Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 09:55:19 -0400
To: athena-discuss@info.harpercollins.com
Subject: Re: refuting Diop?

Peter Daniels wrote:
> 
> That is because I do not know the primary sources; the Egyptologists and
> Classicists know them. All I kno w is that when Diop strayed into my
> area of expertixse, viz/., linguistics, what he did nade no sense whatsoever.
> 
> I think it's more incumbent on his partisans to show that he is trustworthy

Diop's trustworthiness has got nothing to do with it.  He cites
facts, and argues from those facts.  To demolish his contentions,
it is sufficient to show that he is mistaken as to his facts,
or mistaken as to arguments based on those facts.  But merely to
seek to disparage the man, as opposed to his contentions, is 
the dead give-away of the detractor who has neither fact nor
argument at his disposal.  As you now concede.

> than on me to adopt the methods of many on this list and make criticisms
> using materials they don't comprehend.

I may have no access to the source materials, but I understand
argument very well.  I do not need to understand the source
materials to appreciate for example, that Diop's opponents disagree
as to questions of fact, say, or that where there is no disagreement
as to the facts, they yet disagree as to which 
of competing hypotheses appears most reasonable, based on
competing arguments that may be advanced.  That is what I would
like to hear from Diop's opponents, not that he is a poor
linguist.  If he has erred linguistically, tell me how that 
affects the validity of his contentions.

> 
> See my very first posting to this List for my interpretation of the "plagiarism"
> charge. It, and the word "Stolen" in the title of the work of G. G. James,
> suggest that those who use it simply don't realize how the int4eraction of
> cultures works. Whatever aspects of Greek culture may have been received from
> the Egyptians were not "plagiarized" or "stolen". (PKM provided quote after
> quote from Greeks trying to give credit to the Egyptians for things many
> scholars say they couldn't have gotten from them.) Anthropologitsts use the
> non-emotive term "borrowing" when they identify examples of a culture influ-
> encing another.

You appear here to be using obtuseness as a tactic.  Diop used
the word plagiarism advisedly, not as polemic device.  He
cited evidence, and he gave reason.  That he charges Archimedes,
Thales, Pythagoras and others with plagiarism, does not  
invalidate the notion that innocent borrowing also took place.
And the fact that he relies in part on accounts of some Greeks
to indict other Greeks does not mean that the latter
Greeks cannot be guilty of plagiarism as charged.  Yes, there
was cultural "borrowing", but also, there was out and out
plagiarism -- at least that is the contention -- in areas that go
to the core of what the Eurocentric historians tell us is the
Greek contribution.  Those two -- borrowing and plagiarism -- are not
mutually exclusive.  But as the latter, if proved, also necessarily
proves the former, it is clear what would happen to Lefkowitz's
not-out-of-Africa contention if the charge remains unaddressed.

> Diop, and I suppose James, apparently was a good propoagandist; his unscientific
> use of "plagiarize" perhaps caught on. But one thing we ougth to be aware of,
> and to avoid, is propaganda masquerading as science. Let's try to keep the
> emotive language out of the discussion of the ancient facts, and restrict it
> to the few who insist on maintaining their schoolyard name-calling long after
> everyone else is quite exhausted by it.

I repeat: Diop's use of the word "plagiarize" is appropriate to
the facts and arguments he adduces.  If the charges are untrue, it
is very clear how to attempt a refutation.  Show where either the
facts stated by him are mistaken, or his arguments are wrong, or
at least less plausible than a competing argument.  

And no, *I* do not complain that you did not use primary sources;
I would be happy to hear the "defense" argument from any secondary
source you care to choose.  It was to *your* complaint:

:>  Would it not be better to consult either the Egyptian
:> originals, or (since SFT can't do so himself) immediately secondary
:mater-
:> ials describing the primary materials directly?

that I responded:

:You disparage Diop... but I notice that you also do not use
:source materials or "immediately secondary materials" 
:to refute his contentions, specifically his charge of 
:plagiarism against the Greeks.

Regards,

Contents | Previous | Next