have you even read the books?
Have you read anything else?
Your arguments against Bernal's detractors so far has consisted of pestering a small sample group of people in a museum.
have you even read the books?
No, this answer is bullshit. If geographic proximity to Asia or Africa was the determining factor why did the many other places that are near Asia or Africa not come up with anything like what Greece came up with? Disease, Weather, internal warfare etc i.e. luck play a big role here.
I have read some Black Athena, in the 1990s but not much. Have you followed the scholarly discussion that ensued? Do you have anything substantial to say about counterarguments to Bernal?
Several people in this thread and the deleted on did point you towards problems of the afrocentric theory. You didn't come up with any substantial counterpoints, except implicitly accusing anyone who's not agreeing with you/Bernal as eurocentric/racist, like here:
Your arguments against Bernal's detractors so far has consisted of pestering a small sample group of people in a museum.
a lot of what went on in this and other theads have been a debate on whether eurocentric ideas still overwhelmingly dominate the western world, and not on the actual debate on ancient history.
the greeks came much later than in many ways more advanced civilizations
i am still reading the first volume. it's terrible as i seem to never ever have time to read these days...but from what i have read, which is very little, his opponents are mostly neo-con assholes
not my job to argue with Bernal's detractors. graphic design for films and television, playing music live and in studio, those are my jobs.
the other places didn't come up with sophisticated civilizations like the Greeks? which other places are you talking about? but this is the wrong question to ask, betraying your fundamentally greek-centric/eurocentric attitude: the greeks came much later than in many ways more advanced civilizations, from which they borrowed heavily. and their rise can be attributed to the luck of which you mention - a young culture which was able to synthesize the wisdom and knowledge from multiple parent cultures, forming a basis for innovation.
i have read some of Bernal's responses to his opponents, like this,
which "problems of the afrocentric theory" have been brought up here? if i can i will provide counterpoints. but i will be more able after more reading.
Summary: if Greece didn't do anything special, why didn't all the other surrounding cultures come up with the things the Greeks did?
This is what you and other Greek-bashers need to explain.
putting words in my mouth bro. i never said "greece didn't do anything special", or said anything which would amount to "greek-bashing".
i recognize the innovations of the greek empire
but the point is the drastically underplayed Egyptian and Hasidic influences
i recognize the innovations of the greek empire, always have
was just thinking how ironic it is for me to care so much about these deep roots, as i'm probably as rootless an urban nomad as you can think of, with no ties to my own heritage, lineage, or even family.
.I'm basically a rootless urban nomad who has always recognized the innovations of the greek empire
In my experience, people start caring about these things when they become older, in their 30s, when they start to be confronted seriously with their own mortality, when they face the question of having children and what that means, the trust differentials between family/clan and strangers. Being and urban nomad (and I'm one myself) brings these trust differentials into sharp relief.
was just thinking how ironic it is for me to care so much about these deep roots, as i'm probably as rootless an urban nomad as you can think of, with no ties to my own heritage, lineage, or even family.
I thought it was so weird in Europe how these people actually had a sense of belonging to a culture, and a static sense of identity, and on top of it, this sense that culture really matters. It's a huge difference you'll see between Americans and Europeans, it's subtle but it comes up in a lot of situations. They tend to get frustrated with Americans for not giving proper obeisance to their precious "culture"...
Abstract:
Small-scale human societies range from foraging bands with a strong egalitarian ethos to more economically stratified agrarian and pastoral societies. We explain this variation in inequality using a dynamic model in which a population’s long-run steady-state level of inequality depends on the extent to which its most important forms of wealth are transmitted within families across generations. We estimate the degree of intergenerational transmission of three different types of wealth (material, embodied, and relational), as well as the extent of wealth inequality in 21 historical and contemporary populations. We show that intergenerational transmission of wealth and wealth inequality are substantial among pastoral and small-scale agricultural societies (on a par with or even exceeding the most unequal modern industrial economies) but are limited among horticultural and foraging peoples (equivalent to the most egalitarian of modern industrial populations). Differences in the technology by which a people derive their livelihood and in the institutions and norms making up the economic system jointly contribute to this pattern.
political economic anthropologist, Timothy Earle