Afrocentrism is no more or less ignorant than any of the beliefs of every religion on Earth....including the secular religions of "democracy," "I'm a good guy," and "What me worry."
Talk about the blind leading the blind is, well, spurious, when in fact every group of humans will use delusions for the social glue. Because of denial being the very fabric of all ideologies, I'm inclined to largely forgive Afrocentrism's motivations and take a step back before I chide its conclusions which are simply as skewed as, say, Fox News. Listen to CNN's priests intone the mantras of the establishment -- see the great gods of finance talk about the miracle of wealth trikling down -- one need go no further to espy delusion, dogma and the derth of truth. Why single out Afrocentrism? I suspect a hidden agenda of the critics who do so. Racism? Youbetcha. When the world is suffering as much as it is, this issue is, like most that are attended to by BigMedia, a purposefully chosen diversion from the actual ills of humanity -- don't want the masses to be thinking about those -- nosireebob! Nope, the nightly news is for trotting out anything that'll glom up the viewers with angst and confusions and "let the leaders handle this-cuz-it's-way-too-hard-for-me-to-solve"-ism. Watching the nightly news is a simple mental technique, right? Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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. >
