

|
On Sunday, November 24, 1996, "60-Minutes,"
CBS’ popular weekly newsmagazine, aired a segment on the growing controversy
surrounding Africentrism.** The program highlighted
Black elementary school students learning about their rich African heritage,
and raised questions about whether such knowledge improves their performance.
The piece certainly provided food for thought, but fell woefully short
of the in-depth analysis of Africentrism that is needed at this time.
The Western academic establishment and the mass
media have never given serious attention to the history of people of African
descent. As a matter of fact, for years Africa was considered the Dark
Continent because of the public perception of it as a land of savagery,
cannibalism and strife. Seeking to rectify this distortion of Black history
and culture, African American students demanded the formation of Black
studies, African American Studies and African Studies on college and university
campuses across the United States.
Born during the student protest movement of the
1960's, the post-war study of Black people grew during that era, but fell
into disfavor on many campuses by the latter part of the 70's. During the
'80's a number of such programs lost their funding and disappeared. Although
a few Black Studies programs have survived into the 90's, most have been
absorbed into Ethnic Studies or Multiculturalism.
Today the operative word used to describe any study
of Black history and culture is "Afrocentrism."
We define this term as the focus on Africa as the continent of origin
of the human race and the cradle of civilization. A related term, Afrology
, captures the essence of Africentricism. Dr. Molefi K. Asante,
Professor and former Chair of the Department of African-American Studies
at Temple University, defines Afrology as follows: "The term Afrology,
coined in Afrocentricity: The Theory of Social Change, denotes the Afrocentric
study of African concepts, issues, and behaviors. It includes research
on African themes in the Americas and the West Indies, as well as the African
continent."
Although many authorities on the Black experience
do not necessarily consider themselves to be Africentrists, the critics
of this field have lumped them all together for ease of condemnation, generalization
and stereotyping.
Since 1989, every major newspaper and magazine
in the United States has written extensive articles severely criticizing
Africentrism as pseudoscience, mythology and "feel good history."
With startling unanimity these purveyors of information have unabashedly
attacked Black scholars without any pretense of objectivity. As a matter
of fact, in all of our research we have found only one instance in which
companion articles -- one opposing Africentrism and the other supporting
it -- have appeared in a major publication. (Newsweek, September 23, 1991)
Think about the bias and neglect we are citing
here. The American media would never focus on the abortion controversy
without presenting the pro-life and pro-choice perspectives. The presidential
debates could not have been aired without the participation of both
Bill Clinton and Bob Dole. Nor would any journalist think of covering
the crisis in the Middle East without providing a forum for both Benjamin
Netanyahu and Yassar Arafat. Yet, in spite of this, it has been perfectly
acceptable for the entire American public to be fed a totally biased, one-sided
attack against Africentrism for the past seven years.
Numerous Black scholars have submitted articles
seeking to explain Africentrism to mainstream newspapers and magazines,
but their work has been consistently rejected. Even scholarly letters,
responding to published critiques of the subject, have been ignored. However,
the media represent only one American institution that has suppressed Black
history. The following are three other major examples.
In the Spring of 1994, the "American Teacher,"
newsletter of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), published a number
of essays attacking Africentrism and promoting a book of essays, "Alternatives
to Afrocentrism" (hereafter "The Alternatives"), published
by the Manhattan Institute's Center for the New American community in Washington,
D.C.
The gist of the essays and the book is that Africentrism
is nothing more than myths, distortions and pseudoscience. Teachers are
warned to dismiss all forms of African-centered thought in exchange for
an objective, "multi-cultural" view of history and culture, which
is ably presented in The Alternatives.
All efforts on the part of African American laymen
and scholars to persuade the AFT to allow Africentric scholars to defend
their discipline have failed. By this unconscionable intransigence, the
AFT has placed itself at the forefront of academic racism, and has introduced
into the American curriculum a blatant form of censorship analogous to
that sanctioned under fascist regimes.
Another example of the entrenched opposition to
Africentricism that has permeated American institutions over the past few
years is found in a number of recent books. While Africentric scholars
are often forced to publish their own work, their detractors are wooed
by the American publishing industry. A few of the best known publications
that attack Africentrism are listed below.
The first of these books is "The Disuniting
of America," written by historian Arthur Schlesinger
and published by Whittle Direct Books in 1991. The second is "Not
Out Of Africa," written by Mary R. Lefkowitz,
Andrew W. Mellon Professor of the Humanities at Wellesley College, and
published by Basic Books in 1994. The third is "Black Athena Revisited,"
edited by Lefkowitz and Guy McLean Rogers,
Associate Professor of Greek, Latin and History at Wellesley College, and
published by the University of North Carolina Press in 1996. Although not
released by a major publishing house, the fourth book, "Alternatives
To Afrocentricity," which has been mentioned, should most certainly
be included in this group.
All of these books have singled out Africentrists
and their publications for scathing criticisms. The assaults are so vicious
and one-sided that White Cornell University professor, Martin
Bernal, whose brilliant work, "Black Athena," is maliciously
maligned in "Black Athena Revisited," was forced to resort to
the Internet, when co-editor Lefkowitz declined to extend to him, upon
his request, the traditional courtesy of writing a rebuttal in the 522-
page critique of his work.
Also targeted for brutal attack by some of the
above Africentric critics are the writings of the late Senegalese nuclear
physicist, linguist, historian, anthropologist and Egyptologist, Cheikh
Anta Diop. We find it most revealing that White American scholars
have waited until after Diop's death to unleash a barrage of invectives
against his thirty year academic legacy.
The final example of this institutionalized racism
was found at the Olmec ("Art Of Ancient Mexico") exhibit held
at the National Gallery of Art (hereafter "the National Gallery")
in Washington, D.C. from June 30 - October 20, 1996. Prominent among the
exquisite artwork on display were the giant, world renowned Olmec stone
heads. Although the Negroid features of these statues are most striking,
the National Gallery chose to virtually ignore their implications. The
only reference to this obvious racial anomaly among ancient Mexican artifacts
could be found in the official museum videotape, which briefly mentioned
that early excavators thought the stone heads represented immigrants from
Africa.
It is truly astonishing that in 1996, a national
museum could host an exhibit of the magnitude of that of the "Olmecs,"
and in it virtually ignore the revolutionary fact that there is overwhelming
evidence, including that of the giant stone heads, that Black Africans
sailed to the New World thousands of years before Columbus. And that these
African immigrants changed the course of ancient Mesoamerican civilization.
This racist legacy of discrediting Africentric
scholars, dismissing all evidence of Black achievements and distorting
the history of people of African descent (shown here in its institutional
form in the American media, the AFT, the publishing industry and the National
Gallery of Art) must not be allowed to continue into the 21st Century.
We believe that the global population in general
and the people of the United States in particular should be provided with
the unfettered opportunity to learn what people of African descent think
about their own history and culture. Since the Western media and academic
establishments have consciously suppressed, distorted or ignored Black
(and sympathetic White) opinions on these subjects, then, alternative outlets
must be utilized to their capacity. If we are to supplant present "scientific"
propaganda with a true quest for knowledge, then, we must put aside our
ingrained cultural biases and view the evidential record without blinders
and preconceived notions.
The MAAT Newsletter
is devoted to presenting the evidence and theories of Africentrists on
their own merit -- not as viewed through the prisms of their detractors
nor as defenses against the incessant assaults of a shamelessly racist
media and academe. We invite people of goodwill from around the world to
join us in this endeavor.
Finally, we have chosen the name MAAT because in
ancient Egypt, this represented the fundamental principle of life. Symbolized
by the Goddess MAAT and set in motion by divine order, MAAT meant truth,
justice, law, order and correctness in creation, in society and in the
life of each individual. It is our intention that this newsletter will
adhere to these principles in the highest tradition of the African people
and their descendants everywhere.
|