Afrocentrism?

[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]

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.