Ever since the emergence of Romanticism, Positivism, and Modern Orientalism etc.

around 19th century -which coincided with intensifying imperialist aggression- valorisation and glorification of Europe at the expense of rest of the world, has been the norm in euro-centric intellectual arena, which delegitimize, devalue and inferiorize the other. This otherization was important to establish the European hegemony over rest of the world to justify its imperialist usurpation of rest of the world. One such devaluation / valorisation is denial of Egyptian and Semitic influence on Greek civilization (which has been important contributor to the later west European culture) 1. With emergence of systematic study of language, philology etc emerged the Aryan model which associated and perpetuated linguistic superiority or rather similarity to that of racial supremacy. Emergence of notions of superiority of Aryan race and stubborn implication of Aryan model in Greek civilization had falsified the evidences which indicate strong influence from south-east Mediterranean region. And it considered despite this Aryan invasion in Greek -unlike in the case of India where natives were dark hence racial degradation- was pure since both invaders and natives were Caucasian or European2 and denial of any influence of Egyptian or Phoneasian over its language . Critique of this devaluation and indication of prevalence of strong Egyptian influence and possible Egyptian colonization of Greece has been studied and explained in the path breaking work of Martin Bernal. His approach has questioned the mentality and institutionally fixed paradigms of classical studies3. But his work has been subjected to strong criticism of being misrepresenting and afro-centric. Here the idea is to discuss some of Bernals critique and the alleged afro-centric approach which makes Bernals and few other peoples work un-reliable and derogative. One of the harshest criticisms of Bernal and his predecessors like George G.M. James and C.A. Diop comes from Mary Lefkowitz, she believes that since Greek civilization is so great and it is human tendency to associate oneself with or take share in the greatness of the civilization that, Africans exposed to western education, tried to fabricate an association and influence over Greek civilization and critiques Bernals too much literal reliance on Herodotus , though she accepts existence of contact with Egyptians and Phoneasians but refuse to accept their significant influence over Greece and calls Bernals work as nothing but an apparently respectable underpinning for Afro-centric fantasies. Not so blunt but similar argument is put forward by Alex Joffe who though agrees and acknowledge the Greek borrowings from Egypt but disagrees on Hyksos colonization of main land Greece and critique Bernal for resurgence of Afro-centrism. I would like to discuss some of the blunt argument Lefkowitz puts forward to critique Bernal and Afro-centrism, and contradictions and similarity of those arguments with classical euro-centric understanding, first of all her claim of the great Greek civilization and stake claiming by western educated African, out right refuses to acknowledge the obvious and accepted notion that inter and intra -cultural influences is shared by different civilizations around world which she herself conclude was prevalent. Secondly she critique Bernals over and literal reliance upon Herodotus and myths, where as orientalist and classical eurocentric historians have actually taken exactly these sort of earlier travellers account and myths to construct and write about the orient, and she herself quote Greek myths to prove their indigenous _________________________________________________________________________________
1. Martin Bernal, Black Athena Writes Back, Duke University Press, 2001, p -2. 2. Martin Bernal, Black Athena Writes Back, Duke University Press, 2001, p -3. 3. Alex Joffe, Review of Black Athena Writes Back, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol.64, No.2, 2005, p-147.

status or nativity to Greece4, and marking away Herodotus work as mere sympathy for non-Greek is the same misrepresentation which she associates with Bernals work and refusal to accept the possible hints present in his work which shows Egyptian mastery over skills which are believed to be specific to Greece . The Afro-centrism which is associated with Bernal and other works such as that of Diops and George James, I believe, is sort of counter defence argument for euro-centrism which these works want to break. Agreed that there is a possibility that in its counter defensive argument against euro-centrism and racist aggression, Works on African / Egyptian civilization, might have gone overboard, (like in the case of Indian nationalist) but refusal and complete denial of prevalent evidence and hints suggesting not just one way implantation of knowledge but a mutual two way sharing and influencing, which was acknowledged by Greeks as well. And by marking Bernals work as merely Afro-centric and by marking the work as academically deviant because it used reference of those works which were considered as academically deviant by classical eurocentric historians closes the door for the very critical thinking and open mindedness which Joffe urges and warns in his critique of Bernal, which may not want to agree with it in literal terms but out right refuses to even critically analyse , evaluate and take some of the significant points or aspects which the work offers. Isnt it a faire enough historian job to read thoroughly, analyse with open mind, try and read between the lines and then extract significant aspects out of a particular work or source before being judgmental or critical about that work? Or coming with a pre conceived notion? Bernal is critiqued and marked off as an outsider relaying on unreliable sources or works where as by marking off something deviant and unreliable the so called with in discipline historians have betrayed the very principle their discipline teaches.

__________________________________________________________________________________
4. Mary Lefkowitz, Ancient History, Modern Myths, in Mary Lefkowitz and Guy Rogers, eds., Black Athena Revisited, University of N. Carolina Press, 1996, pp9-10.

__________________________________________________________________________________ BIBLIOGRAPHY:
1. Martin Bernal, Black Athena Writes Back, Duke University Press, 2001. 2. Mary Lefkowitz, Ancient History, Modern Myths, in Mary Lefkowitz and Guy Rogers, eds., Black Athena Revisited, University of N. Carolina Press, 1996. 3. Alex Joffe, Review of Black Athena Writes Back, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol.64, No.2, 2005. 4. M.M. Levine, The Marginalization of Martin Berna, Classical Philology, Vol.93, No.4, Oct. 1998. 5. C.A. Diop, Modern Falsification of History, Lawrence Hill Books, Chicago, 1974. 6. George G.M. James, Stolen Legacy: The Egyptian Origins of Western Philosophy, 1954. 7. Edward Said, Orientalism, Penguin edition, 1995.

SUBMITED BY:

SUBMITED TO:

NAME: R.G. DIVYA CLASS: M.PHIL HISTORY ROLL NO: 354 DATED: 8-11-2013

DR. Amar Farooqui