True, he is addressing a point that should be made, namely that Afrocentrism is often guilty of shoddy scholarship, but if you're guilty of the same thing in making your point, you're obviously doing yourself a disservice.
--- Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
