What are your thoughts on Frank Snowden?

[africurious]

I started reading Snowden's Blacks in Antiquity recently and I'm curious to know what are the views of him held by forum members. I can't help but every so often feeling put off by much of what he writes in that book. He is an adherent of the true negro myth apparently, and uses "true" and "pure" as adjectives for "negro" many times in the book. He even cites that racist Coon of all ppl as a reference for his anthropological info. As I previously knew, he sees egypt as "mediterranean" and removed culturally and genetically from africa and other africans. He even uses the term "sub-egyptian" (which is as dubious in it's implications as sub-saharan).

He strikes me as a "well trained negro" i.e. growing up in the west he has soaked up the eurodominant world view and does not tread far from the limits placed by said view. Therefore, he follows these boundaries:
1. N Africa is "mediterranean" aka "caucasoid" (though he
slightly breaks this limit by sayinig there were "negroes" native
to N. Af but the gen pop was not)
2. Any africans in Egypt were "nubians" or their
descendants
3. Africans could've gotten to europe only via europeans
bringing or facilitating their going there.
4. The many aspects of greek culture and knowledge which
the greeks themselves admitted were borrowings from egypt is
fiction.
5. Any ancient testimony or evidence that breaks the
above 4 limits must be either ignored, dismissed or explained
away with mental gymnastics

I can understand that he was a classicist and there was pressure to remain within the well-established bounds of one of the most prejudiced areas of historical studies or else face career hindrance or destruction. But, why use someone like Coon as a reference? Why use the gymnastics to explain away or ignore ancient descriptions of Egyptians as simply another type of african ppl? Why go after Diop and Bernal (especially his work appearing in the highly ideological Lefkowitz's anthology against Bernal)?
It cannot be said that it was because his book came out a long time ago so he didn't have anything to back him up (especially since he retained these views all his life apparently). Diop's writings came out decades before his and Diop used ample sources. Further, Diop disputed any ideas he saw as insensible but Snowden is parading Coon as supporting reference.

It is one thing to not buck the system but why be one of it's upholders when said "system" disparages or devalues ppl of which you're a part? Am I alone in thinking these things? Some thoughts plz.
(Btw, i do think Snowden's above book is of value despite it's glaring shortcomings.)

[anansi]

Nov 18, 2011 12:24:10 GMT -5 africurious said:

I started reading Snowden's Blacks in Antiquity recently and I'm curious to know what are the views of him held by forum members. I can't help but every so often feeling put off by much of what he writes in that book. He is an adherent of the true negro myth apparently, and uses "true" and "pure" as adjectives for "negro" many times in the book. He even cites that racist Coon of all ppl as a reference for his anthropological info. As I previously knew, he sees egypt as "mediterranean" and removed culturally and genetically from africa and other africans. He even uses the term "sub-egyptian" (which is as dubious in it's implications as sub-saharan).

He strikes me as a "well trained negro" i.e. growing up in the west he has soaked up the eurodominant world view and does not tread far from the limits placed by said view. Therefore, he follows these boundaries:
1. N Africa is "mediterranean" aka "caucasoid" (though he
slightly breaks this limit by sayinig there were "negroes" native
to N. Af but the gen pop was not)
2. Any africans in Egypt were "nubians" or their
descendants
3. Africans could've gotten to europe only via europeans
bringing or facilitating their going there.
4. The many aspects of greek culture and knowledge which
the greeks themselves admitted were borrowings from egypt is
fiction.
5. Any ancient testimony or evidence that breaks the
above 4 limits must be either ignored, dismissed or explained
away with mental gymnastics

I can understand that he was a classicist and there was pressure to remain within the well-established bounds of one of the most prejudiced areas of historical studies or else face career hindrance or destruction. But, why use someone like Coon as a reference? Why use the gymnastics to explain away or ignore ancient descriptions of Egyptians as simply another type of african ppl? Why go after Diop and Bernal (especially his work appearing in the highly ideological Lefkowitz's anthology against Bernal)?
It cannot be said that it was because his book came out a long time ago so he didn't have anything to back him up (especially since he retained these views all his life apparently). Diop's writings came out decades before his and Diop used ample sources. Further, Diop disputed any ideas he saw as insensible but Snowden is parading Coon as supporting reference.

It is one thing to not buck the system but why be one of it's upholders when said "system" disparages or devalues ppl of which you're a part? Am I alone in thinking these things? Some thoughts plz.
(Btw, i do think Snowden's above book is of value despite it's glaring shortcomings.)

Well Snowden's books are useful in some cases but one should understand he is no bio anthropologist and given the era in which he wrote he played it safe, so I personally wouldn't be too harsh on him,however if he was alive and young to day and writing in the same manner I would have ignored his work.

[africurious]

Yea, i was wondering how much of it is the "era" he is from. But, if Diop refused to accept racist nonsense even subtle ones decades before him then why couldn't he? Even W.E.B Dubois and Rogers before Diop didn't toe the line. Then again, their careers weren't in classics. Also, he continued with this stuff till up to the 90s. Didn't he ever come across anything contradicting his thoughts in that time? He couldn't see the argumental trickeries and mental gymnastics used by classicists and that he himself used?

It seems like he was well-trained i.e. yes he believes "negroes" are equal to all other ppl but accepts european cultural superiorty and european standards for everything (and further cannot seem to identify racism unless it's obvious or nearly so). I've come across many ppl like this. I've read stuff by ppl like this too. Supposedly they are trying to uplift blacks but all they do is try to make them as european-like as possible, this includes culture and looks too wherever possible. This seemed to be especially so after slavery in a number of countries in the americas as shown in writings by some leading blacks of the time. Heck, i'm sure some blacks now know of such ppl in their families.

Not necessarily trying to convince anyone of the above but since I don't know ppl who I can discuss this with I do it on this forum.

[anansi]

Nov 18, 2011 15:02:24 GMT -5 africurious said:

Yea, i was wondering how much of it is the "era" he is from. But, if Diop refused to accept racist nonsense even subtle ones decades before him then why couldn't he? Even W.E.B Dubois and Rogers before Diop didn't toe the line. Then again, their careers weren't in classics. Also, he continued with this stuff till up to the 90s. Didn't he ever come across anything contradicting his thoughts in that time? He couldn't see the argumental trickeries and mental gymnastics used by classicists and that he himself used?

It seems like he was well-trained i.e. yes he believes "negroes" are equal to all other ppl but accepts european cultural superiorty and european standards for everything (and further cannot seem to identify racism unless it's obvious or nearly so). I've come across many ppl like this. I've read stuff by ppl like this too. Supposedly they are trying to uplift blacks but all they do is try to make them as european-like as possible, this includes culture and looks too wherever possible. This seemed to be especially so after slavery in a number of countries in the americas as shown in writings by some leading blacks of the time. Heck, i'm sure some blacks now know of such ppl in their families.

Not necessarily trying to convince anyone of the above but since I don't know ppl who I can discuss this with I do it on this forum.

Well off course I would go with Diop,Dr Ben,Dr Clark and other like minded scholars, but I think Snowden was appealing to a mostly European American audience, and in doing so did toe the line on the Bio anthropology stuff not challenging it,if you read the work Black Spark white fire by Richard Poe he goes into some facts about his personal view on race,the author suggested that he viewed the "Egyptians" as mixed Caucasoid at best or some modified version of the Hamitic theory, Poe also said that he believed that if Snowden were asked to place himself in a category he would choose other or mixed,so was his frame of mind.

[africurious]

Yea, I read Poe's book. Like a lot of ppl Poe sees brown ppl on drawn on walls in africa and thinks they must be "mixed". Also, since there is a lot of debate about it he prob sees classifying them as "mixed" as the middle road (an arbitrary middle ground that doesn't bring anyone closer to the ancient reality). Martin Bernal seems to do a similar thing. Poe's book was good.

Maybe that whole "mixed" view that Poe thinks Snowden had explains some of Snowden's writings. But, he would've still been discriminated against regardless of mixing so why support the ideological underpinnings of that discrimination? He probably could've done some amazing work (aside from and greater than what he accomplished) if he weren't so brainwashed. Good thing there were others who knew better.

[nebsen]

Africurious,

Strangely enough I just started rereading Poe's book" Black Spark White Fire"the other day. I never got the impression that Poe was confused over the racial make up of the Egyptian. In fact on page 369 Chapter10 titled, " The Children Of Ham" he explains the Hamitic theory quit well & how it somewhat devolved into this mixed race concept.

[anansi]

Nov 19, 2011 14:23:43 GMT -5 nebsen said:

Africurious,

Strangely enough I just started rereading Poe's book" Black Spark White Fire"the other day. I never got the impression that Poe was confused over the racial make up of the Egyptian. In fact on page 369 Chapter10 titled, " The Children Of Ham" he explains the Hamitic theory quit well & how it somewhat devolved into this mixed race concept.

Poe was explaining Snowden's position on the matter,not his own as far as Poe is concern it's enough that they were culturally and biologically African,a position I share because once you start down that road you get into all kinds of ridiculous shadism about how much black is black is reddish brown black is a sallow completion black if one has recent African genetic stuff and self I.D as such,It is enough for me that the "Kemites" I.D not only their lands but themselves as BLK despite variations on skin tone not unlike any modern black metropolis.

[africurious]

Nov 19, 2011 14:52:12 GMT -5 anansi said:

Nov 19, 2011 14:23:43 GMT -5 nebsen said:

Africurious,

Strangely enough I just started rereading Poe's book" Black Spark White Fire"the other day. I never got the impression that Poe was confused over the racial make up of the Egyptian. In fact on page 369 Chapter10 titled, " The Children Of Ham" he explains the Hamitic theory quit well & how it somewhat devolved into this mixed race concept.

Poe was explaining Snowden's position on the matter,not his own as far as Poe is concern it's enough that they were culturally and biologically African,a position I share because once you start down that road you get into all kinds of ridiculous shadism about how much black is black is reddish brown black is a sallow completion black if one has recent African genetic stuff and self I.D as such,It is enough for me that the "Kemites" I.D not only their lands but themselves as BLK despite variations on skin tone not unlike any modern black metropolis.

Nebsen,
you may be right on that. I may've confused Poe's views a bit with other writers, especially Bernal (who def was not clear in what he thought despite his book's titles).

Anansi,
yea, i agree that the AE's were clearly african and that is enough. What degree of darkness is not important.

[nebsen]

Africurious,

It has been more than a few years since I've read "Black Athena" which a close friend lent me his two volumes. It was truly a ground breaking, earth moving book coming from a Euro American who I believe is also part Jewish. Academia was quit upset with Mr. Bernal esp. the classical departments around the globe. How dare he even suggest that the ancient Egyptians be Black Africans, even in part.

If I remember correctly, he was saying that the ancient Egyptians were Afro/Asiatics in part because of the ties that the ancient Egyptians had with the Phoenicians & Anatolia regions including Palestine ? By him being a professor of Linguistics he based his theory on common words & branches of language groups he found in the region including of course Greece .

[Tukuler al~Takruri]

Snowden is great for Graeco-Latin texts and art.
Beyond that and he goes out of bounds as far
as anthropology. We do owe him a lot despite
his hang ups and fears and wanting to be the
"only one" refusing to collaborate with people
like fellow Howardian Hansberry leave alone
JA Rogers, even going so far as to not share
his work with them or allow them to read any
of his non-published finds for their works.



WEB Du Bois
The World and Africa:
an inquiry into the part which Africa has played in world history
New York: Viking Press, 1947
p. x


He would like to be the first and only coloured
classicist. Fact is, he was neither alone nor first.


In spite of his crankiness towards black writers on Egyptology
we find Snowden slippery as a wet reptile on their colour and
designation by contemporaneous north Mediterraneans, see
Maghan Keita's view starting @ books.google.com/books?id=fnylq8hkVbYC&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131

[africurious]

Nov 19, 2011 18:08:48 GMT -5 nebsen said:

Africurious,

It has been more than a few years since I've read "Black Athena" which a close friend lent me his two volumes. It was truly a ground breaking, earth moving book coming from a Euro American who I believe is also part Jewish. Academia was quit upset with Mr. Bernal esp. the classical departments around the globe. How dare he even suggest that the ancient Egyptians be Black Africans, even in part.

If I remember correctly, he was saying that the ancient Egyptians were Afro/Asiatics in part because of the ties that the ancient Egyptians had with the Phoenicians & Anatolia regions including Palestine ? By him being a professor of Linguistics he based his theory on common words & branches of language groups he found in the region including of course Greece .

According to Bernal the physical studies of AE's wasn't clear on their ethnic affiliation so I guess he himself wasn't clear. And I'm sure he had a prob coming to grips with ppl mainly painted brown as being african since ppl often think that africans must be literally black or else they're "mixed". Furthermore, the kushites and other "nubians" are painted mostly black and often with diff facial features so this must be a "racial" difference musn't it? And he says he doubts AE's looked like "west africans"--he's apparently referring to the "true negro" view of africans here. No big surprise as most ppl outside of africa (including african descendants) often think of africans in this way. In fact, he says his views are more akin to those of dubois and mazrui, both of whom he says saw egyptians as "mixed". He's not an anthropologist and didn't use any anthropological arguments in his work so I'm not as bothered as i would be otherwise.

Yea, his book created quite the firestorm. ;D

[africurious]

Nov 20, 2011 1:30:56 GMT -5 Tukuler al~Takruri said:

Snowden is great for Graeco-Latin texts and art.
Beyond that and he goes out of bounds as far
as anthropology. We do owe him a lot despite
his hang ups and fears and wanting to be the
"only one" refusing to collaborate with people
like fellow Howardian Hansberry leave alone
JA Rogers, even going so far as to not share
his work with them or allow them to read any
of his non-published finds for their works.



WEB Du Bois
The World and Africa:
an inquiry into the part which Africa has played in world history
New York: Viking Press, 1947
p. x


He would like to be the first and only coloured
classicist. Fact is, he was neither alone nor first.


In spite of his crankiness towards black writers on Egyptology
we find Snowden slippery as a wet reptile on their colour and
designation by contemporaneous north Mediterraneans, see
Maghan Keita's view starting @ books.google.com/books?id=fnylq8hkVbYC&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131

Whaaat??!! He wouldn't share his works with them? Jeez, man, that's messed up. The irony is that while he was not sharing his work, he difficulty publishing a paper because it "favored the negro too much" according to Rogers. Smh.

I read the Maghan Keita link. It goes with my impression that Snowden dears not say the egyptians were black but admits they had a large "nubian" component and this nubian component was influential.

[anansi]

Nov 21, 2011 14:30:59 GMT -5 africurious said:

Nov 20, 2011 1:30:56 GMT -5 Tukuler al~Takruri said:

Snowden is great for Graeco-Latin texts and art.
Beyond that and he goes out of bounds as far
as anthropology. We do owe him a lot despite
his hang ups and fears and wanting to be the
"only one" refusing to collaborate with people
like fellow Howardian Hansberry leave alone
JA Rogers, even going so far as to not share
his work with them or allow them to read any
of his non-published finds for their works.



WEB Du Bois
The World and Africa:
an inquiry into the part which Africa has played in world history
New York: Viking Press, 1947
p. x


He would like to be the first and only coloured
classicist. Fact is, he was neither alone nor first.


In spite of his crankiness towards black writers on Egyptology
we find Snowden slippery as a wet reptile on their colour and
designation by contemporaneous north Mediterraneans, see
Maghan Keita's view starting @ books.google.com/books?id=fnylq8hkVbYC&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131

Whaaat??!! He wouldn't share his works with them? Jeez, man, that's messed up. The irony is that while he was not sharing his work, he difficulty publishing a paper because it "favored the negro too much" according to Rogers. Smh.

I read the Maghan Keita link. It goes with my impression that Snowden dears not say the egyptians were black but admits they had a large "nubian" component and this nubian component was influential.

Yea he toed the line for fear of being ostracized by his Euro American colleagues,a saying in Japan the nail that sticks it's head out gets beaten down.

[africurious]

Nov 21, 2011 21:50:51 GMT -5 anansi said:

Nov 21, 2011 14:30:59 GMT -5 africurious said:

Whaaat??!! He wouldn't share his works with them? Jeez, man, that's messed up. The irony is that while he was not sharing his work, he difficulty publishing a paper because it "favored the negro too much" according to Rogers. Smh.

I read the Maghan Keita link. It goes with my impression that Snowden dears not say the egyptians were black but admits they had a large "nubian" component and this nubian component was influential.

Yea he toed the line for fear of being ostracized by his Euro American colleagues,a saying in Japan the nail that sticks it's head out gets beaten down.

Yea, i'm familiar with that saying. Very good metaphor.

[zarahan]

Nov 19, 2011 18:08:48 GMT -5 nebsen said:

Africurious,

It has been more than a few years since I've read "Black Athena" which a close friend lent me his two volumes. It was truly a ground breaking, earth moving book coming from a Euro American who I believe is also part Jewish. Academia was quit upset with Mr. Bernal esp. the classical departments around the globe. How dare he even suggest that the ancient Egyptians be Black Africans, even in part.

If I remember correctly, he was saying that the ancient Egyptians were Afro/Asiatics in part because of the ties that the ancient Egyptians had with the Phoenicians & Anatolia regions including Palestine ? By him being a professor of Linguistics he based his theory on common words & branches of language groups he found in the region including of course Greece .

Martin BErnal has not done much for placing Egypt in its African context.
His agenda is altogether different, and some critics say he cynically
piggybacked on "the Afrocentric angle" to gain exposure and
notoriety for his agenda- (the "Black Athena" title would be one
ploy), and then, press and cash in hand, extended his payday by
"distancing" himself from Diop & other "Afrocentrists" thus both
burnishing his "moderate" credentials, and ingratiating himself
with academia at the same time. Bernal himself is on record
admitting that the title "Black Athena" is a marketing ploy. In his
volumes he gives short shrift to the biocultural Africanity of Ancient
Egypt, preferring at the most a thin outline. For all the talk about
"Black Athena" - in 3 big volumes, he produces very little of the hard
data confirming Egypt as an indigenous African civilization, even
though a substantial bloc of data was on hand when he wrote his
tomes.


Scholar Ivan Van Sertima has also taken Bernal to task for
the way he has denigrated DIop and other black scholars- using
their work to ratchet up notoriety for his, while denigrating and
subtly dismissing their contributions. Some blacks I have met on the
college scene a decade ago, seemed to naively hail Bernal as some
sort of Messiah - giving "voice to the voiceless" and "finally saying
what we have been saying all along." But as it turns out they too
have been played by Bernal. Van Sertima saw this clearly. SOme of what
Bernal said is true- such as the existence of a deep-rooted ancient
Greek respect for Egypt, and the rise of a racist/racially tinged Aryan
or Euro-supremacist model in the field that distorts the field. But
some of this work is also questionable as shown in detail by his
critics -- language claims, interpretative claims on Greek texts, etc etc..

And some of his Aryan versus Ancient model is hardly earth-shattering news.
Classics scholars for example have long noted the deep propaganda
pushed by Roman sources- such as biased Roman claims about Carthage
that have come down to us, with relatively little from Carthage (the
loser) to balance the accounts. Eurocentrics likewise in the 1800s
continued the same propaganda tradition - in a different way- but still propaganda,
and biased interpretation and sourcing.
--------------------------------

As for Snowden, he is a product of his time. His famous "Blacks in Antiquity"
was written in 1970, and his commentary on the so-called "Black Athena
Controversy" of the early 1990s makes it clear he was still stuck in
the anthropological models of the 1960s with its "true negroes" and
"wandering Caucasoids." One he steps outside his area of expertise
in the classics and starts in upon the anthropology of the Nile Valley
or Africa, he is clearly at sea. To his credit, his books can yield
good detail on blacks in Ancient Greece, provided you give his 1960s
"race" model a deep discount.