What do you think?
Rate this book
Not Out Of Africa: How "Afrocentrism" Became An Excuse To Teach Myth As History
Not Out of Africa has sparked widespread debate over the teaching of revisionist history in schools and colleges. Was Socrates black? Did Aristotle steal his ideas from the library in Alexandria? Do we owe the underlying tenets of our democratic civilizaiton to the Africans? Mary Lefkowitz explains why politically motivated histories of the ancient world are being written and shows how Afrocentrist claims blatantly contradict the historical evidence. Not Out of Africa is an important book that protects and argues for the necessity of historical truths and standards in cultural education. For this new paperback edition, Mary Lefkowitz has written an epilogue in which she responds to her critics and offers topics for further discussion. She has also added supplementary notes, a bibliography with suggestions for further reading, and a glossary of names.
240 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1996
37 people are currently reading
495 people want to read
About the author
Mary R. Lefkowitz
22 books23 followersMary R. Lefkowitz (born April 30, 1935), American scholar of Classics. She studied at Wellesley College before obtaining a Ph.D. in Classical Philology from Radcliffe College in 1961. Lefkowitz has published on subjects including mythology, women in antiquity, Pindar, and fiction in ancient biography.
She came to the attention of a wider audience through her criticism of the claims of Martin Bernal in Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization in her book Not Out of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became an Excuse to Teach Myth As History. In Black Athena Revisited (1996), which she edited with Guy MacLean Rogers, her colleague at Wellesley College, the ideas of Martin Bernal are further scrutinized.
She came to the attention of a wider audience through her criticism of the claims of Martin Bernal in Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization in her book Not Out of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became an Excuse to Teach Myth As History. In Black Athena Revisited (1996), which she edited with Guy MacLean Rogers, her colleague at Wellesley College, the ideas of Martin Bernal are further scrutinized.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews
November 30, 2007
As a graduate student of history, I hadn't given Afrocentrism a second thought until a fellow student produced the book Black Athena and began expounding the thefts Aristotle had made from the library in Alexandria. Clearly, only a classicist could explain this phenomenal belief of historical larceny and cover-up.
Here you can learn where the bodies are buried. Lefkowitz is a professor specializing in ancient Mediterranean culture, so she is able to explain what evidence supports and refutes the ideas of Afrocentrism. The Greeks admired the Egyptian culture and certainly gleaned some ideas from it, made certain exchanges, as will always happen when two civilizations exist so close together. As to theft of materials from the library in Alexandria, Aristotle could not have stolen anything from a library built after his death.
In some cases, footnotes in Afrocentric literature actually lead nowhere or cite sources that do not exist. Much of the evidence for Afrocentrism comes from oral traditions of the Masons, who teach that Egypt had a sort of Masonic system. Lefkowitz writes like a scholar, which means she is sometimes tedius. For a project of disclosure like this, however, tedium is necessary for complete coverage of the subject.
Here you can learn where the bodies are buried. Lefkowitz is a professor specializing in ancient Mediterranean culture, so she is able to explain what evidence supports and refutes the ideas of Afrocentrism. The Greeks admired the Egyptian culture and certainly gleaned some ideas from it, made certain exchanges, as will always happen when two civilizations exist so close together. As to theft of materials from the library in Alexandria, Aristotle could not have stolen anything from a library built after his death.
In some cases, footnotes in Afrocentric literature actually lead nowhere or cite sources that do not exist. Much of the evidence for Afrocentrism comes from oral traditions of the Masons, who teach that Egypt had a sort of Masonic system. Lefkowitz writes like a scholar, which means she is sometimes tedius. For a project of disclosure like this, however, tedium is necessary for complete coverage of the subject.
June 10, 2014
This book handles the factual issues very well, tracing and explaining how certain misconceptions about Graeco-Roman history evolved, but I was disappointed by the concluding remarks. I know there are studies on classics and colonialism out there; instead of invoking holocaust deniers (as Bernal said in his response to the book, "to put this massively documented event, which took place in her and my life time, on the same plane as the reconstruction of the murky origins of Greek civilization over 2,500 years ago is absurd"), she could have talked about how the study and legacy of classics has been used over the centuries by Europeans and the factors motivating Bernal et al to claim the achievements of Graeco-Roman civilization as their own. Really, the entire conclusion felt inappropriate to me and soured an otherwise good reading experience.
November 20, 2017
In the culture wars over the past 30 years or so, the left wing has been occupied by two dissimilar forces - those who want to blame every possible shortcoming in human nature on Western Civilization, and those who prefer to give the credit for Western Civilization's achievements to favored, non-western cultures. The "Afrocentrist" movement in classical studies - which claims that ancient Egyptians were black and that they originated all philosophy and science, which subsequently was copied or even "stolen" by the Greeks - is an example of the latter movement.
In this short book, Wellesley College Professor Mary Lefkowitz explodes the Afrocentric myths perpetrated in her field. Interestingly, Lefkowitz accepts the assertion that ancient Egyptians were black without question. The validity of this assertion, however, is questionable at best. A substantial body of surviving ancient Egyptian artwork appears to depict Egyptians with negroid features. At the same time, modern Egyptians are caucasian, with the swarthy features typical of the semitic peoples of the Eastern Mediterranean. Egypt's ruling class was deposed several times over its long history by invaders from abroad. However, I know of no record of any event that could have resulted in the wholesale displacement of the country's entire population, and it is unlikely that such a dramatic event could have taken place without during historical times without leaving a record.
Lefkowitz proceeds to demolish the claim of the Afrocentrists that every achievement known to history as Greek actually originated with the Egyptians. There is just enough actual historical evidence of a link between Greek scholars and Egypt to enable these claims to avoid being dismissed with nothing more than a smirk. The Classical Greeks admired the great antiquity and undeniable achievements of Egyptian culture, and sometimes sought to connect themselves to it. Later, after the rise of the Helenistic Age when Greek learning dominated the Mediterranean world, Egyptians sometimes claimed that famous Greek scholars such as Plato and Aristotle had studied in Egypt, and Greek historians dutifully recorded these claims. Twentieth Century Afrocentrists then took the ball and ran with it, making all sorts of outlandish arguments for the primacy of Africa in the process. By comparing the actual content of Egyptian and Greek writings and examining the known chronology of relevant events - in other words, by doing what responsible historians do - Lefkowitz shows that the myth of a "stolen legacy" is nothing more than that - a myth.
On one hand, nothing Lefkowitz says is surprising. The facts she cites are well established and in most cases have been known for centuries. On the other, the dominant culture in universities today favors the claims of Afrocentrists and others like them, no matter how outlandish those claims may be. Leftkowitz deserves credit for standing up for the truth on a controversial subject and seeking to maintain standards in her field of study.
In this short book, Wellesley College Professor Mary Lefkowitz explodes the Afrocentric myths perpetrated in her field. Interestingly, Lefkowitz accepts the assertion that ancient Egyptians were black without question. The validity of this assertion, however, is questionable at best. A substantial body of surviving ancient Egyptian artwork appears to depict Egyptians with negroid features. At the same time, modern Egyptians are caucasian, with the swarthy features typical of the semitic peoples of the Eastern Mediterranean. Egypt's ruling class was deposed several times over its long history by invaders from abroad. However, I know of no record of any event that could have resulted in the wholesale displacement of the country's entire population, and it is unlikely that such a dramatic event could have taken place without during historical times without leaving a record.
Lefkowitz proceeds to demolish the claim of the Afrocentrists that every achievement known to history as Greek actually originated with the Egyptians. There is just enough actual historical evidence of a link between Greek scholars and Egypt to enable these claims to avoid being dismissed with nothing more than a smirk. The Classical Greeks admired the great antiquity and undeniable achievements of Egyptian culture, and sometimes sought to connect themselves to it. Later, after the rise of the Helenistic Age when Greek learning dominated the Mediterranean world, Egyptians sometimes claimed that famous Greek scholars such as Plato and Aristotle had studied in Egypt, and Greek historians dutifully recorded these claims. Twentieth Century Afrocentrists then took the ball and ran with it, making all sorts of outlandish arguments for the primacy of Africa in the process. By comparing the actual content of Egyptian and Greek writings and examining the known chronology of relevant events - in other words, by doing what responsible historians do - Lefkowitz shows that the myth of a "stolen legacy" is nothing more than that - a myth.
On one hand, nothing Lefkowitz says is surprising. The facts she cites are well established and in most cases have been known for centuries. On the other, the dominant culture in universities today favors the claims of Afrocentrists and others like them, no matter how outlandish those claims may be. Leftkowitz deserves credit for standing up for the truth on a controversial subject and seeking to maintain standards in her field of study.
January 25, 2021
Mary Lefkowitz looks at some of the claims made by revisionist Afro-centric writers, and shows how these claims misrepresent the historical record. She focuses on the most extreme sorts of claims that attempt to completely rewrite history giving Africa credit for _everything_, which somewhat understandably grew in response to racist denials that Africa deserves credit for _anything_.
It is unfortunate that some Afro-centrists focus so much on the alleged African origins of Western civilization. In a way, this focus reinforces the racist sentiment that only western civilization matters. African civilizations can claim credit for so much of their own, it is a shame to ignore real African achievements (in metallurgy, art, architecture, and commerce, for example). Africa doesn't need to lay dubious claims on Plato and Aristotle, and so on.
It is unfortunate that some Afro-centrists focus so much on the alleged African origins of Western civilization. In a way, this focus reinforces the racist sentiment that only western civilization matters. African civilizations can claim credit for so much of their own, it is a shame to ignore real African achievements (in metallurgy, art, architecture, and commerce, for example). Africa doesn't need to lay dubious claims on Plato and Aristotle, and so on.
July 21, 2014
***I read this some years ago and just found some egregious typos and "speed typing" errors. So I corrected them. Sorry.
Not a bad book... as far as I can see it falls into the "mountain out of a molehill" school. Refuting some pop-culture claims that became prevalent a few years ago it does a good job, but I suppose I was constantly asking "so what?"
Yes the author does a good job but frankly I was never that worried about whether or not Plato (or Cleopatra or others)were "African" (I mean to be Egyptian is to be African in that it's on the continent. The book is referring to race). Her philosophical conclusions would change not at all, it's only our own problems that made any of this important to anyone.
Just my take on it.
Don't get me wrong the book is (as noted) well done and makes it's point showing how these conclusions may have been reached and how similar conclusions have been reached in the past (in the first century it was common to believe that Plato was heavily influenced by and took ideas from Moses). I'd say read from a historical and scholarly point of view.
Her one argument that does hold up is that much of what she's refuting is bad scholarship and sets up problems in other areas of study. That of course could be the case. But other than this and a few historical and religiously related questions I refuse to get upset over questions of who was what race...we have enough problems, don't you think?
Not a bad book... as far as I can see it falls into the "mountain out of a molehill" school. Refuting some pop-culture claims that became prevalent a few years ago it does a good job, but I suppose I was constantly asking "so what?"
Yes the author does a good job but frankly I was never that worried about whether or not Plato (or Cleopatra or others)were "African" (I mean to be Egyptian is to be African in that it's on the continent. The book is referring to race). Her philosophical conclusions would change not at all, it's only our own problems that made any of this important to anyone.
Just my take on it.
Don't get me wrong the book is (as noted) well done and makes it's point showing how these conclusions may have been reached and how similar conclusions have been reached in the past (in the first century it was common to believe that Plato was heavily influenced by and took ideas from Moses). I'd say read from a historical and scholarly point of view.
Her one argument that does hold up is that much of what she's refuting is bad scholarship and sets up problems in other areas of study. That of course could be the case. But other than this and a few historical and religiously related questions I refuse to get upset over questions of who was what race...we have enough problems, don't you think?
October 12, 2014
It is sad that Lefkowitz and other scholars have had to take time away from their scholarship, in which they were trained (unlike Bernal, trained in Chinese history and language) to refute a provocative and in some ways insightful inquiry into ancient Greece's indebtedness to Egyptian and Semitic cultures from the Southeast Mediterranean. However, the American Academy does suffer from fads, and Bernal began publishing BA just as the Culture Wars were waxing hard. Consequently, he capitalized on a certain Zeitgeist. Unfortunately, Bernal's work is deeply flawed with respect to his most cherished argument--the extent of Greece's indebtedness to the two cultures mentioned above. Even more unfortunate is that he probably was aware that he was proffering speculation and possibility for evidence for his claims. This conclusion is inescapable after reading Black Athena Revisited and Not Out of Africa. But if you don't have time to see just how brazen Bernal's capacity for misrepresentation is, read the brief epistolary exchange he has with the archeologist Emily Vermeule (NY Review of Books, May 1992). Bernal, contra Vermeule, denies that in Black Athena 1 he argues that the Egyptians conquered Boetia during the Middle Kingdom. He also cites Vermeule's accusation that he does say such a thing as one of Vermeule's numerous misrepresentations on his arguments. Vermeule's reply? Roughly two dozen quotations from BA 1 that show that Bernal argues precisely the thing he denies arguing. Either Bernal had a brain cramp or was simply betraying what many of his critics have said all along: his arguments about Greece are motivated by a certain hatred for European peoples; hence his desire to diminish the Greek achievement of the 5th century. Everyone who thinks Bernal a sincere scholar who was out to correct grave scholarly injustices should read this exchange and draw their own conclusions.
November 22, 2019
This book began as a New Republic review essay of Bernal's BLACK ATHENA, which Lefkowitz later expanded into the history of a peculiar and durable idea: that the early Egyptians were the progenitors of Western culture and religion, and the possessors of deep wisdom and arcane knowledge. It was a view promoted by the Hellenic-era Greeks themselves, revived in Europe during the Renaissance, and carried into the modern era by the Masons. (African-American Freemasons, Lefkowitz observers, then imparted the myth of Egyptian primacy to the Afrocentrists.) In short, this book is more of an intellectual history than a polemic, which was actually a pleasant surprise - though anyone who knows Lefkowitz knows that she's a scholar first and a polemicist last.
June 29, 2014
It some major ways this book seems dated since the form of Afrocentrism it critiques seems to have little cache in the academy now. Furthermore, the epilogue on personal attacks also seems entirely unsurprising. The information is interesting and mostly valid--indeed, it was unaware how much some of the more conspiracy-seeming-forms of Afrocentrism were based on Hermeticism and Free Masonry mythology being valid. As Lefkowitz points out herself, this is a very Eurocentric view of African and Egyptian culture in the first place. The arguments from ignorance are also persistent. While Lefkowitz mentions this but does not go into it, Hellenistic Egypt was a point where African ideas could have filtered into Western culture through a Greek lens. She also points out that our notions of biological race do not comport well with notions of ethnos in antiquity which were far more linguistic origin.
Many critics of Lefkowitz seem to focus on the black African Egyptians, which is not something Lefkowitz denies as a possibility. Genetic evidence was not out yet, but it looks like different periods of Egyptian ancestry now to have both "black African" and west Asiatic genes. What Lefkowitz denies is Cleopatra and Hellenized Egyptian rulers have strong black backgrounds because it is based on arguments from ignorance and sometimes some confused genealogies. The Black Athena controversy may be dependent on the idea of a black Egypt, but it's main arguments are actually military and cultural and this is what Lefkowitz focuses on in the main.
Lefkowitz focuses on how later Greeks clearly admired Egypt enough to try to link it to their typologies of history, which is fascinating of in and of itself. Another interesting fact which Lefkowitz admits but does not expand on the implications of is that there is increasing evidence of near Eastern influence on Greece and serious classicists have known this for over 100 years. Indeed, it is interesting how Hellenized Greeks, probably due to a rivalry with Persia, really did not want to seem to bring up those parallels as strongly. This actually is a strong criticism of the euro-centric worldview and I wish Lefkowitz would talk about its implications more.
Another criticism I have is Lefkowitz's seemingly wanting to tie these forms of Afrocentrism to postmodernism or political correctness. The later term is vague, and postmodernism critiques narrative histories, but there is nothing in Foucault that would argue that there not some historical facts. This is one area where unfavorable comparisons to Roger Kimball seem apt. Indeed, Lefkowitz's actually proves this form of Afrocentrism is older than postmodernism and is based on myths from Hermeticism and free masonry.
Finally, I feel like the title is an serious misstep since "out of Africa" has always seemed to refer to the origins of mankind, period, and is a fact. This origin is pre-cultural, but is required for understanding human genetic development and bottlenecks in human populations. That Classical Greek culture was not a whole sale rip-off from Africa really has nothing to do with that.
Still I think one can pick up a lot of information about the ancient world, and oddly the myths of medieval free masonry and Hermeticism. Those myths pop up everywhere, including in euro-centric visions of history as well. Furthermore, ironically, Lefkowitz shows that mystical Egypt is largely a misunderstanding of an African culture anyway which was made worse by European thinkers in the early modern period. In a way, this actually sells both Egyptian culture in specific and African at large short. A point which Lefkowitz makes but not being an African history specialist does not go into deeply. I think this book is far more helpful than not if one reads it carefully and a few criticisms and caveats in mind.
Many critics of Lefkowitz seem to focus on the black African Egyptians, which is not something Lefkowitz denies as a possibility. Genetic evidence was not out yet, but it looks like different periods of Egyptian ancestry now to have both "black African" and west Asiatic genes. What Lefkowitz denies is Cleopatra and Hellenized Egyptian rulers have strong black backgrounds because it is based on arguments from ignorance and sometimes some confused genealogies. The Black Athena controversy may be dependent on the idea of a black Egypt, but it's main arguments are actually military and cultural and this is what Lefkowitz focuses on in the main.
Lefkowitz focuses on how later Greeks clearly admired Egypt enough to try to link it to their typologies of history, which is fascinating of in and of itself. Another interesting fact which Lefkowitz admits but does not expand on the implications of is that there is increasing evidence of near Eastern influence on Greece and serious classicists have known this for over 100 years. Indeed, it is interesting how Hellenized Greeks, probably due to a rivalry with Persia, really did not want to seem to bring up those parallels as strongly. This actually is a strong criticism of the euro-centric worldview and I wish Lefkowitz would talk about its implications more.
Another criticism I have is Lefkowitz's seemingly wanting to tie these forms of Afrocentrism to postmodernism or political correctness. The later term is vague, and postmodernism critiques narrative histories, but there is nothing in Foucault that would argue that there not some historical facts. This is one area where unfavorable comparisons to Roger Kimball seem apt. Indeed, Lefkowitz's actually proves this form of Afrocentrism is older than postmodernism and is based on myths from Hermeticism and free masonry.
Finally, I feel like the title is an serious misstep since "out of Africa" has always seemed to refer to the origins of mankind, period, and is a fact. This origin is pre-cultural, but is required for understanding human genetic development and bottlenecks in human populations. That Classical Greek culture was not a whole sale rip-off from Africa really has nothing to do with that.
Still I think one can pick up a lot of information about the ancient world, and oddly the myths of medieval free masonry and Hermeticism. Those myths pop up everywhere, including in euro-centric visions of history as well. Furthermore, ironically, Lefkowitz shows that mystical Egypt is largely a misunderstanding of an African culture anyway which was made worse by European thinkers in the early modern period. In a way, this actually sells both Egyptian culture in specific and African at large short. A point which Lefkowitz makes but not being an African history specialist does not go into deeply. I think this book is far more helpful than not if one reads it carefully and a few criticisms and caveats in mind.
December 8, 2022
A book that makes it pretty clear that many colleges are no longer interested in sharing knowledge or worrying about weighing facts or drawing reasonable conclusions based on evidence, but instead care more about teaching stuff the students want to hear or that makes students feel better about themselves. I think the author is quite right in pointing out that, once schools and other social organizations allow people to have their "own truth" completely separated from all evidence, and particularly when schools are not teaching people to try to get hold of what facts they can before drawing conclusions about how reality works, the end result is likely to be very ugly and to have little to do with what the first group that embraces this idea wants to accomplish.
When reality and evidence cease to matter to a population, power becomes what most matters, and those best at manipulating power will end up in control. Their reality will "win," but of course the world is not just about power, which is why dictatorships and "top down" governing systems tend to lead to massive death and other problems. The reality of how things work -- "Reality with a capital R" -- does not bow to people's mythical reality for very long. When a society doesn't hold to reality as foundational, reality will take its own revenge.
When reality and evidence cease to matter to a population, power becomes what most matters, and those best at manipulating power will end up in control. Their reality will "win," but of course the world is not just about power, which is why dictatorships and "top down" governing systems tend to lead to massive death and other problems. The reality of how things work -- "Reality with a capital R" -- does not bow to people's mythical reality for very long. When a society doesn't hold to reality as foundational, reality will take its own revenge.
September 2, 2011
I read this a while ago, but just want to point out that I don't agree with Lefkowitz's statements...she's countering one politican viewpoint with another.
July 5, 2024
AN AMERICAN CLASSICIST CRITIQUES BERNAL AND G.M. JAMES
Format: Hardcover
Mary R. Lefkowitz (b. 1935) is an American classical scholar and Professor Emerita of Classical Studies at Wellesley College; she is co-editor of the volume, 'Black Athena Revisited.'
She wrote in the Preface to this 1996 book, “In the fall of 1991 I was asked to write a review-article about Martin Bernal’s 'Black Athena' and its relation to the Afrocentrist movement… I realized that here was a subject which needed all the attention, and more, that I could give to it. Although I had been completely unaware of it, there was in existence a whole literature that denied that the ancient Greeks were the inventors of democracy, philosophy, and science. There were books in circulation that claimed that Socrates and Cleopatra were of African descent, and that Greek philosophy had actually been stolen from Egypt… some of these ideas were being taught in schools and even in universities... My article in the ‘New Republic’ soon propelled me into the center of a bitter controversy… I found myself fighting on the front lines of one of the most hotly contested theaters in the Culture Wars…
“There is a need for explanation. There is a need to show why these theories are based on false assumptions and faulty reasoning, and cannot be supported by time-tested methods of intellectual inquiry… In this book I want to show why Afrocentric notions of antiquity, even though unhistorical, have seemed plausible to many intelligent people… ethnic, and even partisan, histories have won approval from university faculties, even though the same faculties would never approve of outmoded or invalid theories in scientific subjects… Why are questions now being raised about the origins of Greek philosophy and the ethnicity of various ancient celebrities? … The explanation is that only 160 years ago it was widely believed that Egypt was the mother of Western civilization. Although shown to be untrue as soon as more information about Egypt became available, the earlier beliefs survive in the mythology of Freemasonry…
“Even though I am not the only classicist who could have written a book about the Afrocentric myth of ancient history, I have one special qualification: a long-standing interest in pseudohistory… This book thus has both a negative and a positive purpose. The negative purpose is to show that the Afrocentric myth of ancient history is a myth, and not history. The positive purpose is to encourage people to learn as much about ancient Egypt and ancient Greece as possible. The ancient Egypt described by Afrocentrists is a fiction. I would like our children and college students to learn about the real Egypt and the real ancient Africa…”
She states, “What did the ancient Greeks look like? From portraits on seal-rings, paintings on vases, and sculptures in clay and stone, it is possible to get a good sense of how they saw themselves. Written texts describe a variety of hair color, ranging from brown to black, and skin color ranging from light to dark. Vase paintings… give a more schematic impression. Women are usually portrayed with white faces. If the background of the vase is black, the men have black faces; if the background is the color of clay from which the vase is made, men have reddish-brown faces. They distinguish themselves clearly from Egyptians and Ethiopian peoples in their art and architecture. The Africans have flat noses, curly hair, and thick lips; their skin color is portrayed with black gauze… They regularly speak of the Egyptians’ dark skin, and sometimes of their curly hair.” (Pg. 13)
She asserts, “the Greeks had from earliest times an abiding respect for the antiquity of Egyptian civilization. Because of this respect, they were willing to report, if not to believe, that their religion originated in Egypt, and that some of their famous philosophers had studied there, even though neither they nor the Egyptians could provide evidence to support their ideas.” (Pg. 21)
She recalls, “I first learned about the notion that Socrates was black… from a student… In a course in Afro-American studies she had been told that he was black… The notion that Socrates was black is based on two different kinds of inference. The first ‘line of proof’ is based on inference from POSSIBILITY. Why couldn’t an Athenian have African ancestors?... almost anything is possible. But it is another question whether or not it was probable. Few prominent Athenians claim to have had foreign ancestors of any sort… In Socrates’ day, they did not allow Greeks from other city-states to become naturalized Athenian citizens…. Another reason… is that no contemporary calls attention to anything extraordinary in his background. If he had been a foreigner, one of his enemies, or one of the comic poets, would have been sure to point it out… If Socrates … had dark skin, some of his contemporaries would have been likely to mention it… Unless, of course, he could not be distinguished from other Athenians because they all had dark skin; but then if they did, why did they not closely resemble the Ethiopians in their art?” (Pg. 26-28)
She acknowledges, “A better case can be made for the Roman poet Terence. The ancient biographer Suetonius says that Terence had a dark complexion… So it is certainly possible that Terence was black, because the same term is used in a first-century poem to describe the skin color of a woman who is unambiguously of ‘African descent.’ But we cannot be absolutely certain, since Terence, like Hannibal, came from Carthage, and the Carthaginians were of Phoenician origin.” (Pg. 31)
She argues, “Because the normal practice of ancient writers was to make as much as possible out of any anomaly or scandal, such as a love affair with or marriage to a foreigner, we can also presume that Cleopatra’s grandmother and mother were Greek, because no ancient writer comments on them. Although the ancients were in general without color prejudice, they were sensitive to differences in appearance, background, and in language.” (Pg. 45) She adds, “Ancient writers would not have hesitated to record that Cleopatra had an African ancestor, if she had one.” (Pg. 47)
She explains, “The idea that Greek religion and philosophy has Egyptian origins may appear at first sight to be more plausible, because it derives, at least in part, from the writings of ancient Greek historians. In the fifth century B.C. Herodotus was told by Egyptian priests that the Greeks owed many aspects of their culture to the older and vastly impressive civilization of the Egyptians. Egyptian priests told Diodorus some of the same stories four centuries later. The church fathers in the second and third centuries A.D. also were eager to emphasize the dependency of Greece on the earlier cultures of the Egyptians and the Hebrews. Some Afrocentrists assume that the Greek historians had access to reliable information about ancient Egypt, and that the accounts of Greek writers can be regarded as literally true… the Greek writers… were eager to establish direct links between their civilization and that of Egypt because Egypt was a vastly older culture… But despite their enthusiasm for Egypt and its material culture… they failed to understand Egyptian religion and the purpose of many Egyptian customs.” (Pg. 54-55)
She says, “We do not need to assume that Herodotus deliberately made up stories about Egypt, even when what he tells us is contradicted by known fact. The problem lies rather in his way of collecting his information.” (Pg. 59)
She points out, “Plato never says in any of his writings that he went to Egypt… But in his dialogues he refers to some Egyptian myths and customs… Plato relates that Solon was told by an old Egyptian priest that the Greeks were mere children in the history of the world. In his ‘Laws’ Plato approves the Egyptian practice of forbidding change in traditional religious music. None of these references shows a profound or first-hand knowledge of Egypt.” (Pg. 81)
She suggests, “the author of a Hermetic treatise addressed to ‘king Ammon’ pretends that his discourse has been translated from Egyptian into Greek, and warns that the god’s philosophy will suffer in translation… Why did the Greek author of this treatise want to pretend that he was an Egyptian? Probably because, like other Greeks who had some acquaintance with Egypt, he admired the antiquity of Egypt and its religion.” (Pg. 102-103)
She criticizes George G.M. James’ book 'Stolen Legacy: Greek Philosophy is Stolen Egyptian Philosophy': “James’s hypothesis about Socrates works only if we are prepared to ignore significant evidence to the contrary… why doesn’t he point out that in reality history is NOT silent on the subject of Socrates’ life? … Plato, in particular, specifies that Socrates never left Athens except on military campaigns elsewhere in Greece. If no ancient writer says that Socrates studied in Egypt, there is a natural and evident explanation: he never left Greece at all during his lifetime. He did not learn about justice and self-control from the Egyptian Mysteries; rather, his conduct in life provided the inspiration for Plato’s notion of a philosophical training.” (Pg. 145) She adds, “[James] presents citations of … course materials in a particularly misleading way. There are no footnotes. Instead, he lists the sources he has consulted only at the end of individual sections, so that it is impossible to know which claim is supposed to be supported by any particular citation.” (Pg. 148)
She concludes, “Discussions about evidence is what scholarship used to be about, and I would argue that we must return to debates about the evidence. When Professor [Molefi Kete] Asante and I debated the issue of Egyptian influence on Greece on a radio program in May 1993, we agreed about many issues… we discussed the evidence and agreed that the Egyptians were an African people, and that the Greeks did not steal their philosophy from Egypt. It is possible to say that some things are true, and others are not, and some things are more likely to be true than others, at least on the basis of what is now known.” (Pg. 160) She adds, “Students of the modern world may think it is a matter of indifference whether or not Aristotle stole his philosophy from Egypt… [But] if you assert that he did steal his philosophy, you are prepared to ignore or to conceal a substantial body of historical evidence that proves the contrary. Once you start doing that, you can have no scientific or even social-scientific discourse, nor can you have a community or a university.” (Pg. 175)
Obviously a book intended to be provocative and controversial, this book is definitely “must reading” for persons seriously studying these issues.
Format: Hardcover
Mary R. Lefkowitz (b. 1935) is an American classical scholar and Professor Emerita of Classical Studies at Wellesley College; she is co-editor of the volume, 'Black Athena Revisited.'
She wrote in the Preface to this 1996 book, “In the fall of 1991 I was asked to write a review-article about Martin Bernal’s 'Black Athena' and its relation to the Afrocentrist movement… I realized that here was a subject which needed all the attention, and more, that I could give to it. Although I had been completely unaware of it, there was in existence a whole literature that denied that the ancient Greeks were the inventors of democracy, philosophy, and science. There were books in circulation that claimed that Socrates and Cleopatra were of African descent, and that Greek philosophy had actually been stolen from Egypt… some of these ideas were being taught in schools and even in universities... My article in the ‘New Republic’ soon propelled me into the center of a bitter controversy… I found myself fighting on the front lines of one of the most hotly contested theaters in the Culture Wars…
“There is a need for explanation. There is a need to show why these theories are based on false assumptions and faulty reasoning, and cannot be supported by time-tested methods of intellectual inquiry… In this book I want to show why Afrocentric notions of antiquity, even though unhistorical, have seemed plausible to many intelligent people… ethnic, and even partisan, histories have won approval from university faculties, even though the same faculties would never approve of outmoded or invalid theories in scientific subjects… Why are questions now being raised about the origins of Greek philosophy and the ethnicity of various ancient celebrities? … The explanation is that only 160 years ago it was widely believed that Egypt was the mother of Western civilization. Although shown to be untrue as soon as more information about Egypt became available, the earlier beliefs survive in the mythology of Freemasonry…
“Even though I am not the only classicist who could have written a book about the Afrocentric myth of ancient history, I have one special qualification: a long-standing interest in pseudohistory… This book thus has both a negative and a positive purpose. The negative purpose is to show that the Afrocentric myth of ancient history is a myth, and not history. The positive purpose is to encourage people to learn as much about ancient Egypt and ancient Greece as possible. The ancient Egypt described by Afrocentrists is a fiction. I would like our children and college students to learn about the real Egypt and the real ancient Africa…”
She states, “What did the ancient Greeks look like? From portraits on seal-rings, paintings on vases, and sculptures in clay and stone, it is possible to get a good sense of how they saw themselves. Written texts describe a variety of hair color, ranging from brown to black, and skin color ranging from light to dark. Vase paintings… give a more schematic impression. Women are usually portrayed with white faces. If the background of the vase is black, the men have black faces; if the background is the color of clay from which the vase is made, men have reddish-brown faces. They distinguish themselves clearly from Egyptians and Ethiopian peoples in their art and architecture. The Africans have flat noses, curly hair, and thick lips; their skin color is portrayed with black gauze… They regularly speak of the Egyptians’ dark skin, and sometimes of their curly hair.” (Pg. 13)
She asserts, “the Greeks had from earliest times an abiding respect for the antiquity of Egyptian civilization. Because of this respect, they were willing to report, if not to believe, that their religion originated in Egypt, and that some of their famous philosophers had studied there, even though neither they nor the Egyptians could provide evidence to support their ideas.” (Pg. 21)
She recalls, “I first learned about the notion that Socrates was black… from a student… In a course in Afro-American studies she had been told that he was black… The notion that Socrates was black is based on two different kinds of inference. The first ‘line of proof’ is based on inference from POSSIBILITY. Why couldn’t an Athenian have African ancestors?... almost anything is possible. But it is another question whether or not it was probable. Few prominent Athenians claim to have had foreign ancestors of any sort… In Socrates’ day, they did not allow Greeks from other city-states to become naturalized Athenian citizens…. Another reason… is that no contemporary calls attention to anything extraordinary in his background. If he had been a foreigner, one of his enemies, or one of the comic poets, would have been sure to point it out… If Socrates … had dark skin, some of his contemporaries would have been likely to mention it… Unless, of course, he could not be distinguished from other Athenians because they all had dark skin; but then if they did, why did they not closely resemble the Ethiopians in their art?” (Pg. 26-28)
She acknowledges, “A better case can be made for the Roman poet Terence. The ancient biographer Suetonius says that Terence had a dark complexion… So it is certainly possible that Terence was black, because the same term is used in a first-century poem to describe the skin color of a woman who is unambiguously of ‘African descent.’ But we cannot be absolutely certain, since Terence, like Hannibal, came from Carthage, and the Carthaginians were of Phoenician origin.” (Pg. 31)
She argues, “Because the normal practice of ancient writers was to make as much as possible out of any anomaly or scandal, such as a love affair with or marriage to a foreigner, we can also presume that Cleopatra’s grandmother and mother were Greek, because no ancient writer comments on them. Although the ancients were in general without color prejudice, they were sensitive to differences in appearance, background, and in language.” (Pg. 45) She adds, “Ancient writers would not have hesitated to record that Cleopatra had an African ancestor, if she had one.” (Pg. 47)
She explains, “The idea that Greek religion and philosophy has Egyptian origins may appear at first sight to be more plausible, because it derives, at least in part, from the writings of ancient Greek historians. In the fifth century B.C. Herodotus was told by Egyptian priests that the Greeks owed many aspects of their culture to the older and vastly impressive civilization of the Egyptians. Egyptian priests told Diodorus some of the same stories four centuries later. The church fathers in the second and third centuries A.D. also were eager to emphasize the dependency of Greece on the earlier cultures of the Egyptians and the Hebrews. Some Afrocentrists assume that the Greek historians had access to reliable information about ancient Egypt, and that the accounts of Greek writers can be regarded as literally true… the Greek writers… were eager to establish direct links between their civilization and that of Egypt because Egypt was a vastly older culture… But despite their enthusiasm for Egypt and its material culture… they failed to understand Egyptian religion and the purpose of many Egyptian customs.” (Pg. 54-55)
She says, “We do not need to assume that Herodotus deliberately made up stories about Egypt, even when what he tells us is contradicted by known fact. The problem lies rather in his way of collecting his information.” (Pg. 59)
She points out, “Plato never says in any of his writings that he went to Egypt… But in his dialogues he refers to some Egyptian myths and customs… Plato relates that Solon was told by an old Egyptian priest that the Greeks were mere children in the history of the world. In his ‘Laws’ Plato approves the Egyptian practice of forbidding change in traditional religious music. None of these references shows a profound or first-hand knowledge of Egypt.” (Pg. 81)
She suggests, “the author of a Hermetic treatise addressed to ‘king Ammon’ pretends that his discourse has been translated from Egyptian into Greek, and warns that the god’s philosophy will suffer in translation… Why did the Greek author of this treatise want to pretend that he was an Egyptian? Probably because, like other Greeks who had some acquaintance with Egypt, he admired the antiquity of Egypt and its religion.” (Pg. 102-103)
She criticizes George G.M. James’ book 'Stolen Legacy: Greek Philosophy is Stolen Egyptian Philosophy': “James’s hypothesis about Socrates works only if we are prepared to ignore significant evidence to the contrary… why doesn’t he point out that in reality history is NOT silent on the subject of Socrates’ life? … Plato, in particular, specifies that Socrates never left Athens except on military campaigns elsewhere in Greece. If no ancient writer says that Socrates studied in Egypt, there is a natural and evident explanation: he never left Greece at all during his lifetime. He did not learn about justice and self-control from the Egyptian Mysteries; rather, his conduct in life provided the inspiration for Plato’s notion of a philosophical training.” (Pg. 145) She adds, “[James] presents citations of … course materials in a particularly misleading way. There are no footnotes. Instead, he lists the sources he has consulted only at the end of individual sections, so that it is impossible to know which claim is supposed to be supported by any particular citation.” (Pg. 148)
She concludes, “Discussions about evidence is what scholarship used to be about, and I would argue that we must return to debates about the evidence. When Professor [Molefi Kete] Asante and I debated the issue of Egyptian influence on Greece on a radio program in May 1993, we agreed about many issues… we discussed the evidence and agreed that the Egyptians were an African people, and that the Greeks did not steal their philosophy from Egypt. It is possible to say that some things are true, and others are not, and some things are more likely to be true than others, at least on the basis of what is now known.” (Pg. 160) She adds, “Students of the modern world may think it is a matter of indifference whether or not Aristotle stole his philosophy from Egypt… [But] if you assert that he did steal his philosophy, you are prepared to ignore or to conceal a substantial body of historical evidence that proves the contrary. Once you start doing that, you can have no scientific or even social-scientific discourse, nor can you have a community or a university.” (Pg. 175)
Obviously a book intended to be provocative and controversial, this book is definitely “must reading” for persons seriously studying these issues.
April 20, 2013
Afrocentrism
This book is a criticism of afrocentrism, which is an academic phenomenon, where African civilizations are given too much credit for the development of European civilization. Afrocentrists have a political agenda, they are not objective scholars.
Noted Afrocentrists
• Molefi Kete Asante
• Martin Bernal
• John Henrik Clarke
• Cheikh Anta Diop
• Marcus Mosiah Garvey
• Yosef A. A. ben-Jochannan
• Joel A. Rogers
Mystical Egypt
The author uses the term Mystical Egypt to mean what the ancient Greeks imagined Egypt to be. Greeks had difficulty traveling to Egypt during the period when Egypt was under Persian dominations. Out of a sense of pride, Egyptian priests told Greek visitors that much of Greek culture originated in Egypt. Many Greeks when along with this false history that Greek ideas originated in Egypt. During the Renaissance and Enlightenment, there was a rediscovery of classical sources, including the ancient Greek misunderstanding of ancient Egypt. There was no Egyptian Mystery System; it was a projection of Greek mystery cults onto the Egyptian religion.
Masonry
Much of freemasonry was based on a 17th century novel by a French priest named Abbé Jean Terrasson. The novel was based on Mystical Egypt, as described by Greek and Latin sources, which were not an accurate description of ancient Egypt as it actually was.
Historical Egypt
Ancient Greek contains very few words of Egyptian origin. Before Napoleon’s troops invaded Egypt saw things first hand, Europeans knew little about Egypt. Europeans did not learn the true history of ancient Egypt until Egyptian hieroglyphics were deciphered in 1836. The ancient Egyptian language lacked abstract philosophical concepts, so ancient Greek philosophy could not have come from Egypt. Egyptian ideas were religious, not scientific and not philosophical. The Egyptian Book of the Dead is a compilation of religious ritual, not a philosophical treatise.
Alexandria
Alexandria was a Greek colony. Aristotle could not have stolen his philosophy from the library at Alexandria, because the library was not built until after Aristotle died. Cleopatra did not have African blood in her. Cleopatra's paternal grandmother was a mistress, not a wife, and most probably Greek, because if the grandmother had been Egyptian, writers would have commented upon it as they did the case of Didyme.
Carthage
There is no evidence that Hannibal had African ancestors. Hannibal was Phoenician, because Carthage was a Phoenician colony, not a Berber city.
This book is a criticism of afrocentrism, which is an academic phenomenon, where African civilizations are given too much credit for the development of European civilization. Afrocentrists have a political agenda, they are not objective scholars.
Noted Afrocentrists
• Molefi Kete Asante
• Martin Bernal
• John Henrik Clarke
• Cheikh Anta Diop
• Marcus Mosiah Garvey
• Yosef A. A. ben-Jochannan
• Joel A. Rogers
Mystical Egypt
The author uses the term Mystical Egypt to mean what the ancient Greeks imagined Egypt to be. Greeks had difficulty traveling to Egypt during the period when Egypt was under Persian dominations. Out of a sense of pride, Egyptian priests told Greek visitors that much of Greek culture originated in Egypt. Many Greeks when along with this false history that Greek ideas originated in Egypt. During the Renaissance and Enlightenment, there was a rediscovery of classical sources, including the ancient Greek misunderstanding of ancient Egypt. There was no Egyptian Mystery System; it was a projection of Greek mystery cults onto the Egyptian religion.
Masonry
Much of freemasonry was based on a 17th century novel by a French priest named Abbé Jean Terrasson. The novel was based on Mystical Egypt, as described by Greek and Latin sources, which were not an accurate description of ancient Egypt as it actually was.
Historical Egypt
Ancient Greek contains very few words of Egyptian origin. Before Napoleon’s troops invaded Egypt saw things first hand, Europeans knew little about Egypt. Europeans did not learn the true history of ancient Egypt until Egyptian hieroglyphics were deciphered in 1836. The ancient Egyptian language lacked abstract philosophical concepts, so ancient Greek philosophy could not have come from Egypt. Egyptian ideas were religious, not scientific and not philosophical. The Egyptian Book of the Dead is a compilation of religious ritual, not a philosophical treatise.
Alexandria
Alexandria was a Greek colony. Aristotle could not have stolen his philosophy from the library at Alexandria, because the library was not built until after Aristotle died. Cleopatra did not have African blood in her. Cleopatra's paternal grandmother was a mistress, not a wife, and most probably Greek, because if the grandmother had been Egyptian, writers would have commented upon it as they did the case of Didyme.
Carthage
There is no evidence that Hannibal had African ancestors. Hannibal was Phoenician, because Carthage was a Phoenician colony, not a Berber city.
May 2, 2015
This was very good. I've heard from a few different people throughout my life the claims that Greece "stole" from Egypt or that Egypt had a much more significant role on Greece than our history books tell us. Their claims always sounded outlandish and I never really believed them, but I never delved further into the issue. The people who have made these claims have been driven by some race-based, extreme ideology, so I've taken all of their claims with a huge grain of salt.
Lefkowitz does a great job of presenting the claims of the Afrocentrists and then demolishing each one. She tends to start with current Afrocentrist writings and then trace their claims back to their original sources. Her favorite Afrocentrist work to attack is "Stolen Legacy" by George G.M. James; it's really fascinating how loosely cited James' work is. Egypt obviously influenced Greek thought to some extent (as Greece influenced Egyptian thought), but to assert that the Greeks raided the Great Library of Alexandria and passed the work off as their own is utterly nonsensical. Lefkowitz does a good job of reasonably shutting down many of the arguments in James' work and others that came before it.
She is absolutely correct that the notion of academic freedom should not extend to allow professors to teach whatever they want. A university has a responsibility to quell these types of false teachings. No matter how good it may make a group of people feel, falsehoods are antithetical to a positive learning environment. I think things have only gotten worse in this regard since Lefkowitz wrote Not Out of Africa, but I hope the university system will eventually attack Afrocentrism and other dogmas like it.
Lefkowitz does a great job of presenting the claims of the Afrocentrists and then demolishing each one. She tends to start with current Afrocentrist writings and then trace their claims back to their original sources. Her favorite Afrocentrist work to attack is "Stolen Legacy" by George G.M. James; it's really fascinating how loosely cited James' work is. Egypt obviously influenced Greek thought to some extent (as Greece influenced Egyptian thought), but to assert that the Greeks raided the Great Library of Alexandria and passed the work off as their own is utterly nonsensical. Lefkowitz does a good job of reasonably shutting down many of the arguments in James' work and others that came before it.
She is absolutely correct that the notion of academic freedom should not extend to allow professors to teach whatever they want. A university has a responsibility to quell these types of false teachings. No matter how good it may make a group of people feel, falsehoods are antithetical to a positive learning environment. I think things have only gotten worse in this regard since Lefkowitz wrote Not Out of Africa, but I hope the university system will eventually attack Afrocentrism and other dogmas like it.
September 7, 2017
Not Out of Africa was an excellent book. It dealt with harshly exposing myths being taught as fact in African and African American studies such as Greece copying Egypt in virtually every way, Socrates being black, Jackie Kennedy being black and etc. She also attacks Euro and Judeocenteism as well. All in all a great book.
February 27, 2009
A+ for the subject matter (no, Socrates was not black and Aristotle didn't steal his knowledge from the not-yet-built Library of Alexandria), C- for pointing out how right you are in a book most likely to be bought by people who agree with you in the first place.
June 25, 2009
Extremely good refutation of the intellectual fads of the academy. American universities should be embarrassed that this book had to be written. Lefkowitz strngly defends historical truth from PC fiction. A must for ancient history buffs.
July 3, 2018
Excellent book setting out the historical reasons to reject the thesis that somehow Greek philosophy was literally "stolen" from Egypt. In fact, that entire thesis is based on European works and myths of the 17th and 18th centuries.
September 18, 2024
In this fairly brief work, Lefkowitz sets out to go after the nonsense that is Afrocentric hypothesis. However, the book's title is a little misleading. As it is, "Not Out of Africa: How 'Afrocentrism' Became an Excuse to Teach Myth as History," leads you to believe that she is going to wallop Afrocentrism and take down the entire ideology. However, in reality the book's title would have been more accurate had it been, "Not Out of Egypt: How 'Afrocentrism' Became an Excuse to Teach Myth About Greek History." I say that because Lefkowitz's primary objective and focus in this book is to debunk the notion that Ancient Greece was essentially birthed (or stolen) from a more advanced Egyptian civilization. She does a great job of doing that in general, but it's not an exhaustive take-down of Afrocentrism.
Something I think she needed to do was to be more specific about the Afrocentric hypothesis. She should've have been much more clear that Afrocentrism isn't just some claim that Greece borrowed/stole from Egypt. It's a claim that even ancient Egyptians were themselves black African, and essentially all the civilized world owes black Africa for everything we have. Lefkowitz should have started off with a much stronger debunking of that premise, particularly the "black Egypt" nonsense, as all the data debunks the idea that ancient Egyptians were black. Even numerous mummies have red and blonde hair. Of course in 1996 Lefkowitz didn't have access to the recent genetic data that shows ancient Egyptians were not only NOT black, but were actually related to the people of the Levant, Mediterranean, and Eastern Europe (King Tut himself is European haplogroup R1b1a2), and not AT ALL sub-Saharan African; but even without that she could have knocked the "black Egyptians" trope down fast and started from an indestructible foundation.
Nonetheless, she does do a good job debunking the crackpot idea that Cleopatra, Socrates, or Plato were black African. It actually wasn't hard for her to do this, as almost all Afrocentrist authors have the same inability to evaluate evidence, understand chronology, process probabilities, among other scholarly methods. They have the same sort of thinking that prevents one from understanding the question, "How would you feel if you had not eaten breakfast this morning?" If they come across evidence contrary to their claims, they just ignore it, and cannot understand why that's not okay. But Lefkowitz lambastes that unscholarly approach, and she does a real number on the academically bankrupt work, "Stolen Legacy," by George G.M. James. When she's done, that book is left in confetti. By the end of her book, there's no doubt left that any notion that Greece was built off of the stolen knowledge of some mythical black Egypt, is soundly squashed, burned, and buried. It was a pleasurable book to read, though it would have been even better had it been longer and more in depth, but nonetheless enjoyable.
Something I think she needed to do was to be more specific about the Afrocentric hypothesis. She should've have been much more clear that Afrocentrism isn't just some claim that Greece borrowed/stole from Egypt. It's a claim that even ancient Egyptians were themselves black African, and essentially all the civilized world owes black Africa for everything we have. Lefkowitz should have started off with a much stronger debunking of that premise, particularly the "black Egypt" nonsense, as all the data debunks the idea that ancient Egyptians were black. Even numerous mummies have red and blonde hair. Of course in 1996 Lefkowitz didn't have access to the recent genetic data that shows ancient Egyptians were not only NOT black, but were actually related to the people of the Levant, Mediterranean, and Eastern Europe (King Tut himself is European haplogroup R1b1a2), and not AT ALL sub-Saharan African; but even without that she could have knocked the "black Egyptians" trope down fast and started from an indestructible foundation.
Nonetheless, she does do a good job debunking the crackpot idea that Cleopatra, Socrates, or Plato were black African. It actually wasn't hard for her to do this, as almost all Afrocentrist authors have the same inability to evaluate evidence, understand chronology, process probabilities, among other scholarly methods. They have the same sort of thinking that prevents one from understanding the question, "How would you feel if you had not eaten breakfast this morning?" If they come across evidence contrary to their claims, they just ignore it, and cannot understand why that's not okay. But Lefkowitz lambastes that unscholarly approach, and she does a real number on the academically bankrupt work, "Stolen Legacy," by George G.M. James. When she's done, that book is left in confetti. By the end of her book, there's no doubt left that any notion that Greece was built off of the stolen knowledge of some mythical black Egypt, is soundly squashed, burned, and buried. It was a pleasurable book to read, though it would have been even better had it been longer and more in depth, but nonetheless enjoyable.
June 11, 2018
In this book we look at Afrocentrism and how the left promoted a radical view of ancient history... radical in that it proposes that Egypt, and not the Greeks were the forebearers of Western Civilization.
Although written in the 1990s Ms. Lefkowitz's book examines some of the ills of modern academia, mainly historical revisionism and cultural appropriation. She does an excellent job of skewering the arguments that the Egyptians originated many of the philosophical and religious ideas attributed to the Greeks, pointing out problems of timelines and the weak arguments that so-and-so COULD have been Egyptian, etc. She also sinks the idea of "cultural appropriation" by asking a simple question: how can a culture be "stolen?" A culture can no more be stolen than an idea can.
The scariest part of this book was how no professors of ancient history publicly challenged afrocentric speakers on their so-called facts. We are seeing much the same kind of "pass" being given to Islamofascists who are being invited to speak at college campuses about civil rights.
The Egyptians have a great number of accomplishments they can claim as their own... there is no reason why the heritage of Plato et al has to be given to them as well.
Although written in the 1990s Ms. Lefkowitz's book examines some of the ills of modern academia, mainly historical revisionism and cultural appropriation. She does an excellent job of skewering the arguments that the Egyptians originated many of the philosophical and religious ideas attributed to the Greeks, pointing out problems of timelines and the weak arguments that so-and-so COULD have been Egyptian, etc. She also sinks the idea of "cultural appropriation" by asking a simple question: how can a culture be "stolen?" A culture can no more be stolen than an idea can.
The scariest part of this book was how no professors of ancient history publicly challenged afrocentric speakers on their so-called facts. We are seeing much the same kind of "pass" being given to Islamofascists who are being invited to speak at college campuses about civil rights.
The Egyptians have a great number of accomplishments they can claim as their own... there is no reason why the heritage of Plato et al has to be given to them as well.
August 3, 2022
Great response to several Afrocentrist claims. The book can be a bit dry if you're not too interested in classics, and I found myself getting a bit bored on a few sections. Personally, I prefer History Lesson, also by Lefkowitz, for a more intriguing book on Afrocentrism, specifically because it covers her struggles to combat the conspiratorial beliefs endemic to some scholars, including some of her colleagues. This book is more for the actual debunking, where History Lesson is more of a general read. Nonetheless, still a great counter to crazy claims about antiquity.
August 4, 2023
Amazing this is from 1996 and we're still dealing with this kinda lunacy today. It's ironic how the author gives the idea of "flat Earth" as a metaphor for Afrocentrism. Perhaps allowing subjective takes on science and history have a consequence with the rise of the flat Earth dogma during the 20-teens. This book makes me think that there needs to be an interdisciplinary course combining history and therapy where one can learn that just because bad things happened doesn't you're a bad person.
February 27, 2026
The Undermining of Man’s Quest for Truth through Knowledge
Professor Lefkowitz eviscerates the practice of professors who present fiction as fact. Her narrative exposes charlatans use of lecterns not to educate but to embed a false social narrative into the brains of students instead of information leading to students’ expansion of truth through knowledge. A subtext of Lefkowitz’s treatise to her critics, which seems to have escaped their understanding, is that academia is predicated on the search for truth and those who settle for less cast themselves as frauds.
Professor Lefkowitz eviscerates the practice of professors who present fiction as fact. Her narrative exposes charlatans use of lecterns not to educate but to embed a false social narrative into the brains of students instead of information leading to students’ expansion of truth through knowledge. A subtext of Lefkowitz’s treatise to her critics, which seems to have escaped their understanding, is that academia is predicated on the search for truth and those who settle for less cast themselves as frauds.
October 15, 2021
Although extremely academic at times this book highlights the incredible balderdash that is afrocentrism. I understand history clearly has a number of paramount factors but please don't plagiarise its content in order to makes ones ethnicity feel superior. A good read and interesting journey into the ancients and a brave step to stand up against the plague that is, identity politics.
September 6, 2018
An interesting counter-argument to the Afrocentric movement in education.
May 10, 2021
Very interesting, informative, and well-researched.
September 18, 2022
The focus is how some distort history, or outright lie, for a modern political agenda.
Pieces of ancient Greek and Egyptian history are explored in a few narrow areas.
Pieces of ancient Greek and Egyptian history are explored in a few narrow areas.
October 22, 2025
Very interesting, fact based history of Greek Philosophy. An important case for fact based history over myth.
August 16, 2024
Lefkowitz deserves credit for rebutting the falsehoods and faulty assumptions of the Afrocentrist movement and Martin Bernal's controversial book Black Athena. Bernal claimed that Europeans generally thought Western civilization was derived from that of Egypt—what he called the "Ancient Model" for the origins of Greek culture—right up until the 19th century, when it suddenly shifted to a racist "Aryan Model".
Lefkowitz doesn't explore Bernal's sweeping claim as extensively as I'd prefer. She puts too much weight on the influence of Séthos, Jean Terrasson's 18th-century novel/fraud, as the basis for the assumptions of the "Ancient Model". A lot of influences besides Séthos contributed to the 18th-century fixation on Egypt, as shown in Moses the Egyptian and The Wisdom of Egypt: Changing Visions Through the Ages . However, the novel was important, and Lefkowitz seems to have been the first to examine its impact in depth.
Overall, this book feels rather one-sided and incomplete. It examines the origins of many of Afrocentrism's faulty claims, but aside from generally acknowledging that Afrocentrism is a reaction to past racism, it doesn't much discuss what created the Afrocentrist suspicion of academia and the mainstream version of history. For example, Lefkowitz underestimates how badly racism skewed scholarship in the 19th and early 20th centuries. That might be because she is a classicist unfamiliar with Egyptology, which was worse afflicted by racism (as discussed in Ancient Egypt in Africa), but Thomas A. Schmitz's essay "Ex Africa lux?" shows that even in classical studies the effect was profound. Many of the Afrocentric movement's claims are wrong or grossly exaggerated, but the movement exists for a reason. The academic racism that it complains of was real and still has to be guarded against.
I recommend Schmitz's essay, which is (or at least used to be) available online, to anyone who wants a better understanding of the Black Athena phenomenon. Because it is aimed at a European audience and doesn't take the American background for granted, it shows in better detail than Lefkowitz how the Black Athena controversy was largely created by American identity politics. It also shows how Bernal was more interested in attracting support from people on one side of the culture wars than in making a well-supported argument. Other, broader treatments of the Afrocentrist controversies include Afrocentrism: Mythical Pasts and Imagined Homes by Stephen Howe, and African Athena by multiple scholars. For anyone who wants to find out what elements of Greek culture genuinely were derived from Egypt (and the Near East, whose contributions were much more important), Babylon, Memphis, Persepolis: Eastern Contexts of Greek Culture makes a decent starting point.
Lefkowitz doesn't explore Bernal's sweeping claim as extensively as I'd prefer. She puts too much weight on the influence of Séthos, Jean Terrasson's 18th-century novel/fraud, as the basis for the assumptions of the "Ancient Model". A lot of influences besides Séthos contributed to the 18th-century fixation on Egypt, as shown in Moses the Egyptian and The Wisdom of Egypt: Changing Visions Through the Ages . However, the novel was important, and Lefkowitz seems to have been the first to examine its impact in depth.
Overall, this book feels rather one-sided and incomplete. It examines the origins of many of Afrocentrism's faulty claims, but aside from generally acknowledging that Afrocentrism is a reaction to past racism, it doesn't much discuss what created the Afrocentrist suspicion of academia and the mainstream version of history. For example, Lefkowitz underestimates how badly racism skewed scholarship in the 19th and early 20th centuries. That might be because she is a classicist unfamiliar with Egyptology, which was worse afflicted by racism (as discussed in Ancient Egypt in Africa), but Thomas A. Schmitz's essay "Ex Africa lux?" shows that even in classical studies the effect was profound. Many of the Afrocentric movement's claims are wrong or grossly exaggerated, but the movement exists for a reason. The academic racism that it complains of was real and still has to be guarded against.
I recommend Schmitz's essay, which is (or at least used to be) available online, to anyone who wants a better understanding of the Black Athena phenomenon. Because it is aimed at a European audience and doesn't take the American background for granted, it shows in better detail than Lefkowitz how the Black Athena controversy was largely created by American identity politics. It also shows how Bernal was more interested in attracting support from people on one side of the culture wars than in making a well-supported argument. Other, broader treatments of the Afrocentrist controversies include Afrocentrism: Mythical Pasts and Imagined Homes by Stephen Howe, and African Athena by multiple scholars. For anyone who wants to find out what elements of Greek culture genuinely were derived from Egypt (and the Near East, whose contributions were much more important), Babylon, Memphis, Persepolis: Eastern Contexts of Greek Culture makes a decent starting point.
Read
November 19, 2025You can imitate a civilization. You can even falsely claim credit for its innovations. But you can't steal it. If you copy, for instance, a mathematical system or a metallurgical technique, it doesn't disappear from its place of origin. Civilizations aren't material objects like wallets or cars, which can be carried off. Civilizations reside in the memories, customs and practices of their members.
Maybe this point seems too obvious to need making, but apparently it does. Not Out of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became an Excuse to Teach Myth as History, by Mary R. Lefkowitz, makes it convincingly. In fact, she may dwell on debunking the extravagant claims of Afrocentrism rather longer than they warrant. She might have devoted more pages to exploring why some of the kookier notions of Afrocentrism ever appealed as they did. She might have rounded out her theme with comparative examples from other cultures. There are many. Take Renaissance era Germans. They rewrote ancient history to give their then-primitive ancestors a prominent role in antiquity. Or the seventeenth century Swedish scholar Olaus Rudbeck. He theorized that Sweden was the historical Atlantis, and that the Swedish language was the source of Greek and Hebrew. Or the modern Hindutva movement. It claims there are references in ancient Indian literature to airplanes, nuclear weapons, and other advanced technologies. There is nothing unusual about wildly far-fetched ethnocentric claims.
Given the tragic historical circumstances against which it is a reaction, some version of Afrocentrism was probably all-but inevitable. Not Out of Africa is a decent enough book within the parameters of its modest ambition. But why such modest ambition? Lefkowitz might have used her subject, a strain of twentieth century revisionism, as a springboard to deeper reflections on the abuse of history to bolster in-group self-esteem. She might have written a book of enduring value. Instead, she settled for a book of the moment.
Maybe this point seems too obvious to need making, but apparently it does. Not Out of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became an Excuse to Teach Myth as History, by Mary R. Lefkowitz, makes it convincingly. In fact, she may dwell on debunking the extravagant claims of Afrocentrism rather longer than they warrant. She might have devoted more pages to exploring why some of the kookier notions of Afrocentrism ever appealed as they did. She might have rounded out her theme with comparative examples from other cultures. There are many. Take Renaissance era Germans. They rewrote ancient history to give their then-primitive ancestors a prominent role in antiquity. Or the seventeenth century Swedish scholar Olaus Rudbeck. He theorized that Sweden was the historical Atlantis, and that the Swedish language was the source of Greek and Hebrew. Or the modern Hindutva movement. It claims there are references in ancient Indian literature to airplanes, nuclear weapons, and other advanced technologies. There is nothing unusual about wildly far-fetched ethnocentric claims.
Given the tragic historical circumstances against which it is a reaction, some version of Afrocentrism was probably all-but inevitable. Not Out of Africa is a decent enough book within the parameters of its modest ambition. But why such modest ambition? Lefkowitz might have used her subject, a strain of twentieth century revisionism, as a springboard to deeper reflections on the abuse of history to bolster in-group self-esteem. She might have written a book of enduring value. Instead, she settled for a book of the moment.
November 4, 2013
Not the most entertaining read in the world, but attains its objectives (to disprove various unreasoned claims of "Afrocentric" extremists, mostly concerning the roots of Greek culture) with reams of facts which efficiently whittle away at such claims. Someone who is on the fence about such issues should find them highly persuasive.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews