A Professor of Classics’ Refutation of the Afrocentrist Doctrine that Ancient Greece Stole Its Culture from Ancient Egypt

Mary Lefkowitz, Not Out of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became An Excuse to Teach Myth as History (New York: Basic Books 1996)

Afrocentrism is the pseudo-academic discipline that claims that ancient Egypt was Black and the ultimate source of the cultures of Europe and Africa. One of its doctrines is that major figures in the ancient world, such as Cleopatra and Socrates, were Black and that the ancient Greeks stole Egypt’s advanced culture and civilisation and passed it off as their own. According to Afrocentrists such as Yosef A.A. Ben Yochannan, Aristotle accompanied Alexander the Great on his invasion of Egypt, where he plundered the great library of Alexandria before it was destroyed by Alexander. Lefkowitz is a professor of Classics and teaches Greek at Wellesley College in America. In this book she destroys these claims, and traces the Afrocentrist ideas of ancient Egyptian civilisation back to Black Freemasonry and the 18th century novel Sethos by the French writer, the Abbe Terrasson and their influence on George G.G. James’ 1950’s book, The Stolen Legacy.

Lefkowitz Not Motivated By Racism

Lefkowitz states very clearly in her book that she is not motivated by racism. She believes that Egypt was a Black civilisation, and in her epilogue suggests ways in which Egypt may have influenced ancient Greek culture that could be properly explored and researched by historians. Her objection to Afrocentrism comes from the fact that it is simply wrong. She also points out its dangers to history and society, as it posits different races can write their own history without concern for objective truth, provided that what they are taught serves an ideological function. In this instance, it’s the promotion of Black pride and achievement. But she points out that the same utilitarian approach to history can be used by other people, whose aims the Afrocentrists would definitely not approve of. And teaching such false doctrines also isolates its students in a ghetto of false knowledge away from the mainstream. Needless to say, her critics claimed she was acting out of some kind of racist motive. Despite being Jewish, she was an Aryan supremacist and even part of a ‘Jewish onslaught’.

Lefkowitz states she had no idea of the existence of Afrocentrism until one of its leading academics came to speak at her college. He was billed as an Egyptologist despite having done no proper Egyptological research. When it came to questions, she challenged one of his assertions by asking him how Aristotle could possible have looted the great library of Alexandria, when Aristotle didn’t accompany Alexander on his expeditions outside Greece and the library was built several years after Aristotle’s death.

Cleopatra, Socrates and North African Peoples Not Black

The book also tackles the similar ahistorical claims that Socrates and Cleopatra were Black, as were the inhabitants of North Africa including the Carthaginian general Hannibal, that the Greek city states were founded by the ancient Egyptians, who had invaded the country c. 750. No author actually describes Socrates as Black, and the only times he had travelled outside Athens was when he was part of the army in its wars with other Greek city states. The only evidence that he had Black ancestry were jokes by his students and opponents that he had satyr’s ears, a snub nose, big nostrils and a wide mouth. Yes, the Greeks did depict Black Africans as having snub noses, big nostrils and wide mouths, but so did the paint many Greeks.

Cleopatra was a Ptolemy, descended from one of Alexander’s generals, who seized the Egyptian throne. They took up the Egyptian custom of marrying their sisters. When they didn’t do this, they married other Greeks. Cleopatra’s lineage is thus reasonably well-known, except for the identity of her grandmother. She may well have been Black, except no-one mentions that she was. This contrasts with Didyme, a Nubian woman, who was taken as a concubine by one of her ancestors, but whose child, if she had one, did not inherit the throne. The Greeks were keenly sensitive to difference, and it Cleopatra’s gran had been Black, it would have been remarked upon.

As for the inhabitants of North Africa, the Berbers, they are lighter skinned than sub-Saharan Africans and the Libyans, as they were called by the Egyptians, were portrayed as such in ancient Egyptian art. Carthage was a Phoenician colony. The Phoenicians were a Semitic people from what is now Syria and Lebanon. They were not Black, and neither was Hannibal. One of the founders of one of the Greek city states, Cadmus, was also a Phoenician and so also not Black as claimed by the Afrocentrists. The legendary founders of many of the Greek states did come from Egypt, and were described as dark-skinned, as claimed by the Afrocentrists, but they were Greeks who had fled there a generation or so previously. There is no material evidence for an Egyptian invasion of Greece, but there is plenty of evidence for a Greek presence in the Nile delta from pieces of mosaic.

Ancient Greek Beliefs of the Egyptian Basis of Their Culture

The idea that ancient Egypt was a Black civilisation was held by the Black Masonic organisations that emerged in America. But they took their idea of the civilisation from very dated and outmoded accounts by European writers before Napoleon’s invasion and archaeological expedition started proper, scientific research. Their ideas of ancient Egypt were based on the description of the country by the pioneering Greek historians, Herodotus and Diodorus of Sicily. She states that Herodotus is generally accurate in what he says about Egypt, but there are instances where he is profoundly mistaken, particularly in matters of religion. The Greeks believed the Egyptians had secret mystery cults, whose members had to be initiated, like theirs. But there were no such cults. The confusion came from the ancient Egyptian priests having to be initiated, but the cults themselves were public. The Greeks also associated their gods with those of Egypt on superficial similarities. The Greek goddess Demeter was identified with Isis partly because the worship of both goddesses included processions of women bearing model phalluses.

Both Herodotus and Diodorus took care to question the Egyptian priests themselves. However, this must have been through interpreters as neither could speak or write Egyptian, and so could and did not consult the civilisation’s ancient documents and literature. The Greeks immensely respected Egypt because of its antiquity, and were keen to associate themselves with the older culture. And the Egyptians on their side were willing to confirm this belief. This may partly have been a strategy for maintaining national pride, particularly after their conquest by the Greeks. A similar tactic was used by the Alexandrian Jewish writers Artapanus and Aristobulos, who also claimed that the Jews were the ultimate source of Greek civilisation, so that it was said that Plato’s Republic was simply Moses in Attic Greek. They were wrong, and are now almost forgotten. Why should the similar claims made by the Egyptians be any different?

Black Freemasonry and 18th Century Fiction

Black Freemasonry’s idea of the sophistication of Egyptian civilisation was shared with that of the White Freemasons. During the 18th century it was heavily influenced by the Abbe Terrasson’s novel. This describes how its hero, Sethos, was initiated into the worship of Osiris, Isis and Horus in a huge pyramid, and led to the underground city in which the religion’s priests dwelt. The description of the temple above ground is that of an idealised French university, with lecture halls, an art gallery, a music gallery, research laboratories and a zoo. The initiation ceremony described in the book was adapted and taken over by Masonic lodges in Austria and elsewhere, and influenced the plot and setting of Mozart’s opera, the Magic Flute. The difference between the White and Black Freemasons was that the Whites believed, despite Herodotus, that the Egyptians were White.

Lefkowitz deals with the claim that Europeans rejected the idea of Egypt as the foundation of their culture through ancient Greece because of growing racial prejudice in the 19th century. In fact, European enthusiasm for ancient Egypt remained strong, as shown in the massive popularity of operas set there, such as Verdi’s Aida. One of these, Thamos, was about the love affair between the Pharaoh and a Nubian woman, showing how little fears of racial intermixing affected the popularity of these works. What caused Europeans to become sceptical of Egypt as the foundation of their own culture was the findings of Egyptologists and linguists that showed how different Greek and Egyptian cultures really were.

George G.G. James and The Stolen Legacy

The rising Black liberation of movements of the 19th and 20th century nevertheless held onto the claim that Egypt was the source of White culture, leading to the emergence of the claim that the Greeks had stolen it from the Egyptians. Marcus Garvey, the founder and head of the United Negro Improvement Association, claimed this had happened, but didn’t explain how. It was George G.G. James, a professor of Greek at one of the Black colleges, who supplied the details in his influential book, the Stolen Legacy, of 1954. Apart from claiming that Aristotle and Alexander had looted and destroyed the great library of Alexander, with Aristotle passing off the books he had stolen as his own, James made a number of other claims that are also simply wrong. For example, he claimed that Aristotle’s On The Soul was based on the Egyptian Book of the Dead. But On The Soul is a rational examination of the concept of the soul. The Book of the Dead, or to give it it’s Egyptian title, The Book of Going Forth by Day, is a collection of spells for the deceased to use in order to overcome that obstacles they will find in their journey to the Field of Reeds, the Egyptian paradise, in the afterlife. The two have precious little in common. Many of the supposed similarities between ancient Greek texts and that of Egypt can be explained as simply explorations of similar themes, or based on earlier accounts of Egypt so that the authors of the later works need never have been to the country, let alone been Egyptians themselves. James’ book was rediscovered and republished in the 1980s by Ben Yochannan, and it is suggested that there are 500,000 copies circulating by the time Lefkowitz wrote her book.

In her epilogue Lefkowitz also describes the criticism she faced when the book was published, and answers it, often pointing to an earlier book she co-writer that attacked Bernal’s Black Athena. Bernal took over some of the mistakes of the earlier Afrocentrists while adding a few of his own. He claims that some Greek terms were loan words from ancient Egyptian. Thus, the Greek word bia, meaning force, is supposedly taken from the Egyptian word for soul, ba. Except that scholars of ancient Egyptian state it isn’t, and that there are very few Egyptian loanwords in ancient Greek.

Lefkowitz and Stephen Howe’s Attacks on Afrocentrism

The book predates Stephen Howe’s Afrocentrism, which was published by Verso in 1998. Howe’s book deals with the origins of Afrocentrism more widely in Ethiopianism and pan-Africanism and its similarly mistaken views of the origins of Black African culture in ancient Egypt, as well as the idea that Blacks were the first people in Britain, Europe, China, Japan, Vietnam and the New World, as well as its connections to Black radicalism and nationalism in the 60s and 70s. Lefkowitz deals exclusively with the origin of its claim that ancient Greece was founded on stolen Egyptian culture. In her epilogue, Lefkowitz states that there may well be instances where Egypt influenced ancient Greece, as in its early art, but such influences do not mean that the Greeks stole or appropriated from the neighbours across the Med.

Afrocentrism’s Influence on Black Historiography

Apart from its specific concentration on Afrocentrism, Lefkowitz and Howe are also important for showing the possible source of other false historical claims made by Black writers. These are that various scientific and technological inventions and discoveries were made by Blacks when they weren’t; that various British historical figures were also Black, when they were definitely White, and that Stonehenge was really built by Blacks. The claims that the ancient Britons were Black and that Stonehenge was built by Blacks ultimately derive from Afrocentrism, and based on discredited 19th century White European authors, although given some support from the dark colouring of Cheddar Man.

Afrocentrism seems to have passed on to Black History the attitude that Blacks were responsible for many of the technological advances of the West, including smart phone and helicopters, when they were not, and that they have been robbed of their due credit. It is also responsible for the disregard for the accepted rules of historical research, in that racial pride and social utility is put before historical truth, and that various historical figures may be claimed for Black identity on the flimsiest of evidence.

This is a danger to historical research as a whole, and also to Black History itself. Properly researched Black History has produced some surprising and inspiring figures, such as genuine Black and Asian politicians, medical men and women and lawyers, for example, that predate the wave of new Black British politicos like Diane Abbott in the 1980s. There is a danger that the false claims made by Black Historians and Afrocentrists will lead to unwarranted scepticism towards Black History’s findings and its status as a proper academic discipline as a whole.

Afrocentrism’s Similarity to Fascist Attitudes to History

The situation has become worse through the expansion of identity politics, or IdPol as some of its sceptics are calling it and the pernicious influence of Postmodernism. Based on Foucault, this rejects notions of progress and scientific and historical truth for social utility, the influence of language and power and oppression narratives. The result can include the call for western science to be removed from its place at the centre of scientific discussion and research, in order to include and incorporate the prescientific knowledges of indigenous peoples. The problem with this, as Lefkowitz hints, is that the Nazis and the Fascists also believed in racial science. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity was rejected because Einstein was Jewish. And they believed that members of the Volk or the nation would automatically and instinctively recognise the truth of their doctrines simply through their shared membership of the race or nation. This is different from saying, as the Afrocentrists claimed, that Lefkowitz was comparing their doctrines to Holocaust denial. But the racial assumptions regarding history and its uses are the same between postmodern Afrocentrists and Nazis.

Conclusion

Lefkowitz is keen to promote the proper investigation of ancient Greece and Egypt by the public, and Egypt is a fascinating civilisation regardless of what one believes the colour of their skin was. But Afrocentrism is an obstacle to gaining such knowledge and needs to be rejected. As does its influence on Black History, so we can gain a proper knowledge of Black heritage and achievement.

Video on Fante Beliefs about Gay Attraction

This appeared on my YouTube feed from the Gay Black History Channel. This isn’t an area I know much about, but the video is very interesting and, I believe, necessary. There’s a wave of terrible, virulent anti-gay hatred going through parts of Africa. Extremely persecutory legislation against gay and trans people is being passed in countries like Ghana and Uganda, and gays and trans people are being subjected not just abuse but also mob attacks. When the Americans spoke out about this in Ghana as part of a diplomatic visit, the country’s president very firmly put them in their place by telling them that Africans had a right to their own views and culture on this matter and that they wouldn’t be told what to do and believe by foreigners. I think part of the argument over homosexuality in African is the belief that it didn’t exist in Africa until it was spread by Islam. Nigel Barley in his book The Innocent Anthropologist states that the Dowayo people allow much more physical contact between males than is customary in the west. He was embarrassed by the way his Dowayo friends would sit in his lap and stroke his hair, for example. But they had no conception of homosexuality. When one of their bulls attempted to mount another, they saw it as the animals ‘fighting over women’.

I think it’s probably true that some African peoples probably didn’t have it in their societies, or didn’t recognise it. But this video shows that many others did. The Fante, a Ghanaian people who warred against the Ashanti, had gay marriage, as did a number of the Muslim peoples who migrated southward from the north, such as the Berbers. The video states that they believed that people with heavy souls were attracted to men, while light souls were attracted to women. Naturally, they also consider that pagan Fante society was more open-minded about same-sex love than the Christians and Muslims that came after them. The video doesn’t mention them, but another African people who tolerated and practised homosexuality were the Azande, particularly their aristocracy. This has been compared by anthropologists to homosexuality amongst the Spartans. These were warrior cultures, and so homosexuality among men was seen not as effeminate, but hypermasculine, entirely fitted to macho killers.

I also wonder how much of the bitter hatred of gays in Africa is due to the kleptocrats robbing these countries’ peoples deliberately misdirecting them. These are extremely corrupt countries – back in the ’90s the Financial Times called them kleptocracies and said it was only a courtesy of the west that they were called countries at all. These a nations where people occupying even little pieces of power use it to rob and cheat. And so I wonder if the kleptocrats are using gays to direct hatred and resentment away from themselves.

Either way, the video shows that the Fante certainly had gay people in their society, who married, and that they had their own understanding of it. Thus the modern persecution of gays in Ghana can’t be excused as traditional African attitudes and morality.

My Letter to Councillors Lake and Craig About their Slavery Reparations Motion

Last week Bristol city council passed a motion supporting the payment of reparations for slavery to Black Britons. The motion was brought by Cleo Lake, a Green councillor for Cotham, and seconded by Asher Craig, the city’s deputy mayor and head of equality. Lake stated that it was to include everyone of ‘Afrikan’ descent as shown by her preferred spelling of the word with a K. She claimed this was the original spelling of the continent before it was changed by White Europeans. The reparations themselves would not be a handout, but instead funding for schemes to improve conditions for the Black community to put them in a position of equality with the rest of society. The schemes were to be guided and informed by the Black communities themselves.

This is all well and good, and certainly comes from the best of motives. But it raises a number of issues that rather complicate matters. Apart from her eccentric spelling, which looks to me like Afrocentric pseudohistory, there is the matter of who should be the proper recipient of these payments. Arguably, it should not include as Africans, as it was African kingdoms and chiefs who actually did the dirty business of raiding for slaves and selling them to European and American merchants.

Then there is the fact that the payment of reparations for slavery in the instance also sets a general principle that states that every nation that has engaged in slaving should pay reparations to its victims. So, are the Arab countries and India also going to pay reparations for their enslavement of Black Africans, which predates the European slave trade? Are Morocco and Algeria, the home countries of the Barbary pirates, going to pay reparations for the 2 1/2 million White Europeans they carried off into slavery?

And what about contemporary slavery today? Real slavery has returned in Africa with slave markets being opened by Islamists in their areas of Libya and in Uganda. What steps are being taken to counter this, or is the city council just interested in historic European slavery? And what measures are being taken by the council to protect modern migrants from enslavement? A few years ago a Gloucestershire farmer was prosecuted for enslaving migrant labourers, as have other employers across the UK. And then there is the problem of sex trafficking and the sexual enslavement of migrant women across the world, who are frequently lured into it with the lie that they will be taken to Europe and given proper, decent employment. What steps is the council taking to protect them?

I also don’t like the undercurrent of anti-White racism in the motion. By including Africans, Lake and Craig are attempting to build up and promote a unified Black British community by presenting the enslavement of Black Africans as something that was only done by Whites. This is not only historically wrong, but it promotes racism against Whites. I’ve heard Black Bristolians on the bus talking to their White friends about other Whites they know in the Black majority parts of Bristol, who are suffering racist abuse. Sasha Johnson, the leader of Black Lives Matter in Oxford, was thrown off Twitter for advocating the enslavement of Whites. Lake’s and Craig’s motion, while well meant, seems dangerous in that it has the potential to increase Black racism towards Whites, not lessen it.

I therefore sent the following letter to councillors Lake and Craig yesterday. So far the only answer I’ve received is an automatic one from Asher Craig. This simply states that she’s receiving a large amount of messages recently and so it may take some time before she answers it. She also says she won’t respond to any message in which she’s been copied. As I’ve sent the email to both her and Lake, it wouldn’t surprise me if this means that I don’t get a reply at all from her. Councillor Lake hasn’t sent me any reply at all. Perhaps she’s too busy.

I do wonder if, by writing this letter, I’m setting myself up for more condescension and gibes about my race and gender by Craig and Lake. When I Craig a letter expressing my concerns about the comments she made about Bristol and slavery on the Beeb, which I believed were flatly untrue, I did get a reply. This simply asserted that I wouldn’t make such comments if I had heard the whole interview, but gave no further information. It ended by telling me that their One Bristol schools curriculum would promote Black Bristolians, both Caribbean and African. They would be inclusive, ‘which hasn’t always happened with White men, I’m afraid’. So no facts, no proper answers, just evasions and the implication that I was somehow being racist and sexist, because I’m a White man.

Nevertheless, I believe very strongly that these a real issues that need to be challenged, rather than ignored or simply gone along with for the sake of a quiet life, or the desire to be seen to be doing the right thing.

I blogged about this a few days ago, and will write something further about any reply I receive, or the absence of one. As I said, I feel I’m setting myself up for patronising sneers and evasions from them, but it will be interesting to read what they have to say.

Dear Madam Councillors,

Congratulations on the passage of your motion last week calling for the payment of reparations for slavery to the Black British community. I am writing to you not to take issue with the question of paying reparations and certainly not with your aim of creating a sustainable process, led and guided by Black communities themselves, to improve conditions for the Black British community. What I wish to dispute here is the inclusion of Black Africans as equal victims of the transatlantic slave trade, as well as other issues raised by your motion.. Black Africans were not just victims of transatlantic slavery..  They were also trading partners, both of ourselves and the other nations and ethnicities involved in the abominable trade.

I’d first like to question Councillor Lake’s assertion that Africa was originally spelt with a ‘K’ and that Europeans changed it to a ‘C’. We use the Latin alphabet, which the Romans developed from the Etruscans, both of which cultures were majority White European. I am not aware of any African culture using the Latin alphabet before the Roman conquest of north Africa. The ancient Egyptians and Nubians used hieroglyphs, the Berber peoples have their own ancient script, Tufinaq, while Ge’ez and Amharic, the languages of Christian Ethiopia, also have their own alphabet. The Coptic language, which is the last stage of the ancient Egyptian language, uses the Greek alphabet with some characters taken from Demotic Egyptian. And the Arabic script and language was used by the Muslim African cultures before the European conquest of the continent. I am therefore at a loss to know where the assertion that Africans originally spelt the name of themselves and their continent with a ‘K’.

Regarding the issue of Africans receiving reparations for slavery, it existed in the continent long before the development of the transatlantic slave trade in the 15^th century. For example, in the early Middle Ages West African kingdoms were using slaves in a form of plantation agriculture to grow cotton and foodstuffs. Black Africans were also enslaved by the Arabs and Berbers of North Africa, and the first Black slaves imported into Europe were taken to al-Andalus, Muslim Spain. And when the European transatlantic slave trade arose, it was carried on not just by Europeans but also by powerful African states such as Dahomey, Whydah, Badagry and others in West Africa. These states were responsible for enslaving the surrounding peoples and selling them to European and later American slave merchants. There were occasional slave raids by Europeans themselves, as was done by Jack Hawkins. But mostly the European slave traders were confined to specific quarters in the West African city states, which were sufficiently strong to prevent European expansion inland.

The British mostly took their slaves from West Africa. In eastern Africa the slave trade was conducted by the Arabs, Portuguese and the Dutch, who transported them to their colonies further east in what is now Indonesia. There was also a trade in African slaves in the 19^th century by merchants from India. It was also carried out by east African peoples such as the Ngoni, Yao, Balowoka, Swahili and Marganja. These peoples strongly resisted British efforts to suppress the slave trade. In the late 1820s one of the west African slaving nations attacked a British trading post with the aim of forcing the British to resume the trade. In the 1850s the British fought a war against King Guezo of Dahomey with the intention of stamping out slaving by this west African state. In the 1870s the British soldier, Samuel Baker, was employed by the Khedive Ismail of Egypt to suppress Arab slaving in what is now the Sudan and parts of Uganda. The campaign to suppress the slave trade through military force formed part of the rationale for the British invasion of the continent in the Scramble for Africa. But it was also to protect their newly acquired territories in the Sudan and Uganda from slave-raiding by the Abyssinians that the British also launched a punitive expedition into that nation. And the Mahdi’s rebellion in the Sudan, in which General Gordon was killed, was partly caused by the British authorities’ attempts to ban the slave trade and slavery there.

In addition to the use of force, the British also attempted to stamp it out through negotiations. Talks were opened and treaties made with African kings as well as the Imam of Muscat, the suzerain of the east African slave depots and city states, including Zanzibar and Pemba. Subsidies were also paid to some African rulers in order to pay them off from slaving.

I am sure you are aware of all of this. But regrettably none of it seems to have been mentioned in the motion, and this greatly complicates the issue of reparations for slavery. Firstly, there is the general question of whether any Africans should receive compensation for slavery because of the active complicity of African states. So great has this historic involvement in the transatlantic slave trade been that one commenter said that when it came to reparations, it should be Africans compensating western Blacks. Even if it’s conceded that reparations should be paid to Africans for slavery, this, it could be argued, should only apply to some Africans. Those African nations from which we never acquired our slaves should not be compensated, as we were not responsible for their enslavement or the enslavement of other Africans.

When it comes to improving conditions and achieving equality for Bristol and Britain’s Black communities, I do appreciate that Africans may be as underprivileged and as subject to racism as Afro-Caribbeans. I don’t dispute here either that they should also receive official aid and assistance. What is questionable is including them in reparations for slavery. It should be done instead, in my view, with a package of affirmative action programmes, of which reparations for slavery for people of West Indian heritage is one component. This would mixed amongst other aid policies that equally cover all sections of the Black community. I am not trying to create division here, only suggest ways in which the issue of reparations should in accordance with the actual historical roles of the individual peoples involved in the slave trade.

And this is another matter that concerns me about this motion. It seeks to simplify the African slave trade into White Europeans preying upon Black Africans. It appears to be an attempt to promote a united Black community by placing all the blame for slavery and the slave trade on Whites. This is completely ahistorical and, I believe, dangerous. It allows those states that were involved to cover up their involvement in the slave trade and creates hostility against White British. The Conservative journalist Peter Hitchens, speaking on LBC radio a few weeks ago, described how an Ethiopian taxi driver told him that he hated the British, because we were responsible for slavery. He was completely unaware of his own cultures participation in slavery and the enslavement of other African peoples. I’m sure you are also aware that Sasha Johnson, the leader of Black Lives Matter Oxford and the founder of the Taking the Initiative Party, was thrown off Twitter for a tweet advocating the enslavement of Whites: ‘The White man will not be our equal. He will be our slave. History is changing’. I am also concerned about possible prejudice being generated against White members of majority Black communities. I have heard Black Bristolians telling their White friends about the abuse other White people they know get in some  majority Black or Asian parts of Bristol because of their colour. I appreciate the need to protect Black Bristolians from prejudice and abuse, but feel that this also needs to be extended to Whites. Racism can be found in people of all colours.

The lack of discussion of African involvement in the slave trade also concerns me just as a matter of general education. Councillor Craig said in an interview on BBC television during the BLM protests that she would like a museum of slavery in Bristol, just as there is in Liverpool and Nantes. I feel very strongly that any such museum should put it in its proper, global context. White Europeans enslaved Black Africans, yes, but slavery was never exclusive to White Europeans. Other nations and races throughout the world were also involved.

The question of reparations also brings up the issue of possible payments for White enslavement and the question of measures to suppress the resurgence of slavery in Africa. As you are no doubt aware, White Europeans also suffered enslavement by north African pirates from Morocco and Algeria. It is believed about 2 ½ million Europeans were thus carried off. This includes people from Bristol and the West Country. If Britain should pay compensation to Blacks for enslaving them, then by the same logic these nations should pay White Britons reparations for their enslavement. Would you therefore support such a motion? And do you also agree that the Muslim nations, that also enslaved Black Africans, such as Egypt and the Ottoman Turkish Empire, as well as Morocco, should also pay reparations to the descendants of the people they enslaved?

Apart from Britain’s historic role in the slave trade, there is also the matter of the resurgence of slavery in Africa today. Slave markets have been opened in Islamist-held Libya and Uganda. I feel it would be unjust to concentrate on the historic victims of slavery to the exclusion of its modern, recent victims, and hope you agree. What steps should Bristol take to help suppress it today, and support asylum seekers, who may have come to the city fleeing such enslavement?

This also applies to the resurgence of slavery in Britain. There have been cases of migrant labourers being enslaved by their employers in Gloucestershire, as well as the problem of sex trafficking. What steps is the city taking to protect vulnerable workers and immigrants here?

I hope you will appreciate the need for proper education in Bristol about the city’s role in the slave trade and the involvement of other nations, one that does not lead to a simplistic blaming of all of it on White Europeans, as well as the question the issue of reparations raises about the culpability of other nations, who may also be responsible for paying their share.

Yours faithfully,

History Debunked Refutes the Myth that James I was Black

More from the whackier end of racial politics. History Debunked has put up a number of videos refuting various assertions and myths promoted as Black history. One of his videos attacked the claim, seen in the Netflix interracial historical romance, Bridgerton, that Queen Caroline was Black. This has arisen from the fact that one of her ancestors was a 13th Spanish Moorish prince. But that was five hundred years before her birth, and so any biological trace of her non-White ancestry would have disappeared way back in her lineage. Apart from which, the Spanish Moors were Berbers and Arabs from North Africa. They were darker than Europeans – the term ‘blue-blooded’ for the aristocracy comes from the Christian Spanish nobility. Under their idea of limpieza de sangre, ‘blood purity’, the racial ideology that distinguished them from the Moors, their skin was supposed to be so pale that you could see the veins in the wrist. But the Moors were nevertheless lighter-skinned than the darker peoples south of the Sahara, in what the Arabs called Bilad as-Sudan and the Berbers Akal Nguiwen, ‘The Land of the Blacks’. Which I think shows that the Arabs and Berbers, dark as they were compared to Europeans, very clearly didn’t think of themselves as Black.

In this video Simon Webb debunks a similar myth, that James I of England/ VI of Scotland, was Black. This ahistorical idea apparently began with the Black Hebrew Israelites, a Black Jewish sect who believe that one of the lost tribes of Israel went to sub-Saharan Africa. Webb mentions that a group of them settled in Israel in the Negev. He uses this to try to refute the demand that Israel should open its borders by stating that Israel had taken in people of a number of different racial groups. They are now, for example, taking in people from India. It’s true that Israel has taken in refugees from Africa, but many of the groups they’ve accepted were Jews. In the 1970s they mounted a rescue operation to transport the Falashas, the Black Jews of Ethiopia, away from their oppression in that country to safety in Israel. My guess is that the Indians they’re accepting are also Jewish. There’s an indigenous Jewish community in India, the Bene Israel, and it sounds like some of them may be migrating. There is, however, considerable racism amongst White Israelis. Abby Martin covered this in some of her reports for The Empire Files on TeleSur, in which she interviewed Black Israelis about the abuse, including physical assault, they’d experience. Gentile African refugees, although present, are resented by many Israelis as ‘infiltrators’, the term they also use for Palestinians trying to return to the ancestral lands from which they were evicted during the Nakba, the term they use for foundation of Israel and their massacre and ethnic cleansing in 1947.

But back to the Black Hebrew Israelites and James I. The Black Hebrew Israelites believe that the Spanish Moors were Black, and that they went from Spain to colonise Ireland and Scotland. Which must be news to most Scots and Irish. Mary, Queen of Scots was mixed race, but Lord Darnley, James’ father, was fully Black and so was James. The English, however, were determined to erase any trace of this Black ancestry, and so embarked on a deliberately policy of intermarrying with the Black Scots and Irish in order to make them White, at the same time destroying all the contrary evidence that they were Black. Although this myth began with the Black Hebrew Israelites it has spread out from them into the wider Black community. To support his description of this bizarre myth, Webb on the YouTube page for the video has link to an article in the Zimbabwean newspaper, The Patriot, which proudly promotes this claim.

Was King James I of England black? – YouTube

The belief that the Spanish Moors were Black has formed the basis for an anti-White racist view of history. A few years ago the American left-wing magazine, Counterpunch, carried on its online edition a piece by a Black historian, Garikai Chengu. This claimed that the Moors were ‘obviously Black’, and their colonisation of Spain brought science and reason to a Europe then gripped by ignorance and superstition. There’s some basis for this in that the revival of science in the West began when Christian scholars acquired Arab and Islamic scientific texts from places such as Islamic Spain and Sicily after that was conquered by the Normans. However, it’s grotesquely exaggerated and is really just a piece of racial supremacist propaganda, albeit one by Blacks rather than Whites. I think it’s fair to see such Afrocentric views of history as a form of Fascism, including this myth that the Irish and Scots were also really Black. Some historians have no trouble describing certain Black political movements as forms of Fascism. One recent book by an academic historian not only includes the classic Fascist movements of German Nazism, Italian Fascism and various other White, European far right movements, but also Marcus Garvey’s Negro Improvement Association and the Nation of Islam, as well as Narendra Modi’s BJP in India. The inclusion of Marcus Garvey and his organisation may well offend many Black activists. Garvey is one of the pioneers of Black liberation. A month or so ago there was a Black celebrity writing in the pages of the Radio Times recommending that children should be taught about him in school. I really know very little about Garvey, but the claim that he was Fascistic rings true. When I was working as a volunteer in the Empire and Commonwealth Museum in Bristol one of the jobs I was given was unpacking some of boxes of material given to the Museum by private individuals and institutions. One of these included a document by Garvey’s organisation. I didn’t do more than glance at it, but it appeared to be describing some kind of military parade or armed wing. This included women’s units and mechanised and mounted forces of various kinds. I don’t know if Garvey and his followers were ever able to set up such a paramilitary force or whether it was all a fantasy. But one of the features of Fascism is its militarism. The Nazis and Italian Fascists, not to mention the various other Fascist movements, all started out as paramilitary organisations complete with uniforms and arms.

Alongside the entirely reasonable demands for social and economic improvement and renewed action to combat White racism, the Black Lives Matter movement has also brought out and articulated strains of overt anti-White racism. One example of this was the attempt by Sasha Johnson, of the Oxford branch of the organisation, to set up her own paramilitary Black army in Brixton to protect Blacks from the cops, and her tweet that the White man wouldn’t be Blacks’ equal, but their slave. Which got her banned from the social media platform. I think there is a real need to start studying and publishing material specifically on Black racism and Fascism. At the moment, there appears to be very little, if any, books specifically published on it. If you search for ‘Black racism’ on Google, what comes up is articles and books on the attacks on affirmative action programmes by right-wing Whites. Way back in the ’90s and early parts of this century there was a book published on Black anti-White violence in America. This might be White Girl Bleed A Lot, which is a similar book. However, I’m not sure how academically respectable the latter is, as I think its author may have joined the extreme right. I can see many people on the left resisting any attempt to categorise and study various Black Fascist movements from the belief that, as Blacks have been oppressed in the West, and are still disadvantaged, it is unfair to characterise such movement as they arose in response to White racism and persecution.

But this does not change the nature of these movements and the racism and racist history they promote. Whatever their connections to the broader Black liberation movement, they’re still racist and Fascist themselves, and should be viewed as such. Fascism everywhere needs to be fought, regarded of race.

History Debunked on the Anachronistic Casting of Black Actors to Play Ann Boleyn and Queen Caroline

One of the complains raised by some members of the right against the demands for more Black presenters and actors on screen is that it represents a form of cultural colonisation. The past is deliberately being re-shaped to suit the multicultural present. The right-wing internet YouTuber, Alex Belfield, has argued that by the Beeb’s standards, Blacks are actually overrepresented on television. At the moment British Black and Asian population constitutes about 13 per cent of the overall population, but form 22 per cent of the presenters, performers and broadcast on the box. It’s why he choose in one of his videos to attack the Beeb for wasting even more license-payers’ money on someone to head a diversity department. He maintained that the problem wasn’t the underrepresentation of Blacks and Asians in front of the camera. It was that they weren’t represented in the ranks of BBC management, which remained very White and middle class.

There are a number of recent and forthcoming adaptations of classic literature, in which Blacks and Asians have been cast in traditionally White roles. And so Blacks have been cast to appear in the children’s classic, The Secret Garden, Philip Pullman’s Fantasy series, His Dark Materials, and Dev Patel, who played the Master in the last series of Dr. Who, appeared in a colour blind, multi-ethnic version of Dickens and is due to star in an adaptation of the medieval story, Gawain and the Green Knight. There’s also a version of the Lord of the Rings planned by the Corporation, in which a third of the cast will be Black or Asian with Lenny Henry.

But this desire to recast White characters with Blacks isn’t confined to fiction. Channel 5 has announced that it has cast a Black actress, Jodie Turner-Smith, to play Ann Boleyn in a three part series about Henry VIII’s second wife. And Netflix has also chosen a Black actress to play Queen Caroline in its regency romance, Bridgerton.

History Debunked’s Simon Webb has posted several videos about this. He was rather incensed by the decision to recast one of the characters in The Secret Garden as Black, and describes how there was some popular criticism of a similar recasting in His Dark Materials. However, he says that left-wingers and progressives answered that by arguing that the role was fiction, and that Pullman never specified what colour the character was.

That argument, however, cannot be used to defend the false representation of Boleyn and Caroline as Blacks. He views this as a deliberate attempt to colonise the past so that it resembles what he describes as the ‘bastardised’ multicultural present. It is also not being done in a vacuum. There are Blacks, who believe that Queen Caroline really was Black, as was James I of England/VI of Scotland, and Edward III’s son, Henry, the Black Prince. This recasting of real, historical figures has to be resisted because it is actively falsifying history to make it appear that Blacks had a far greater role in shaping history than they did.

Here’s the video about Ann Boleyn.

Jodie Turner-Smith to play Ann Boleyn – YouTube

The idea that Queen Caroline was Black comes from the fact that she was partly descended from a thirteenth century Spanish Moorish prince. The Moors in Islamic Spain – al-Andalus – were Arabs and Berbers, rather than Black Africans. Caroline herself was so far removed from her Moorish ancestor that any Black ancestry she had wouldn’t have been expressed physically. She was a German princess, and so would have been White in appearance.

A black queen in Netflix’ new series Bridgerton – YouTube

See also:

New, multicultural versions of two classics of English literature – YouTube

TV Diversity Is NOT A Problem 🇬🇧 22% 📺 BBC Give Us Back The £100,000,000! – YouTube

Multi-Racial Casting Already in Theatre

I think there are also a number of other factors driving this trend. Multiracial casting has been around in the theatre for a very long time. I think as far back as the 1990s Black and Asians actors were being cast in traditionally White roles in Shakespeare. I remember an article in the Independent or the I came out a few years ago commenting that such casting was accepted by audiences, even when people of different ethnicities played members of the same family. There was also something of a furore a few years ago when the Black opera singer, Willard White, was cast as Odin in Wagner’s Ring. What seems to be happening is simply that this same process is being extended to film and TV. The Dickens’ adaptation that came out recently not only starred Dev Patel as the central character, but also had members of the same family played by actors of different races. It was made by Armando Iannucci, one of the brains behind the comedy news programme, The Day Today and other shows in the 1990s.

Few Explicitly Black Parts and the Metropolitan Bubble

I also believe that it’s due to the fact that there are too few parts specifically for Black and Asian actors. That’s been the complaint voiced by one of the Black activists pushing for the greater inclusion of Black performers when he was interviewed in the I a little while back. Blacks and Asians are minorities, and generally are under represented in the upper ranks of society. Hence the demand for colour blind casting and that directors should be willing to cast Blacks and Asians. It also seems to me to be also partly a product of the metropolitan bubble in which the media and its chiefs live. Over a third of London’s population is Black and Asian, and I think there’s an automatic assumption that somehow this is true of the rest of Britain. Some Black activists and performers have been really shocked to find that there are large parts of Britain with hardly any people like themselves. Years ago the late Black actor and comedian, Felix Dexter, appeared on the panel in an edition of the News Quiz, which came from Edinburgh. He expressed his surprise that there were areas of Scotland with hardly a Black face to be seen. While undoubtedly true, his surprise struck me as also a tiny bit racist in itself. There was an element of complaint in it, as if it was somehow a defect that these places happened to be nearly all White. It reminded me a bit of the comments by Victorian explorers about going into parts of Black Africa and elsewhere previously untouched by the White man. I’m sure Dexter and those, who share his views would have been horrified by the comparison, but I believe it’s a true one.

Selling Programmes to a Non-White Foreign Audience

I also wonder if it’s also driven by a need to sell these programmes abroad. Blacks constitute something like 10-13 per cent of the American population, and together with Asians constitute 25 per cent of the American population. I’ve no doubt that the Beeb will also be seeking to sell the programmes to Black majority and Asian countries, such as Africa, the Caribbean, India and so on. Hence the decision to cast Black and Asian actors may well come from a desire to appeal to foreign, non-White audiences.

Dangers of the Falsification of History

I wouldn’t have a problem with this, were it not for two reasons. I’m afraid that it really will result in a falsification of history. If it was just a case of TV companies trying to reach new audiences in line with present, multicultural sensibilities, I’d be perfectly happy with it. Provided that the audience understood that what they were seeing was fiction. They they understood that Queen Caroline and Ann Boleyn weren’t really Black, and that Victorian and medieval Britain weren’t as multicultural as today’s London. But I really don’t think they do. And this is going to be a particular problem with some Blacks, who believe that their history has already been appropriated by Whites. This is very much the case with Afro-Centric History and ancient Egypt. All the Black people I’ve met have believed that the ancient Egyptians were Black. This isn’t unreasonable. They portrayed themselves as darker than the other peoples further north and east, like the Minoans and the Semitic peoples of Canaan and the Ancient Near East. Examination of human skeletons from ancient Egyptian tombs show that many were more Black African in appearance than previously assumed, and certainly the sculpture of Queen Ty shows her as being very Black. On the other hand the Egyptians portrayed the African peoples further south, such as those of Nubia, to be much darker than themselves. I also don’t think that the ancient historians, like Herodotus, described them as Black. Herodotus was well aware of Black African peoples and tribes, like the Ethiopians, but he doesn’t describe the Egyptians as one of them, at least, not that I can remember. It isn’t unreasonable by any means to believe the Egyptians were Black, but there’s also room for debate. Unfortunately, I’ve heard some really bonkers conspiracy theories about the supposed White appropriation of the ancient Egyptians. One Black American I knew at college claimed that the reason so many statues from ancient Egypt had chipped or missing noses and lips was because the European archaeologists deliberately removed them in order to hide their African identity. It’s a paranoid, ludicrous idea, though you can’t really blame people for believing it. Black people have historically been abused and exploited, so it’s to be expected that this sense of exploitation, and that they are being deliberately denied a glorious history, should extend to one of the most famous and brilliant of ancient civilisations.

But I’m very much afraid that once the decision is taken to cast Blacks as real, historical figures, some people will genuinely believe that these figures really were Black, and that those evil Whites have falsified history once more to hide their true racial origins.

There is also the problem that recasting the past so that it appears more multicultural than it really was may also lead to modern audiences not realising just how hard a struggle Blacks and Asians had to gain their freedom. Nearly a year ago now Mr H of the YouTube channel Mr H Reviews raised this objection to the Beeb’s new adaptation of that horror classic, Dracula. The convent to which Harker flees for help and medical treatment in Budapest is shown as multiracial, with many of the nuns Black and Asian. He felt that this was anachronistic, though I’m told by a friend of mine with a greater knowledge of church history that the Roman Catholic convents in the city were staffed with people from the missions to Asia and elsewhere, so it’s possible there would have been Black and Asian nuns there.

In the case of regency Britain and the upper ranks of society, intermarriage between Whites and Blacks wasn’t unknown, but it was rare. A few years ago back in the ’90s Radio 4 did a programme about the Black son of a White planter or British aristocrat, who had a glittering political career as an MP and ended up, I believe, as the sheriff of Monmouthshire. One the other hand, when Major Moody came to write his report in the 1820s on whether Blacks were ready for their emancipation, he argued that they would never be accepted and treated fairly by White society. Part of his argument was that there were so few marriages between Whites and Blacks among the upper classes. Moody’s wife was Black, and so his report and its conclusion that the enslaved population of the British empire weren’t yet ready for their freedom was a real shock. But if Queen Caroline is presented as a Black woman, it obviously contradicts Moody’s own observation. And his observation and the argument it supports shows just how strong racial prejudice was among some sections of the populace in 19th century Britain.

Double Standards on ‘Cultural Appropriation’

My other problem with this is that of the accusation of ‘cultural appropriation’. This only seems to go one way. Black involvement and participation in White culture is actively encouraged and its absence condemned and deplored as a form of racism. But this doesn’t go the other way. When Whites adopt non-White culture, it’s condemned as a form of cultural theft. In the case of those cultures that have been colonised and nearly destroyed by White expansion and imperialism, like the Amerindians and Aboriginal Australians, this is fair enough. But there should surely be no objection to the casting of White actors as Black characters in works by Black and Asian writers and playwrights. Not if it’s done as part of a multi-ethnic cast and avoids the obviously offensive, like blacking up. But I’ve yet to see a White actor cast in a Black part in an adaptation of one of Wole Soyinka’s works, or Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart. I therefore feel that Webb has a point when he attacks it as a form of cultural colonisation. Because until Whites are allowed to play Black roles, that’s what it is.

I’m prepared to accept that the portrayal of myths and literary characters on screen is changing as society changes, and that mostly this harmless. Dickens, Shakespeare and medieval classics like Chaucer and Gawain are great tales, and should appeal to everyone, regardless of their colour. But I have grave reservations about the decision to do the same to historical figures.

It might be well intentioned, but too many people may believe it’s fact, and so a mythical, false history created.

Spain Passes New Laws Against Glorification of Fascist Franco

This is another excellent piece of news I found in Wednesday’s issue of the I, for 16th September 2020. It reports that the Spanish government has passed a historic law banning the glorification of General Franco, the country’s Fascist dictator, and granting reparations to his victims. The article reads

Spain has passed a law to give reparations to the victims of the late dictator General Francisco Franco.

The Democratic Memory Law will ban the foundation which guards the memory of the dictator and fine those who glorify Franco up to 150,000 euros (£138,000).

The mausoleum where Franco’s body lay for more than four decades will also be transformed into a civilian cemetery as part of other changes. School children will be taught about the law.

This is the same law that an earlier article in that same day’s edition reported offers Spanish citizenship to the descendants of Brits who served in the International Brigades that fought against Franco in the Spanish civil war. It’s a great piece of news. Franco was a butcher, who held on to power from the his victory at the end of the civil war to his death in 1975. There’s evidence, but no proof, that he may have been helped launch his rebellion against Spain’s Republican government by our secret services.

Spanish liberals have fought long and hard to overturn his legacy. Spanish archaeologists have faced considerable resistance to the excavation of the mass graves of the old thug’s victims. His mausoleum was particularly offensive. He claimed that it was a monument to everyone who fell in the civil war, regardless of what side they were on. In fact it solely glorified Franco and his Fascists. And he continued to cast a long shadow over Spain even decades after his death. I remember the looks of real horror and fear that came into the face of young Spaniards back in the 1990s at the mere mention of his name.

There was a statue of him on horseback somewhere, which has become a rallying point for Fascist scumbags from across Europe. I don’t know whether that’s still around, but the Spanish people made their own efforts to take it down. Way back in the 1980s its hindquarters were blown off with a bomb. And he was another dictator, who liked having towns and villages named after him. One of these got into the news in 1980s as it changed its name. I can’t remember precisely what the new name was, except that it roughly translated as ‘Our Town’ or ‘Our Village’. Which is obviously better than Pueblo Franco or whatever.

He was like the rest of the dictators in that he was of much less than imposing stature. I’ve got a biography of him somewhere, which said that he was under five foot tall and had a high, piping voice. He was a pious Roman Catholic, and his father had left his mother for another woman, leaving her to bring him up. He was thus very chaste, and so when he was an officer in Spanish north Africa, the other troops thought he was gay because he didn’t visit the brothels.

He was a brutal disciplinarian. When he was an officer in north Africa, he had an Arab/Berber solider shot after the man threw his meal at him. He was ruthless in his treatment of the north Africans, and treated the Spanish the same way in the civil war and his reign afterwards.

It’s great that at last the Spanish have been able to undo his cult, and are offering citizenship to the descendants of the people, who fought against him, and reparations to his victims. It’s just a pity that it’s taken all this time to do it.