Historian väärentäminenhän on edelläkuvatulla tavalla täysin systemaattista. Kun ei ole kunniakasta menneisyyttä, sellainen täytyy sitten keksiä, että etuoikeutetut ja viktimisoidut ryhmät tuntisivat olonsa hyväksi. Viis totuudesta.
http://www.worldagesarchive.com/Reference_Links/TWQ_Lefwowitz.html
TWQ: What about facts? Don't facts intrude on these Afro-centric interpretations?
LEFKOWITZ: Well, yes. The facts intrude a great deal on these interpretations, and this is what I've tried to show. In my estimation, the whole discussion of history should be about facts and how facts are used as evidence. I've been accused of racism simply because I've mentioned facts and evidence. The race card is a smoke screen--a way of keeping one away from the truth. The sophisticated version of myth taught as history is to use postmodern theory and to claim that all knowledge is only the opinion of a particular group. I don't believe that, because I think there is such a thing as truth.
TWQ: What is wrong with teaching history that may be factually wrong but makes people feel better about themselves and their heritage?
"LEFKOWITZ: A number of my colleagues have made this argument. I can't tell you the number of non-African-American academics who have been angry at me for pointing our that Afro-centrism is fiction. It shouldn't be taught as history just because it gives people a feeling that they have a wonderful heritage. There are many important things about Africa that people don't know and should know."
http://www.worldagesarchive.com/Reference_Links/TWQ_Lefwowitz.html
TWQ: What about facts? Don't facts intrude on these Afro-centric interpretations?
LEFKOWITZ: Well, yes. The facts intrude a great deal on these interpretations, and this is what I've tried to show. In my estimation, the whole discussion of history should be about facts and how facts are used as evidence. I've been accused of racism simply because I've mentioned facts and evidence. The race card is a smoke screen--a way of keeping one away from the truth. The sophisticated version of myth taught as history is to use postmodern theory and to claim that all knowledge is only the opinion of a particular group. I don't believe that, because I think there is such a thing as truth.
TWQ: What is wrong with teaching history that may be factually wrong but makes people feel better about themselves and their heritage?
"LEFKOWITZ: A number of my colleagues have made this argument. I can't tell you the number of non-African-American academics who have been angry at me for pointing our that Afro-centrism is fiction. It shouldn't be taught as history just because it gives people a feeling that they have a wonderful heritage. There are many important things about Africa that people don't know and should know."
Vastaukset 1
Vanhimmat
Edelleen, kyse on nähdäkseni täysin yleisinhimillisestä reaktiosta, eikä mistään salaliitosta. Muistapa vain, mikä vaikutus Kalevalan julkaisemisella oli suomalaiseen historiantutkimukseen. Jokainen suomalainen akateemikko oli täysin rinnoin mukana riemuitsemassa tästä, juuri keksitystä muinaishistoriasta. Väliäkö sillä, ettei missään muualla oltu kuultukaan Väinämöisen uroteoista.
Afrosentrismi ei sitä paitsi ole kovinkaan yleisesti hyväksytty näkemys, kuten ei ole holokaustin kieltäminenkään. Näitä molempia on käsitelty erinomaisessa teoksessa 'Why people believe weird things'. Suosittelen lukemaan.