Not Out of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became an Excuse to Teach Myth as History

historyplace.com ^ | 1996 | Mary Lefkowitz

[Lizavetta]

I'll never ever forget how my son's 1st grade Harcourt Brace reader featured an Aesop's fable and then after that had a brief biographical article about him. Imagine my surprise to learn that Aesop was actually an African storyteller. The sketch of him looked totally Mediterranean, but I was assured that he was, in fact, African. (Actually he was born a slave on the island of Samos, but I digress....).

Nobody gave a shit that this was incorrect....not the teacher, not the district office, not the curriculum director. That was our final year in government schools and we now homeschool.

[Aquinasfan]

A more proper question might be if he removed books from cannon.

OK. I can work with that.

An even more proper question might be if all the books in the cannon are inspired and can be proven against one another.

Or if the cannon in use in his lifetime was the definitive cannon used by all Christians for the previous 1100 years.

What's your point and how does it relate to the topic.

You're alleging that the Catholic Church has deliberately falsified history. I'm questioning your ability to make such judgements objectively and your dedication to seeking historical truth by assessing your judgement regarding an all-important historical issue in which you have a vested interest.

I expect you to say that the Catholic Church added books to the Bible when history clearly shows that the cannon of scripture was established by several Church Councils around the year 400 A.D. and had been in continuous use by all Christians for nearly 1100 years before, contrary to his doctrine of "Scripture alone," Luther removed several Old Testament books from the cannon of Scripture.

Did Luther create a forged history that I'm unaware of - if so please enlighten.

Yes, in the sense that he rejected the 1100 year history of the constant use of the Catholic cannon, creating his own ahistorical cannon, even contradicting his theory of "scripture alone" by removing books from Scripture when Scripture itself, under his rubric, is supposed to be the sole rule of faith.

[Havoc]

Oh brother. This is grasping at straws. But I'll grant you that everyone's story is different. I've read countless articles and books and the conclusion I've come to is a simple one. If the cannon was set and sealed in 400, it would not have resulted in commentary from the well known translator that later translated the Apocryphals and included them with the cannon of scripture to the extent that he said 'I'm translating and including these for reference only'. Nor would it have resulted in Trent stating the Cannon as some would have it "clarifying" the cannon as it presumeably existed. If the cannon were settled in 400, the translator's opinion from a well educated (and noteably so) standpoint, he would have known that his opinion didn't bear any warrant of need at the time - especially if being a 'good catholic' he knew he was bound by council decree. Facts are stubborn things.
Luther may have rejected 1100 years of tradition. But the tradition regarding Constantine is older, has no basis in fact and is rather easily obliterated by scholars.

Now we look at Trent again and give it a benefit of a doubt.
If the Church is bound by council decision, there was no need for a second council to be called to settle a matter that supposedly the people are already bound to. Shakey ground. Back to Luther.

I don't subscribe to the notion that Luther's position was of necessity correct. I've no dog in this race. Luther had the sense to recognize that something was wrong; but, didn't have the conviction to follow through or to go as far as he should have. He fought to change things from the inside till he changed his mind later - nobody listened and instead threatened him. He rebelled and Rome decided to take him seriously all of a sudden (come hither and die - urr, talk with us). He became more about rebelling against the institution and their wrongs than about standing for what was right and making them see the right path. The rhetoric stands plenty enough on it's own leaving the question at the point of the texts.

Now As the war is over the texts - taking it back to the texts themselves and critical review of them finds that the modern 66 book cannon that is most commonly used among protestants is the most easily trusted work. That leaves the opinion of a council from 400 years after christ wanting if they didn't stop with those 66 as the others are demostrably inconsistant with the 66 - something that cannot happen if they are all inspired. And this is a point that is not debateable. Jewish cannon is in no way unclear that God cannot be divided against himself. It is also in the hands of the Jews to set that cannon and it was set before Christ arrived. Let's not forget that scripture states that the oracles of God were in the charge of the Jews - which leaves the Catholics in a funny position setting themselves as keepers of the oracles in any fashion- esp. the OT Cannon. Digressing, a work that expresses a position against another work that is known to be inspired cannot be inspired because by definition it divides God against himself - ie taking both sides on an issue by saying something is a sin and then saying it's not a sin.

Furthermore I look at the trust issues and where the credibility lies or does not. The Catholic church, and this is a matter of fact, not conjecture, has either produced frauds and presented them as factual works that have ended up in use by the church or has been duped by frauds - attributing them to would be saints that would have stature as cannonical if so accepted and are treated as such anyway though betrayed as fraud after long accepted use. Now, as I'm sure you are aware from discussions in another thread, the two Huge obvious groups I'm referencing are the collected frauds of Pseudo Clementine books, And the Forged works of Ignatius which are still under scrutiny to this day. There are others, these are just the most readily available on the net for perusal and consist of enough books collectively to nearly completely dilute the impact of accepted Cannon as it stands book for book. You're only 8 books shy of matching the NT cannon in quantity between the known frauds and the disputed works. If you throw in the fact that the Ignatian works have three
competing versions in some cases that are not wholely consistent, if further stresses the issue and brings one closer to an equality between known inspired books and known frauds. With three competing versions of ignatius at least two of them are spurious. And none of them has real
credibility on it's own save with Catholics.. again - no confidence.

Now the point of logic here is imminantly simple. 1) If the Catholic Church cannot discern a fake writing from the real thing when it comes to their own "fathers", 2) They have been Charged with and proven to have forged writings of early bishops and are charged with the forgery of Clement among others - showing no regard for the sanctity of the real thing 3) they have produced Isidore and subsequently Gracian with no regard for the sanctity of actual history with regard to historic writings, precedent and scriptural structure and 4) they duped one of their own imminent theologians into backing their frauds until he became wise of it and recanted - leaving for another sect (evidently not knowing his salvation was hinged on allegiance and submission to the bishop of Rome) it is therefore not a given that said group either knows the difference between Cannonical books and non-cannonical books or that it even cares beyond the political means to be gained by the next one admitted.

Now, Most here are not going to be aware of all the issues I'm highlighting. But you cannot get around the logic. If the track record neither supports an ability, willingness or care to know the difference but rather displays a willingness to defraud and a history of being duped by frauds, it is inconsistent to say that they could be an authority on what's real and what's not other than to the extent they know what they haven't forged and what forgeries others had to draw their attention to because they (presumeably) didn't know. It's not as though I grudgeingly admit they've been duped. That isn't debateable. It's historical fact that they have been. It's also true that they've been involved in duping others when it suited their purposes. And If I'm not too much mistaken from my last perusal of the subject in the Chronicles threads, someone else had highlighted over there the latest full blown study of the issue by scholars had resulted in again stating that the Roman Church was responsible for the creation and dissemination both of Isidore and Gracian. And if memory serves, it is web published, so a thorough study on the web should turn up that discussion; but, I believe asking over at the Chronicles thread will likely turn it up more quickly. Those who want to know actually have gone out and researched it so they could discuss the points drawn up in discussion repeatedly over there.

There you have it. You wanted my take, and you have it. I'm not alleging the church falsified history. I'm stating that it is the finding of Historians far more imminent than myself and is the widely held position even among a number of Catholic historians and teachers who don't say it very loudly but are still web quoted. I'm merely repeating their findings. It's not as though I'm some lone voice standing in the wilderness or the only one to have ever discovered this. I just seems I'm the one that broached the subject for the first time at FR and ended up with a rather silly ringside seat to a discussion where I was able to watch people change their posture on the issue everytime documentation was produced to the contrary of their latest position. And it's all in the Neverending story archives.
Along with the last holdout position that was finally obliterated - that being that doctrine was not affected by it. When that last holdout was proven false, the leader clammed up and regrouped to the old standby position of if you can't win on facts - smear. In any case, I think that settles fully my position on the subject.

[FormerLib]

You know, if you want to play games. Go play your games.

I know, so long as you can continue to play the "insert some Catholic bashing into unrelated threads" game unimpeded, you'll be happy.

Just expect to be called on it every now and then.

If you don't want to debate the issue or talk about it openly, fine.

Certainly! Discussing the topic of why you feel the need to post this stuff into unrelated thread migh be helpful. It may even help you get to the root of your bigotry. ;-)

As yet, all ya'll have done is cast aspersions about the fact that a Catholic fraud was mentioned as if pointing out catholic error is illegal or something.

Actually, as some of the Roman Catholics on this board will tell you, I am more than willing to discuss some of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church that I believe are in error. Not being a Roman Catholic however, I don't feel the need to insinuate my opinions on this matter into every thread. I simply lack that level of obsession with the topic.

[The_Reader_David]

No quarrel from me that Isidore and Gracian are insidious. They misappropriate the legacy of St. Constantine, making false histories to support the Roman Papacy.

I really do think you have a serious problem, though: the selection of which books really constitute Holy Scripture for the Church founded by Christ was settled by an Ecumenical Council called by a Roman Emperor--the Council of Chalcedon, which ratified the list given by the local Council of Carthage. (Unless you want to accept the Latin notion that the acceptance of the Council of Carthage and its acceptance by the Bishop of Rome sufficed.)

You can rail all you want, because in your vain judgement as an infallible Protestant Pope who thinks the Christian Faith is whatever you think Holy Scripture means, St. Constantine fails your test. The judgement of the Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church is that St. Constantine is not only a Christian, but a saint worthy of the title Equal-to-the-Apostles.

[Havoc]

I know, so long as you can continue to play the "insert some Catholic bashing into unrelated threads" game unimpeded, you'll be happy.

I didn't bash anyone. Nor am I going to sit here and defend against such moronicism. And if you're going to charge it, prove it. Go back to my original point and tell me and everyone else in here where I bashed the Catholic church. There is nothing there but a digest of the facts. If stating facts is bashing, then your problem is with the people who created the facts - the Catholic Church. Oh wait, let's not put it on all catholics, that is not accurate. The Roman Catholic Church. The latins perpetrated that fraud, not the Orthodox, they knew better and wouldn't relent to it.

Certainly! Discussing the topic of why you feel the need to post this stuff into unrelated thread migh be helpful.

I am completely on topic. In discussing the use of fraud and or forgery in the rewriting of history to suit an end, if mentioning the most aggregious and well known of such frauds among historians is not on topic, then NOTHING is. Care to tell me what's topical about your guys coming in here and trying to drag Martin Luther into the discussion by stretching the bounds of the conversation to the imagination? That wasn't about being topical. It was about trying on ya'lls part to sink this into a religious debate. I still managed to tie it all back to the debate ongoing and you guys have offered nothing but slander and insinuation. Pretty bad when you have to create a shadow to box with in plain view of everyone and then try to convince everyone it's you being picked on when it's quite the opposite. Don't attack me and make accusation when it's you guys pulling the garbage. Either stick to the topic or stuff a sock in it. I've got no use for bandying words with Martyrs that craft their own swords and fall on them in plain site while telling everyone that witnessed it that it was someone elses hand on the pommel.

I'm here to debate the topic as it founded in the article. If you wish to continue to try and slander me, there's plenty enough record here that I'm happy to take to the moderators as abuse. You're duly warned.

Actually, as some of the Roman Catholics on this board will tell you, I am more than willing to discuss some of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church that I believe are in error.

Do I care? If I wanted to discuss how full of error the Catholic church is, I'd be in the Christian Chronicles sub. This discussion is about fraud as it relates to rewriting history and supplanting it with lies and fantasy. Again, the Roman church did it and got caught, that they have the distinction of owning the greatest fraud perpetrated is their fault not mine. Saying it is not bashing - it's stating an established fact. If the facts hurt, then you need to decide whether the truth is more important than your comfort. But spare us the self martyrdome complex. It's beyond juvenile and the bile from it is unmistakeable.

[Havoc]

You can rail all you want, because in your vain judgement as an infallible Protestant Pope who thinks the Christian Faith is whatever you think Holy Scripture means, St. Constantine fails your test. The judgement of the Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church is that St. Constantine is not only a Christian, but a saint worthy of the title Equal-to-the-Apostles.

Sorry, not railing. Just stringing the issues together in as concise a manner as possible due to lack of time and interest. And The word Pope is a nonstarter. There is no such thing other than in fantasy created out of fraud. The applicable term would be Bishop if one applied at all and I am not a Bishop. Furthermore, the Orthodox church's opinion on Constantine is not a surprise nor do I care about their opinion on the matter. That myth was originated from orthodox Catholicism well before the latins Schizmatically broke from Catholicism proper. If there are no facts upon which to base their opinions, the ones on record paint the picture - and they don't paint him Christian. Tough luck.

[FormerLib]

I didn't bash anyone. Nor am I going to sit here and defend against such moronicism. And if you're going to charge it, prove it.

I believe that I've been quite clear that your insertion concerning the Roman Catholic Church into the thread constituted bashing, IMHO. Had this been a thread concerning the primacy of the Pope, for instance, the same information would have been right on topic.

I am completely on topic. In discussing the use of fraud and or forgery in the rewriting of history to suit an end, if mentioning the most aggregious and well known of such frauds among historians is not on topic, then NOTHING is.

I just find it curious that you went to that particular example instead of something more recent, such as the Soviet rewriting of their Medieval history or the Democrats re-interpreting the failed Great Society programs as a success. I believe the selection was indicative of a bias.

Care to tell me what's topical about your guys coming in here and trying to drag Martin Luther into the discussion by stretching the bounds of the conversation to the imagination?

My guys? Pardon me, but they are individuals over whom I have no influence. ;-)

If you wish to continue to try and slander me, there's plenty enough record here that I'm happy to take to the moderators as abuse. You're duly warned.

You're threatening me? That's truly funny. Here, I'll ping the moderator for you. I suggest that your selection of off topic insertions indicate a bias and you call it slander? Perhaps you should heed your own words.

If the facts hurt, then you need to decide whether the truth is more important than your comfort. But spare us the self martyrdome complex. It's beyond juvenile and the bile from it is unmistakeable.

Dear Kettle:
You're black!
Sincerely,
The Pot.

[FormerLib]

Looks as if "Pope Havoc I" has ruled against the Church on the question of Constantine!

[Havoc]

Moderator emplored. And you're welcome. Thanks for ruining the discussion.

[mississippi red-neck]

Great Post!!...Now hear this...JESUS WAS BLACK, GEORGE WASHINGTON WAS BLACK, THOMAS JEFFERSON WAS BLACK, SANTA CLAUS, THE EASTER RABBIT, THE TOOTH FAIRY...ALL BLACK! SLICK WILLIE...THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT!...any questions?

You left the facts that not only where they black, but where atheists, homosexuals, women and did not believe in the Second Admendment.

[mississippi red-neck]

And I left out the word "out". Sorry. MRN

[Havoc]

Wait, what's this, the discussion still alive with people on topic that can talk? What's this LOL. And I agree with all your points :)

[FormerLib]

You're quite welcome, Mr. Kettle.

[SunkenCiv]

Got missed during previous sweeps, looks like a good ping for the list.

Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on, off, or alter the "Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list --
Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
The GGG Digest -- Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)

[BenLurkin]

Having been a bookish child I was better read in history than the majority of my college Freshman classmates. I knew who and what Cleopatra was.

I confronted the "Black studies" professor on this during a private interview and he conceded that yes Cleopatra was Greek. This notwithstanding, he taught otherwise in both his lectures and in the required text which he had authored.

I asked him why he continued to foist off this, and other similar lies as part of the REQUIRED Black Studies curriculum. His answer was, in effect, "We have to in order to placate certain interest groups."

Thus went academia into the garbage heap. That was thirty years ago. I imagine it has only gotten worse.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Simply PC "feel good" nonsense. Evryone knows that it was the ancestors of the present day Mexicans that taught the Africans.

[BenLurkin]

You joke, perhaps, and yet . . .

[ApplegateRanch]

Clear back in the mid 60s, my first college course in world history was taught by a black prof. He credited West Africans with discovering Meso-America, and carrying on reguar trade, centuries before Columbus. Egyptians were black. Most of the North African & all the Moorish Muslims in Spain were black; they were the ones the Europeans stole their knowlege and learning from, rather than the Arab muslims. On & on.

It reminded me of what the Soviet Union was doing in the way of claiming radio (Popov) airplanes, televison, and everything else they could as Russian inventions.

Any attempt to refute the BS just meant one was brainwashed, racist, or just plain ignorant.

At least my intro to astrononmy prof KNEW Ptolomaic astronomy was BS, but taught it anyway for the first half of the semester, to form a basis of showing what Copernicus, Keppler and the others had to overcome in divising the modern system, and HOW it was worked out.

[ApplegateRanch]

Imagine my surprise to learn that Aesop was actually an African storyteller. The sketch of him looked totally Mediterranean, but I was assured that he was, in fact, African. (Actually he was born a slave on the island of Samos, but I digress....).

You are contradicting yourself here. If he was a slave a slave, he HAD to be African. Only blacks were slaves; everyone else were bondsmen, or indentured servants, or thralls, or serfs, or esnes, or someother class of black exploiting non-slave.

The Black Panther I supervised about 40 years ago constantly told me all about it.