An negative review of the book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0865432481/ref=cm_cr_dp_synop/104-9999787-7109565?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books&customer-reviews.start=1#RYPFKTG6ZLAPN7 of 53 people found the following review helpful:
An articulate and voluminous work of racism, October 26, 2003
By A Customer
The moral equivalent of this book would be this: "Sambo: A European Centered Critique of African Cultural Thought and Behavior, in which the African traits of shiftlessness, laziness, violence and underachievement are examined from a European perspective." Would anyone doubt for a second that such a book would be nothing more than a racist diatribe? Probably not, and that's exactly what Yurugu is.
To begin with, it has nothing to do with "African-centered" anything. Aside from using a few borrowed words for things that could just as easily have been stated in good ol' English, there is not a trace of Africa to be found in this book, although it is generally referred to in the most idealistic manner. The Africa that has slavery to this day, that practices female genital mutilation and oppression of women on a wide scale, that is nearly devoid of democracy, that is rife with tribal disputes, wars and genocides is nowhere to be seen. Only an idealized version of it that exists only within the author's imagination does such an Africa exist.
This book is largely unreadable. It is long-winded and verbose. The intent of the book is clearly and unquestionably to make racist accusations against white people, sort of like a more erudite version of The Isis Papers or The Iceman Inheritance, but the author, seems unable to write concisely. Instead, she go on at length to make most points by implication rather than by expressly stating them. Not only is the book verbose, that verbosity is largely made up of coined, misdefined, and borrowed terminology. Is it possible to even take seriously a book wherein seemingly every paragraph has a reference to the "asili," "utamawazo," "utamaroho," etc., et al.? Not really, except for those who will do so simply because it enables them to buy into this attack against white people. One of the terms in her glossary is "Majority Peoples," which she describes as "the members of the indigenous core cultures of the world regarded collectively, exclusing the European minofity." By the same token, particularly since there are more people in Europe than in Africa, and that there are more Caucasian people in the world than Negroid people, one could define "Majority Peoples" to be all non-black people and attempt to separate blacks from the rest of humanity as dishonestly as the author tries to separate out whites.
As with many such books written in the 80s and 90s, it has the obligatory racist introduction by John Henrik Clarke. He could always be counted on to throw his two cents in to aid in the cause as per statements such as "They were the last branch of the human family to emerge into the arena called civilization." That's not remotely true, and in fact black Africans of sub-Saharan Africa were one of the last groups of people to be brought into civilization (and some parts of the interior of Africa remain uncivilized to this day), but saying this seems to make some people feel better.
Ms. Ani borrows some of the racist assertions put forth by Frances Cress Welsing, e.g., that whites are "melanin deficient" and were "driven" out of Africa. She buys into the "calcified pineal gland" nonsense about white people. She buys into the Iceman Inheritance nonsense about whites being interbred with Neanderthals. It makes sense that a racist book should rely on other racist books. She mischaracterized western religion, science, and culture, not for any valid reasons and, as with similar authors, takes the lack of advancement in Africa as being a conscious choice as though they were early environmentalists. She seems to have a particular problem with the word "progress," and because European societies progressed to more advanced stages than most other people, especially sub-Saharan African societies, she targets the concept of progress with particular attention, characterizing it as negatively as possible, equating it to the supposed Dogon character of "Yurugu," the title of the book, who couldn't live in harmony with nature. Do tell.
As for hypocrisy, probably the only thing consistently quoted from this largely unreadable book is the part on "Hypocrisy as a way of life." This is standard fare on white-bashing web sites. "Within the nature of European culture there exists a statement of value or 'moral' that has no meaning for the members of that culture. I call this the 'rhetorical ethic.'" Sheer nonsense, but the more gullible of racists will buy into it wholeheartedly. Do the concepts of truth, justice, honor, integrity, right, wrong, compassion, and so forth have "no meaning" to "Europeans?" Hardly. They've been the driving forces behind the unique Western value system of the inherent worth of the individual, individual rights, human rights, the divinity of man, the formation of democratic governments, and even the abolitionist movement (something that certainly wasn't conceived of by African societies!). There is hypocrisy in the world, including among Europeans, but probably no more so than any other people, and to assert so without proof is, well, racist. Part of racism, however, is to take character flaws that are present in all of humanity and pretend that they apply only to the group targeted for hatred.
A testament to the nature and effect of this book can be found in some of the earlier reviews of it, e.g., this: "I started out wanting to know what could possess and entire race of people to participate in the most atrocious (sp) crime against humanity -- the four hundred year african slave trade--- I found the answer in "Yurugu"." (Never mind that slavery existed in Africa long before Europeans arrived, and that Europeans were the first society to ban slavery). "it's in their souls (even though they think "souls" don't exist)." (Is there even a doubt that Europeans generally think souls exist? No, but racists like to pretend otherwise). "She confirms for many of us what we have known for years." No, she doesn't "confirm" any such misheld beliefs; she simply reinforces preconceived racist fallacies, and therein lies the popularity of this book. It is a racist book, and people who are racist towards whites will embrace it, but it is not an accurate, fair, or even "African-centered" book, just a racist one.
A brief rebuttal to the negative review:
8 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
Excellent book, December 5, 2003
By An anthropologist (Norway) - See all my reviews
I am curently doing research on the Pan-African movement, and this book provides an excellent background of the Afrocentric critique of European imperialism and racism.
To the other reviewer who said that the moral equivalent of this book would be "A eurocentric critique of African thought and behavior", I would like to say you are wrong, for two reasons:
1. If Africans had enslaved and denigrated Europeans for five centuries, Europeans could legitimately write a book with the title you suggested, and it would be highly moral.
2. In the current situation, most mainstream social science is eurocentric and criticizes African culture and behavior. This is immoral, because it justifies crimes against humanity.
Remember, morality is on the side of the oppressed, not the oppressors. There must be justice in this world!
