This quote from Garveys Africa in this thread is the reason I made this Reasoning.
I find little 'to burn' with the works of those who you mentioned, especially doctor Jochannen.
So, historical inaccuracies and self imagined falsehoods are acceptable if they are esoteric?
He finds so much to burn in the Bible, but little or nothing to burn from the writings of Doctor Jochannen? He comes and criticizes people for taking the Bible literally and not being critical regarding its contents, but he chooses to do the same thing with other people's writings. My point is that if a person is truly interested in truth, he or she will burn fire on any information they receive, to filter out at least some of the falsehoods if there are any. I feel that this is an important thing for people to Learn or they will just continue to replace one falsehood with another.
I couldn't find the articles that I saw in the past about Doctor Jochannen , but came across this book review by a bredren named Ozodi Osuji originally from Nigeria. If he can find so much to burn in Doctor Jochannen writings, why can't Garveys Africa find anything? If Garveys Africa is as critical and interested in uncovering truth and burning falsehoods as he appears to be, how could he be so blind about some people's words?
Here are some of the things he says about the book.
link to book review
I have to say that this book is very annoying; its claims are so outrageous that it takes enormous patience to wade through the hundreds of pages of verbiage the man spilled out.
Dr. Ben wrote nonsense that aimed at making African Americans feel superior to white Americans; he appealed to certain African Americans hence they celebrate his books.
I forced myself to read Dr. Ben because he is recognized as one of the gurus of Afrocentrism and since I am motivated to understand Afrocentrists I had to read him. If not my desire to understand Afrocentricism I would not have tortured my mind reading what I automatically realized is bullshit.
Dr. Ben did not write anything that could withstand empirical verification; his writing lacks academic rigor. He merely took from this or that writer that seemed to have encountered some light in old Africa and used this thread to weave his elaborate lies about how Africa produced Western civilizations (such as Greece and Rome).
Here is a Reasoning I made before:
I have observed that most people accept as truth the stories that appeal to them. It is not so much about how well the story convinced them, it is more about the story telling them what they want to hear.
On the other side people tend to consider the stories that don't appeal to them as false.
Almost all wars of the past and present are full of appeals from both sides. People believe the good about their side and disbelieve the bad, and people believe the bad about the others and disbelieve the good.
Selassie I taught I and I a different way of thinking, to remove the appeals and deal with truth and rights.
One day all the peels of the appeals will be removed and what will remain is the real truth. Until then, people will hold on tight to their peels because it sounds the sweetest to their ears.