<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Back to School
Review: In my opinion this book was written for college students. It is much more of a lesson plan layout than a narative on Africian history. The author takes each issue in sections and I find that in doing so there is quite a lot of repeation in his information. He also use words spelled in the Greek alphabet that I could not understand. At the early stages of the book many of these words are used with English counterparts but as the book goes on it seems as though you were suppose to remember them. It was Greek to me and not necessary.I had to dig out some old maps I had in order to put locations on many of the areas he was writing about. The book would be a lot better if there were maps included. The artifacts pictures in the book, some ninety-nine pages, were a great aide to my understanding and there are plenty of them. There are about eighty-two pages of reference notes and only about one hundred and forty-three pages of text. In the end result I put myself in a classroom receiving a lecture from my professor. Did my homework (research of names and places I was not familure with) and was able to follow the information over an extended period. It took me almost a month, during my free time, to finish it. The information is there. The arguments are there. With all the negative comments I've mentioned above I found the book serving the desire I bought it for. Knowledge. That made it's reading and content worth while to me.
Rating: 
Summary: An outstanding piece of research
Review: Snowden is not an Afro-centric writer, he is a well qualified professor of classics, an accredited expert in his field. "Blacks in Antiquity" presents a comprehensive history and analysis of ancient Ethiopian "black" culture. In the 18th and 19th centuries, some American anthropologists and theologians have attempted to rewrite Ethiopian history to show this advanced culture as one not truly black. The roots of that go into the very heart of the origin of western racism in Colonial America and can be found to affect our implicit views of race even today. Snowden shows from historical, textual and archaeological evidence that the Ethiopians were indeed a "black" race. He also establishes their position of respect and complete equal acceptance with other ancient cultures of the time. In essence, it shows, while perhaps not explicitly stating it, that racism is a much more recent invention than many have supposed-- especially those hold to a "Black curse" or "inferiority" theory in physiology or theology. If you want a volume that presents evidence in a straight foward and empirically supportable manner, this is an excellent choice.
Rating:
Summary: An outstanding piece of research
Review: Snowden is not an Afro-centric writer, he is a well qualified professor of classics, an accredited expert in his field. "Blacks in Antiquity" presents a comprehensive history and analysis of ancient Ethiopian "black" culture. In the 18th and 19th centuries, some American anthropologists and theologians have attempted to rewrite Ethiopian history to show this advanced culture as one not truly black. The roots of that go into the very heart of the origin of western racism in Colonial America and can be found to affect our implicit views of race even today. Snowden shows from historical, textual and archaeological evidence that the Ethiopians were indeed a "black" race. He also establishes their position of respect and complete equal acceptance with other ancient cultures of the time. In essence, it shows, while perhaps not explicitly stating it, that racism is a much more recent invention than many have supposed-- especially those hold to a "Black curse" or "inferiority" theory in physiology or theology. If you want a volume that presents evidence in a straight foward and empirically supportable manner, this is an excellent choice.
Rating: 
Summary: A well-written discussion of Greek-African contact
Review: Snowden seems to really know what he's talking about. To someone as ignorant in the subject as I was, it was a great read to learn all about the contact between the ancient Africans and Greeks. The pictures and explanations of artifacts are especially interesting.
Rating: 
Summary: Ethiopians were not the only Black Race is Antiquity
Review: The so-called "negroid" features this author attributes to the Ancient Authors views of the races of Blacks in antiquity is a modern defined term. Ancient authors were more simple, as they did not consider themselves anthropologists as we know anthropology today. The term "black-skinned" or "wooly-haired" was much more significant in describing this race, rather than anthropological terms such as thick lips, broad noses, etc. These ancient authors knew as we know today, that physical features of Africans varied, and instead focused of what was more prevalent-skin color.
In his critique of Cheikh Anta Diop's Black Egyptian the author states: "One of the passages which Diop cited is a much disputed account of the Colchians and Egyptians by the historian Herodotus, the meaning of which is uncertain. Of the other passages quoted, one does not necessarily refer to an Egyptian, and the others do not support Diop's statement about 'thick-lipped, kinky-haired Egyptians'; in fact, the authors cited do not even mention hair or lips". This passage alone tells me that this Author obviously does not cross-reference his work, as anyone that has read The History by Herodotus, there can be no confusion that when the author stated "black-skinned and wooly hair" in describing the Egyptians, there could be no mistaken as to what the author meant. As he did not state, dark-skinned, brown-skinned, tanned, etc., he clearly stated the color he observed on the skin of the Egyptians, Ethiopians and Colchians-Black.
The worst quote from this author criticizing Diop's work was "Further, Diop overlooks the fact that classical authors regularly differentiated between Egyptians and Ethiopians." I am entirely embarrassed that such as statement could be used by a so-called scholar, as this author must have overlooked the fact that the classical authors "regularly differentiated" between the Greeks and the Egyptians, the Greeks and the Romans, The Greeks and the Assyrians, and so on..yet we know that the Greeks and the Romans were both from a white race with different customs, why would it not be comprehensible to the average reader that the Egyptians and the Ethiopians were also from the same race with "customs" that differentiated them. Is it not known that even in modern times Africans differ in their customs.
In conclusion its sad to think that this author confined the Black race only to the area of Ethiopia without citing the fact that Herodotus also affrims that the Ethiopians colonized Egypt and gave birth to their civilization. I would highly suggest "The African Origin of Civilization" by Cheikh Anta Diop instead.
Rating:
Summary: Ethiopians were not the only Black Race is Antiquity
Review: The so-called "negroid" features this author attributes to the Ancient Authors views of the races of Blacks in antiquity is a modern defined term. Ancient authors were more simple, as they did not consider themselves anthropologists as we know anthropology today. The term "black-skinned" or "wooly-haired" was much more significant in describing this race, rather than anthropological terms such as thick lips, broad noses, etc. These ancient authors knew as we know today, that physical features of Africans varied, and instead focused of what was more prevalent-skin color.
In his critique of Cheikh Anta Diop's Black Egyptian the author states: "One of the passages which Diop cited is a much disputed account of the Colchians and Egyptians by the historian Herodotus, the meaning of which is uncertain. Of the other passages quoted, one does not necessarily refer to an Egyptian, and the others do not support Diop's statement about 'thick-lipped, kinky-haired Egyptians'; in fact, the authors cited do not even mention hair or lips". This passage alone tells me that this Author obviously does not cross-reference his work, as anyone that has read The History by Herodotus, there can be no confusion that when the author stated "black-skinned and wooly hair" in describing the Egyptians, there could be no mistaken as to what the author meant. As he did not state, dark-skinned, brown-skinned, tanned, etc., he clearly stated the color he observed on the skin of the Egyptians, Ethiopians and Colchians-Black.
The worst quote from this author criticizing Diop's work was "Further, Diop overlooks the fact that classical authors regularly differentiated between Egyptians and Ethiopians." I am entirely embarrassed that such as statement could be used by a so-called scholar, as this author must have overlooked the fact that the classical authors "regularly differentiated" between the Greeks and the Egyptians, the Greeks and the Romans, The Greeks and the Assyrians, and so on..yet we know that the Greeks and the Romans were both from a white race with different customs, why would it not be comprehensible to the average reader that the Egyptians and the Ethiopians were also from the same race with "customs" that differentiated them. Is it not known that even in modern times Africans differ in their customs.
In conclusion its sad to think that this author confined the Black race only to the area of Ethiopia without citing the fact that Herodotus also affrims that the Ethiopians colonized Egypt and gave birth to their civilization. I would highly suggest "The African Origin of Civilization" by Cheikh Anta Diop instead.
<< 1 >>
| 
