Bill Janus
History
Western Montana College-UM
To future scholars, Lefkowitz's Not Out of Africa may avail itself chiefly as an artifact that explores historical methodology, academic freedom, the university mission, and the authority of professional "experts." The text will symbolize contemporary race relations too. It probably will serve less as a scholarly document in the classics that traces the West's cultural/intellectual genealogy. It is a book that vigorously, emotionally, and mercilessly assails the scholarship and intent of Martin Bernal's controversial Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization.
In the academic world, Bernal is popularly accused of being an Afrocentrist (something he has denied). Black Athena's main thesis postulates that the intellectual, cultural, and technological foundations of Greek and subsequently Western Civilization were influenced by, and are indebted to, earlier and more advanced African/Egyptian and Phoenician/Semitic Civilizations that had contact with the fledgling Greeks. Bernal also argues that even Greeks such as Herodotus and Diodorus gave credit to these civilizations for founding and affecting the course of Greek Civilization.
Bernal's second thesis is that up until the l9th century, Classical orthodoxy accepted Aristotle's belief, or the "Ancient Model," as an explanation for the origins of Western Civilization. But then, some 165 years ago, the Ancient Model was replaced by what Bernal refers to as the "Aryan Model." This new paradigm caused the West's cultural and racial pedigree to become 100% Caucasian because it exclusively assigned to Greeks, absolute credit as the West's foundational culture. Bernal is a critic of this "Aryan Model" and a champion of the "Ancient Model." He identifies racism, anti-Semitism, the conservative reaction to the French Revolution, nationalism, Romanticism, and Eurocentrism as just some of the causes for the radical historical revision which occurred in the first half of the 19th century.
Bernal's revision of revision, and his accusations of scholarly dishonesty have brought upon him a hail storm of indignation and shrill criticism, and Lefkowitz has often been in the forefront of such attacks (she also has co-edited a 522-page collection of twenty essays, Black Athena Revisited, that takes Bernal's intentions and scholarship to task). Without the benefit of reading Black Athena, I find many of Lefkowitz's criticisms of Bernal's professionalism, historical methodology, and conclusions to be rational, well argued, and logical, even to me, a non-expert in classics. For example, Lefkowitz accuses Bernal of showing "no respect for evidence, [and] no concern with chronology" (9), and she has the evidence to support this serious charge. She convincingly argues that claims by Herodotus that Egypt influenced Greek society must be taken with a grain of salt. She shows that a close reading of Herodotus indicates that he was merely expressing an opinion, and not known facts (62). She also illustrates many instances where Herodotus simply records outright falsehoods. She shows that a similar conjecture by Diodorus is plagued by a lack of critical scrutiny of his sources for accuracy (60). In fact these sources were recently conquered and "imaginative" Egyptian priests, individuals who eagerly wanted to demonstrate to their new Hellenistic overlords "what the Greeks had learned from Egypt" (72). Bernal's belief that Egyptian etymologies exist for a large number of Greek words and Greek gods, and that thus they point to African influence of Greek culture, is especially rendered hollow by Lefkowitz's linguistic inquiry (23, 24). Finally, theories postulated by other Afrocentrists (Socrates was black; Aristotle stole his philosophy from the library in Alexandria) are easily debunked by Lefkowitz in an intelligent and persuasive manner. One is pressed to find much substance in the Afrocentric interpretation of Greek origins once they are placed in the light of Lefkowitz's careful investigation.
Lefkowitz's claim that classical 19th century revisionists are innocent of prejudice, however, appears to be a bit too optimistic, and it is fair to say her defense is extremely timid and weak. To argue that a 19th century Zeitgeist of Social Darwinism, European imperialism and nationalism has "limited application" when assessing the objectivity of classicists at that time smacks of self-service to one's thesis (56). In fact Lefkowitz affords this discussion a mere page, and it does nothing but strengthen Bernal's contentions.
It is valid to say that Bernal and Afrocentrists have single-handedly increased popular and professional interest in the classics and a variety of other professional issues. For too long professional debate has been exclusively monopolized by ivory-tower bound scholars who write narrowly focused and esoterically specialized studies that often seem to have one goal in mind: protection of professional reputations and avoidance of peer criticism. Bernal is a welcome change to this pattern. Here we have a non classicist who has written a challenging and opinionated text that has made the classics and debate on intellectual freedom, historical methodology, and the university mission, relevant. The only serious question is, should we tolerate a situation where flawed arguments and theses serve this function? I say yes. A professional who goes out on a limb is refreshing. The institution of higher education is strong enough to point out and take to task critical errors on the part of its members. It has worked in the case of Bernal. There is no need to sandbag his ideas. Bernal's intellectual freedom must be preserved.
Now Lefkowitz would disagree with me. She sees Afrocentrism sweeping American campuses and making a serious challenge to become academic orthodoxy (5). She even has gone so far as to claim that the failure to attack Afrocentric falsehoods can have "dire consequences [on American race relations] akin to the ethnic conflicts in the former Yugoslavia" (8). The fact remains, however, that there are precious few Afrocentrists in academe. Afrocentric theory is not an orthodoxy, and it has little chance to become orthodoxy, especially in notoriously conservative Classics departments. As to Lefkowitz's outrageous suggestion that Afrocentrism can contribute to causing a possible genocidal civil war in the US, that in itself is symbolic of deplorable race relations in the US.
What is Lefkowitz really saying here? Is she saying that irresponsible Afrocentrism will produce a generation of militant African Americans who will go on a killing spree against white America? Or is she saying that reckless Afrocentrism will cause white America to react in a murderous fashion? Or is she simply exposing her own personal fears to the reader? I am not sure what the correct answer is, but certainly race relations appear to be deteriorating rather than improving, and this academic war between Lefkowitz and Afrocentrists is symptomatic of a wider struggle between races in America.
Did Bernal commit scholarly errors? Yes, and some of these errors are grievous and sloppy. Has Bernal made the study of Ancient history relevant? Most definitely yes: he has aroused popular interest, in an area once marked by what some may call incestuous and narrow professional debate. Is Lefkowitz guilty of professional piling on? Yes, she leaves just such an impression with her linkage of Afrocentrism and a racial Holocaust. Are we sacrificing our professional standards by not censuring Bernal? No, we are not, the system is strong, and the weaknesses of Bernal's thesis have been thoroughly highlighted. Universities must strive to build and remain bastions of intellectual freedom and debate. Is the "controversy" between Bernal and Lefkowitz symbolic of continued strained race relations here in the US? Yes, the emotional and heated arguments between supporters of both Bernal and Lefkowitz often leave the impression that more is involved than just professional disagreement. Is Lefkowitz's book valuable? Yes, it serves as an excellent source for contemporary classical, historical, professional, social, and cultural debate.