islam over "white religion" (and a number of other falsehoods). I believe that is what he's responding to.
2. It may seem like a small thing, but one does expect a scholar to know the difference between the words "sighted" and "cited." This author uses "sighted" when he means "cited."
I don't know that this guy is a scholar.
3. The documentation is a bit shoddy throughout.
The article actually has a long list of references, which you can see in the original.
4. It is fact, not fiction, that the African point of view has been given short shrift in main stream historical studies.
His point however is quite different, what they're claiming is just bad history.
