in addition to my research for my dissertation, I have been reading Mary Lefkowitz’s Not Out Of Africa: How “Afrocentrism” Became An Excuse To Teach Myth As History. While this book may well help me with my work,* I’m reading it largely for my own edification.
In her book Lefkowitz explains her frustration at having to refute theories about the supposed African origins of Greek thought which, for political reasons, have gained wide currency in our universities (and even in the media) despite being based more on political conjecture than serious scholarship:
To respond to the kinds of allegations that are now being made requires us in effect to start from the beginning, to explain the nature of the ancient evidence, and to discuss what has long been known and established as if it were now subject to serious question. In short, we are being put on the defensive when in ordinary circumstances there would have been nothing to be defensive about. Worst of all, making this sort of defense keeps us from going on to discover new material and bring our attention to bear on real interpretative problems. Instead of getting on with our work, we must rehearse what has long been known. But, nonetheless, the case for the defense must be made.
Emphasis added.
Sometimes, I feel that we intellectual conservatives are in the same boat as serious classicists in needing to debunk misrepresentations which have gained wide currency.
How many times have our readers, many of whom have only read left=wing tracts (and blog posts) about the origins (and ideas) of the modern American conservative movement, who have never attended a Republican event (save to search only the most extreme elements and report on them as if they were representative of the entire gathering) and never socialized with thoughtful conservatives, told us exactly what the GOP and American conservatism is all about? When we report our experiences as openly gay men and women at Republican or conservative events, they ignore our experiences.
(Never happened, they say, doesn’t fit their narrative.) After all, they read the DailyKos and the Daily Dish, they know us better than we do ourselves.
It doesn’t matter if we point how how we criticized George W. Bush on spending; they know that we were unfailing in our infatuation.
it would be nice if they could see us as we are and address the arguments that we make. As it would be nice if politicized scholars would address the Greeks as they were, acknowledging Egyptian influence on Greek culture without seeing that influence, significant thogh it may well have been, as the source of all that was great about Greece.
And it’s too bad that we, like serious classical scholars, have to devote so much time to rebutting silly allegations instead of promoting our ideas– and our candidates. But, then again, maybe that’s their strategy, to get us bogged down in defense so we don’t have time to develop a serious offense.
*I am wondering if I need address Martin Bernal’s Black Athena in my chapter on the origins of the owl-eyed goddess. Lefkowitz is one of many who has debunked Bernal’s shoddy politicized scholarship.
Worst of all, making this sort of defense keeps us from going on to discover new material and bring our attention to bear on real interpretative problems. Instead of getting on with our work, we must rehearse what has long been known.
Almost like scientists defending against climate change denialists.
When we report our experiences as openly gay men and women at Republican or conservative events, they ignore our experiences.
They’re not ignored. They’re simply irrelevant. “Hey everyone, they let me attend a meeting and everything!” doesn’t matter when the actual policies and votes of the elected GOP (not to mention a few deranged state platforms – I assume these are some of the “most extreme elements” you mention? Entire states of Republicans?) are harmful to gay rights.
Do you really think the fact that you’re not harmed or shunned at GOP events somehow means something with respect to the effect that the state and national parties have (and have had) on gays?
As soon as you show a connection between your tea party attendance and the GOP embracing gay rights, we’ll build your “He Was Always So Tragically Misunderstood” statue.
Gee–it’s almost like gay scholars who can’t see that Stonewall was about sexual liberation and not gay rights. Sexual liberation–freedom from all the patriarchal, oppressive sexual rules for everybody so that everyone can have sex with anyone. Gay rights–legal recognition for lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships based on gay relationships throughout history; the right to adopt children; the right to minister in churches; the right to serve openly in the military.
As you can see, the Stonewall goals of sex, sex, sex for everyone, all the time, without reference to moral absolutes is a different goal than the right to marry, adopt, preach, and serve. Yet, gay scholars want to conflate the two into the same movement.
It’s like trying to bring the cultures of Egypt and Greece together just because it sounds good.
“In her book Lefkowitz explains her frustration at having to refute theories about the supposed African origins of Greek thought.”
I have never heard of this. Could you give a short example? Are they saying that Aristotle went to Ethiopia to learn rhetoric or something?
Do you really think the fact that you’re not harmed or shunned at GOP events somehow means something with respect to the effect that the state and national parties have (and have had) on gays?
Yes. It means that you spew utter bullshit when you talk about how all
Republicans hate gays, want them locked up, and will beat them up on sight.
Furthermore, torrentprime, given that even Barack Obama opposes gay marriage without a peep or complaint from you, your whining about Republicans is nothing more than blatant hypocrisy on your part.
As soon as you show a connection between your tea party attendance and the GOP embracing gay rights
How about he’s going there because that is in what he believes?
That’s what you can’t comprehend, torrentprime. Your existence revolves around your gay-sex liberalism. You cannot comprehend how vastly-increased taxes and government takeovers of industry and healthcare could be bad because the Obama Party that is doing it is, in your odd way of thinking, “pro-gay”.
There are things that are more important than minority status. You simply cannot recognize that, can you?
once again, torrent, your comment helps make me point as it shows how unfamiliar you are with my ideas. You should know by now (that is, if you read my posts) how indifferent I am (in not opposed) to gay rights (as defined by the gay left).
I want freedom, to be left alone by the state.
Trying to figure out what you mean by your comment about my Tea Party attendance. I go there to oppose bigger government–what does that have to do with the GOP opposing gay rights?
Do you even understand/recognize what is the underlying philosoiphy of the modner conservative movement–and why I believe conservatism is better for gays?
Does TP know what he’s talking about at all?
Sounds like a wonderful book.
I will check into it as I am always interested in fighting (Marxist) revisionist history in the classroom.
Also, I want to say, as one who goes to all sorts of Republican events, I have never seen even an askance look from any delegate toward anyone who is there whether their color or race, clothing or affectation might set them apart.
All have been welcomed and treated well.
And I can say this about meetings going back decades.
For decades, liberals have been shopping the theory that Beethoven was African. Then again, we’re all descended from apes, so we’re all African. Right?
I recommend The Hole in Our Soul as a good antidote.
“African origins of Greek thought…”
So it’s still going on then? They’re still teaching this nonsense?
I first heard of it maybe 15 – 20 years ago and thought it kooky then. I even met a black girl who’d been indoctrinated with it, and she tried to lecture me about how most Western philosophy was stolen from Africa. I figured it was PC fad that would go away in a few years. Evidently it hasn’t.
fyi for everyone who isn’t aware, all this is part of the self-esteem movement. Part of the reason they push this bogus version of history is that it’s supposed to make black kids feel better about themselves. At least that’s how I understand it.
The worst part is that it rips off the kids who buy into it. They’re taught a bogus version of history and unless they read more reputable books later they may never learn the truth.
Stonewall has tried to rewrite history to make gays victims. According to that false history, gays were always persecuted, and the covenants they formed with each other were always furtive and shame-based. I don’t think Beethoven was black; I don’t think Egypt had a large influence on Greek philosophy; I don’t think gays were ever oppressed (until Stonewall created the sexual liberation movement and its subsequent backlash). You can’t simply rewrite history to fit a current agenda.
“And it’s too bad that we, like serious classical scholars, have to devote so much time to rebutting silly allegations instead of promoting our ideas”
Then please do continue promoting those ideas here. Examine issues and trends using your principles, and explicitly compare them to principles from other camps.
#6 – “Does TP know what he’s talking about at all?”
This is a rhetorical question, right? 😉
Regards,
Peter H.
I’m going to quote a chunk of this.
“To respond to the kinds of allegations that are now being made requires us in effect to start from the beginning, to explain the nature of the ancient evidence, and to discuss what has long been known and established as if it were now subject to serious question.”
Insert Jews and Israel instead of gays and you get … having to repudiate “narrative” in place of facts, explain what a fact IS and how facts are determined, explain how the disciplines of archeology and history are conducted by disinterested scholars, how mob psychology works …