The book I'm referring to goes through "Black sociology", "Black psychology", "Black economics", etc. Given that the author was a Black Panther and is strongly influenced by black nationalism, among other things I've seen, it's not a leap for me to interpret, I think, that there is the insinuation that "white psychology", "white economics", "white sociology" are racist fields based on the bad, negative, "European worldview".
In my opinion, all that truly exists is "sociology", "psychology", and so on. But again, given the black nationalist roots of the author I'm sure he disagrees.
I've been reluctant to quote specific parts because... well, look what happens when I have? The antagonists will just find a way to interpret it to mean something it could, but clearly doesn't.
I understand that, but these are emotionally charged issues and people have very strong opinions about them.
OK, here's a choice bit I JUST found:
"Myers contrasts this African worldview to the Eurocentric worldview with the former representing an optimal psychology and the latter a suboptimal psychology. The latter is racist, sexist, materialist, and utterly unworkable. Its fatal flaw is the socialization of its adherents to seek the key values of life, i.e. self-worth, peace, happiness, etc. through externals. But the reality is "identity and self-worth are intrinsic" and peace and happiness are generated from within. This in turn requires self-realization of the spirit within."
I ask, is this really the case? Can you really just brush over "Europe" and Europeans and the various cultures with that?
No, you can't. Not and do the topic justice. But I ask you to consider that there may be grains of truth in it: I do think, especially here in America, that we do tend to get our sense of self-worth from externals, from things and possessions and almost anything but our own individual worth. I think this author got that much of it right, as far as broad generalizations go.
Is the bit you quoted from your text, or from an analysis of your text? Nothing wrong with the latter, but can I see a bit of what your text author has to say, as well? Can I see his words, and not just someone else's assessment of his words? It would help me see his biases, and not just the biases of the critic.
And the same goes for the broad-brushing of Africa and African cultures with a single "African worldview" that is quite strangely in almost complete opposition to a "European Worldview" that is portrayed as some sort of boogeyman philosophy..
All right; as a skeptic and critical thinker, you know diametric opposites like these are often fallacious and flawed. I can't see, and think I agree with LA in this, the many and varied peoples of Africa all sharing exactly the same homogeneous "worldview."
And yet, I do seem to see a somewhat more homogeneous worldview arising from Europe and informing our current social structures in those nations that are either in Europe or which arose from it, like the U.S.
I know that I can say this largely because I know a lot about this European worldview, but admittedly not very much about an African one. I'm arguing a bit from ignorance. That's not good, I admit.
I wanna know what it's based on. Pretty sure it's simply political Black Nationalist ideology...
I can't say that you're entirely wrong, but I'd caution against thinking of it as "simply." These constructs are
never simple, or sourced from only one point of view, one ideology alone.
Now, if only I could show the entire chapter on "Black psychology", it makes me wonder what the hell they think "psychology" is. Karenga brings up the "existentialists" as an example of "white psychology" somewhere; I don't think any more needs to be said...
I want to think it does, though. I am probably utterly wrong, but isn't existentialism as a philosophy a creation of European minds? What did anyone from Africa, or anyone non-white, have to do with the rise of this philosophy? How can it not, at least in some way, be indicative of white/European psychology?
