Afrocentrism?

[Earthborn]

There's nothing wrong with a particular class focussing on a particular region and historical period; but it should confine itself to observable fact

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.

 

[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.

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.

.
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?

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:

1. 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.
2. The course was happy to oblige. It fed you BS that you recognized right away as BS (yaay you!).
3. 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.
4. College electives are intended to be broad in scope, expose students to ideas they otherwise would not be exposed to, and drive thoughtful debate.
5. 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.

 

[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.