History Lesson: A Race Odyssey

by Mary R. Lefkowitz

In the early 1990s, Classics professor Mary Lefkowitz discovered that one of her faculty colleagues at Wellesley College was teaching his students that Greek culture had been stolen from Africa and that Jews were responsible for the slave trade. This book tells the disturbing story of what happened when she spoke out.   Lefkowitz quickly learned that to investigate the origin and meaning of myths composed by people who have for centuries been dead and buried is one thing, but it is quite another to critique myths that living people take very seriously. She also found that many in academia were reluctant to challenge the fashionable idea that truth is merely a form of opinion. For her insistent defense of obvious truths about the Greeks and the Jews, Lefkowitz was embroiled in turmoil for a decade. She faced institutional indifference, angry colleagues, reverse racism, anti-Semitism, and even a lawsuit intended to silence her.   In History Lesson Lefkowitz describes what it was like to experience directly the power of both postmodernism and compensatory politics. She offers personal insights into important issues of academic values and political correctness, and she suggests practical solutions for the divisive and painful problems that arise when a political agenda takes precedence over objective scholarship. Her forthright tale uncovers surprising features in the landscape of higher education and an unexpected need for courage from those who venture there.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Academia, Politics, Race, Cultural Studies, Africa

208 pages, Hardcover

First published April 28, 2008

About the author

Mary R. Lefkowitz (born April 30, 1935), American scholar of Classics. She studied at Wellesley College before obtaining a Ph.D. in Classical Philology from Radcliffe College in 1961. Lefkowitz has published on subjects including mythology, women in antiquity, Pindar, and fiction in ancient biography.
She came to the attention of a wider audience through her criticism of the claims of Martin Bernal in Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization in her book Not Out of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became an Excuse to Teach Myth As History. In Black Athena Revisited (1996), which she edited with Guy MacLean Rogers, her colleague at Wellesley College, the ideas of Martin Bernal are further scrutinized.

Reviews

[Paul Bryant · Rating 4 out of 5]

A writer like Janet Malcolm is willing to stick her cool impeccably made-up and coiffed head into a hornet's nest and after looking steadily about her, and getting stung a few times, emerge to write short, elegant, lapidary volumes on such matters as who owns memory (The Silent Woman), are all journalists liars (The Journalist and the Murderer) and was Freud a fraud (In the Freud Archives). Fate itself thrust Mary Lefkowitz's head (which, honesty compels me to note, looks uncannily like Charles Hawtry from the Carry On films) into a whole other nest in 1991. This is a fascinating book about culture, about whose voice prevails, about how we know what we know, about race, about rhetoric and its lies, about history, about responsibility and demagoguery, about trust breaking down and about the bad only requiring that the good do nothing. ML's book is about her struggles with a fellow professor at her university. First she found that he was teaching untruths about her own subject (ancient Greece). Then she found he was teaching antisemitism. ML is white and her opponent was black, and his subject was Afrocentrism. Uh-oh! It was bound to end in tears before bedtime.

So who gives a flying fart about whether ancient Greece was or was not heavily or slightly influenced by ancient Egyptian ideas? Who cares if Aristotle stole his ideas from Egyptian works which are now lost? I don't care! Except it turns out that I do because that's just the local battle ML was dragged into - for you and me it would probably be other skirmishes, but the same battlefield. It's easy to mock ideas about Mark Chapman being a CIA drone and under post-hypnotic orders to kill John Lennon just as it's easy to get a shamefaced guffaw out of the sad types who tell you about the time they got anally probed by aliens from Jupiter whilst hovering 200 miles above Boise Idaho. It's all mad stuff, ha ha ha – but really, keep taking your medication. But not so funny to come up against Muslims who believe that 9/ll was perpetrated by the Israeli government who then skilfully planted fake evidence to implicate some innocent Muslims. Not so funny to keep hearing that the Holocaust didn’t happen, or did happen but only killed 900,000, or did happen but wasn’t unique, or did happen but killed more non-Jews than Jews. Also not so funny to contemplate some black people seriously believing that the white race was created by a black scientist called Yakub. Without being patronising, we can see that some of these pernicious ideas are psychological lifelines to people who feel their culture to be constantly judged as wanting by the overweening arrogant fuck-you move-your-shadow majority white culture. This is surely clear, but it doesn’t make it right to believe them, or right to allow them to be taught in a university, or right to afford them equal airtime. In our cultural discourses we now revel in the formerly excluded narratives of women, black people and gay people but the enlightened thought tsunami which sluiced them in should not be a reason for narratives of social comfort and excuse to become so orthodox they squeeze our histories so painfully carved by centuries of forensic work out via wastepipes made of fuzzy postmodernist claptrap.

So ML found that she had drawn the short straw, she must go into battle against what she calls the Myth of the Stolen Legacy, which tells black people that a) the Greeks stole all their stuff from Egypt, and b) that Egyptians were black; and while we’re at it, c) the Jews funded most of the American slave trade. And ML duly found herself slapped with a libel writ by Tony Martin, the Afrocentrist black professor she was arguing against. Which being America took six years to resolve (in her favour). Meanwhile she found the ur-text of all this incorrect teaching, Black Athena by Martin Bernal, and the rest of the book is an account of why this theory is wrong, is corrosive and must be opposed.

Fighting talk – essential for any interested parties, which I kind of think means all of us.

[Iset · Rating 5 out of 5]

I had read Mary Lefkowitz’s previous book, Not Out of Africa, but I was reluctant to post a review for it, and I debated with myself whether or not to post a review for History Lesson: A Race Odyssey. As an Egyptologist and ancient historian, I’m all too aware that Afrocentrism is still a hot topic in my field. Those not in the know may not know what Afrocentrism is. Mary Lefkowitz defines it, in this book, thusly:

[Afrocentrism] refers to those who attempt to rewrite history in order to make Africa play the role in history that had usually been assigned to Europe. As far as I am concerned, neither Afrocentrism nor Eurocentrism is justifiable. Ideas do not travel in one direction only, but back and forth and sideways, especially in the ancient Mediterranean.

I feel conscious of just how sensitive an issue this is, writing this review. As a student, one of my colleagues held to the Afrocentrist model vociferously, to the point where on one occasion he became verbally abusive towards other students and threatened to punch a student in her face. I admit I didn’t get involved in this incident. To my mind, I could see that nothing anybody else said was ever going to get this student to think about things from different perspectives or in a more objective way. Mary Lefkowitz herself writes on this point:

People who are unwilling to listen and learn should have no place in academe, but of course they are well entrenched there, as we have seen. For their proponents, the myths of the Stolen Legacy and Jewish responsibility for the slave trade are hallowed truths, not to mention a fruitful source of extra income… The faculty who teach these myths as truth will not have their minds changed by anything that I have said or written. To defend their views, all they need to do is to claim that their critics are racists, and someone is certain to listen.

In the course of this book, Lefkowitz explains why she decided to speak out against Afrocentrist claims that were demonstrably false, but being taught in some institutions as history, even though she earned the ire of some colleagues and students, and was served with a lawsuit in an attempt to silence her:

We owe it to the people of the past to record their history as accurately as we can. We owe it to ourselves to get as close to the truth as we can, whatever that truth turns out to be. If we allow ourselves or anyone to manipulate history, and rewrite it as they see fit, injustice will always be done to some people, either in the past or in the present… It is through the use of evidence that we can separate good scholarship from bad, in any field. The best argument is not the one we like, or the one that is argued most persuasively, but the one that offers the best account of all the available evidence. What works in law courts works also in the writing of history, and indeed, law shares with history many tools in logic and honourable debate. You can’t claim that a legacy is stolen if you cannot show that the claimant ever had the legacy to begin with. That is why I felt I had to say that the Stolen Legacy was myth rather than history, or that the Jews were not principal players in the slave trade. That is why I believed that it was imperative to come up with a comprehensive response...

Lefkowitz also explains how postmodernist thought is used as an approach when it comes to history, and why it has its caveats. Postmodernism, in the field of history, calls for re-examination of what has been written before, under the premise that everyone is operating under their own biases, whether consciously or consciously. Thus, in the postmodernist mode, there is no such thing as facts, only majority consensus or conventional opinion.

In volume 2 [Bernal] stated that he had ‘given up the mask of impartiality’ and that he would from now on argue his point of view. That he regarded history writing as a form of advocacy was a fact that I found deeply disturbing, even shocking. I had always been taught that a historian must stand aside... and try to give the most accurate account he or she could of the available facts... Bernal was... accusing other scholars of engaging in an enormous cover-up, consciously or unconsciously. He was claiming that... ancient history had been wholly misunderstood - until he came along. What was more, despite his lack of formal credentials in the field, he was being considered authoritative just because he claimed to be attacking racial and religious prejudices… The entire mode of argument made any reasoned discussion of [Bernal’s] work difficult. Any defence of classical scholarship could be accused of apologising for racists. Any presentation of the available facts - such as the fact that there was no archaeological evidence... to show Egypt had invaded Greece in 2nd millennium BCE - could be dismissed on the ground that there were no such things as facts or objectivity… Bernal clearly wanted to support the myth of Egyptian priority, regardless of the historical record, because it seemed to him to serve a beneficial social purpose to do so. But he could only achieve this goal by taking from the ancient Greeks their most significant achievements. Here, if anywhere, was the real stolen legacy... All these civilisations, like everything else in the past, belong equally to all of us.

Throughout the course of Lefkowitz's experiences with Afrocentrism, she was on the receiving end of a good deal of hostility, since, as she writes, many people sincerely believe in claims such as the Stolen Legacy and that professors who express ignorance or refute the claim are 'trained' by a Eurocentric model or worse are outright lying. Lefkowitz wholeheartedly believes that scholarship exists to be re-examined and criticised through open discussion and that academic freedom needs to be protected, and also educational integrity needs to ensure that students are taught to think objectively and not taught what is demonstrably false. I feel it best to allow Lefkowitz to explain in her own words:

Even though it might have given some students pleasure to hear that Greek philosophy had been stolen from Africa, by being fed this misinformation they were being short-changed of the kind of education they were entitled to receive, an education that was supposed to teach them to reason from evidence and to think critically and independently… Asking hard questions is what educational institutions ought to be doing, because they provide a great opportunity for learning. But we need to present issues so that students can make use of scholarly values and arrive at independent judgements about controversial issues... If Bernal or I could simply rewrite history to bring about the social changes we desired (and I felt sure that I hated the racism in American society just as much as he did), then what was to stop the Ku Klux Klan from rewriting history to suit their nefarious purposes?... Scientists who falsify data in order to get research grants are disciplined. Why shouldn’t similar scrutiny be applied to people who teach or indeed write demonstrably false statements about history and simply ignore the evidence when it is presented to them? This is a profound breach of ethical duty for any scholar... Academic freedom does not give us the right to rewrite history without reference to known facts - even if by doing so we imagine that we can bring about social improvement. The scientists among us, for example, do not have license to falsify data to achieve desired results... Historians do not have the right to invent their own narratives or to misuse evidence.

There's not much I can say about this book, Lefkowitz herself best puts forward what she has to say, and the sensitivity of the debate is something I'm all too aware of. Anyone curious about the book should read it for themselves.

10 out of 10

[Spyros · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very interesting book about reverse-racism and the propaganda that history professors serve through history lessons in American colleges. Lefkowitz without any aggressive rhetoric in her book reveals with rational discourse the absurdity of Bernal's theories.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

THE RETIRED CLASSICS SCHOLAR RECALLS/COMMENTS ON A NUMBER OF CONTROVERSIES

Mary R. Lefkowitz (b. 1935) is an American classical scholar and Professor Emerita of Classical Studies at Wellesley College; she is the author of ‘Not Out of Africa,’ and co-editor of the volume, 'Black Athena Revisited.'

She wrote in the Introduction to this 2008 book, “The Greeks were indeed the first ancient people to use philosophy; they were the first to use non-theological language to describe first causes. There is no question about that. Thirty years ago no one would have doubted it. But in the 1990s I got into a lot of trouble for supporting this traditional view, perhaps precisely because it was the traditional view. This is the story of how I came to find myself in a controversy for defending an obvious truth… In the last thirty years or so, however, I have found there to be a kind of moral or ethical confusion among academics, as if we have forgotten what universities are for, or what we were originally hired to do. Telling the truth… had suddenly become less important than achieving social goals. These goals were to be reached not by means of the usual scholarly tools of reflection and reasoned persuasion. They were to be imposed by assertion and fiat. Teaching our students and ourselves how to evaluate ideas and evidence … seemed to me, as I struggled with the events that are the subject of this book, to be no longer top priority.” (Pg. 1-2)

She continues, “Challenging a belief system was only part of the problem. What I’d done… was to walk into an intellectual storm that had been raging for some time… created (so to speak) by two different weather systems on American campuses, one intellectual and one primarily political… this intellectual turbulence … has continued unabated for almost a decade. This intellectual storm was fueled by what has come to be known as postmodernism… Its adherents believe that no historical narrative can be considered authoritative, because writers always have political motives, whether they are aware of them or not. Postmodernists, in short, believe that there is no such thing as objectivity... At some point this intellectual storm merged with a political one, in particular a new awareness of racism.” (Pg. 4-6)

She goes on, "In the early 1990s… I discovered … to my dismay that some members of the Wellesley faculty [e.g., Tony Martin] firmly believed in the theory that Greek culture had been stolen from Africa…. Students were asked to read materials about ancient Egypt, the race of the ancient Egyptians, and [George G.M. James’] ‘Stolen Legacy,’ a book that taught that Greek philosophy and culture had been stolen from Africa… literally stolen by Aristotle from the great library at Alexandria, in Egypt… the notion is just plain wrong. Aristotle could not have stolen his ideas from the library of Alexandria, because it was built after his death… These are facts that can be found in any decent reference work or… in my book ‘Not Out of Africa.’ But… it was not historical reality that mattered to Tony Martin or his faction.” (Pg. 8-11)

She outlines, “my aim is to describe and expose some of the strategies and arguments that were used to turn an uncontroversial statement about history into a controversy about race and... the purpose of education. My aim has been to … show why it is better in the end for all of us to pay attention to facts, and argue from evidence.” (Pg. 14)

She says of Martin Bernal’s book ‘Black Athena’ that its “principal thesis was that Greek culture was heavily dependent on earlier cultures in Egypt and the Near East.” (Pg. 27) She adds, “A whole group of people, including some at my own elite campus, regarded it as scholarly confirmation … that Greek civilization depended on an AFRICAN Egypt… Bernal admitted that his project had a POLITICAL purpose, which was, ‘of course, to lessen European cultural arrogance.’ … As I saw it, Bernal’s book represented a serious challenge both to the basic narrative of ancient history and the whole purpose of studying the past…. I was glad to concede that we could easily think of the ancient Egyptians as an African people. After all, they certainly weren’t white-skinned or European… What Bernal was trying to do, was… accusing other scholars of engaging in an enormous cover-up, consciously or unconsciously.” (Pg.
29-33)

She reports, “The Sengalese writer Cheikh Anta Diop… wrote about the Greek myths that mention Africa… George G.M. James… believed that Aristotle took his ideas about the soul from the Egyptian Book of the Dead… In ‘Africa: Mother of Western Civilization,’ [Yosef] ben-Jochannan stated that Aristotle took books from the library of Alexandria and put his name on them… Herodotus… reported what the Egyptian priests told him… [and] was excited to see resemblances between Egyptian and Greek religious practices; [yet] he regarded Egyptian culture as fundamentally distinct from that of Greek-speaking people.” (Pg. 36-37)

She observes, “The term ‘race’ is essentially anachronistic… we are all of African origin, because all human life originated on that continent… That the Egyptians considered themselves distinct from other Africans does not mean that they were not in origin an African people. An [ancient] Egyptian … would have had to sit in the back of the bus… during the days of segregation.” (Pg. 39)

She acknowledges, “Some learned Greeks, like Solon and Thales, may have visited Egypt in the 7th and 6th centuries… the Greek historians Hecataeus and Herodotus were able to visit Egypt… Greeks employed occasional Egyptian words in their language for specialized terms… The Greeks probably acquired some practical medical knowledge from the Egyptians… but it is more likely they learned about mathematics and astronomy from the Near Eastern peoples with whom they came into frequent contact.” (Pg. 41-42)

In Chapter 4, she covers in some detail the controversy at Wellesley College with: Tony Martin, the NOI’s book ‘The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews,’ Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates’s ‘Black Demagogues and Pseudo-Scholars’ essay, anti-Semitism, whether Jews should pay blacks reparations for slavery, etc. But she observes, “No one yet seemed prepared to deal with the questions raised by the Afrocentric approach to ANCIENT history.” (Pg 75) She also reports, “Most academics, including me, would have spoken out in [Tony] Martin’s defense. The college, quite rightly, did NOT review [or revoke] Martin’s tenure.” (Pg. 80-81)

Later, however, “the very fact that Martin had written and had no regrets about a book called ‘The Jewish Onslaught’ had lost him the support of most of the faculty colleagues who had been willing to give him the benefit of the doubt…” (Pg. 92) Martin filed a lawsuit for libel against her, which was ‘finally dismissed in 1999.’” (Pg. 105) She notes, “what I learned from my brush with the law was that academics should not expect courts to come to their rescue.” (Pg. 114)

She said of her book ‘Not Out of Africa,’ “I first explained why it was unlikely and even impossible that the immediate ancestors of figures like Socrates and Cleopatra could have been black. I explained at length why stories of Greek philosophers visiting Egypt were almost certainly not true, and pointed out that even if they HAD gone there, they would not have learned about Greek philosophy. If I were writing the book again, I would have quoted more extensively from the writings of Egyptian and Greek thinkers. Egyptian texts describing the god are profound and complex, but they do not employ the abstract, non-theological terminology of the writings of Plato and Aristotle.” (Pg. 117-118)

She recounts that “In March 1996… radio station WBAI invited Guy Rogers [her ‘Black Athena Revisited’ co-author] and me to debate Martin Bernal and John Henrik Clarke. When we got there, we discovered that the audience had been bused in especially for the debate… As moderator, [Eutrice] Leid did not so much ask questions as level a series of accusations at us. She had it in for me, because I had never been to Africa. Anything Rogers or I said was greeted by boos and catcalls… framing the debate as a matter of politics … furnished a convenient way to avoid discussing the historical problems raised by ‘Black Athena’ and the idea of a Stolen Legacy… The debate wasn’t… about ‘politics.’ It was about historical fact, and scholarship. By treating the matter as if it were a political argument, critics were able to avoid discussing the historical issues.” (Pg 125-127)

She summarizes, “It is through the use of evidence that we can separate good scholarship from bad, in any field… That is why I felt I had to say that the Stolen legacy was myth rather that history… why I believed that it was imperative to come up with a comprehensive response to Bernal’s ‘Black Athena.’ … I was persuaded that ‘Black Athena’ offered a partial and biased account of the available evidence and seriously misrepresented the intentions of classical scholars and ancient historians.” (Pg. 132) Her/Rogers’ book ‘Black Athena Revisited’ “left little doubt that the available evidence did not support Bernal’s central claims… Virtually no aspect of Bernal’s characterization of 19th century European scholarship stood up to close scrutiny.” (Pg. 132-141)

In the Epilogue, she acknowledges, “I have learned from commentators and responders to my talks… that I should have made an effort to talk with more people before I wrote ‘Not Out of Africa.’ If I had done so, and not simply sought to debunk myths that were being taught as history, I would have realized that the myth of the Stolen Legacy had great symbolic value… The positive side of the notion of a Stolen Legacy is that it states clearly that Africa and its people played an important role in world history… since it seems certain that the human race originated in Africa. It would have been more effective to discuss and acknowledge the symbolic meaning of these myths before I tried to set out all the reasons why it would be better for all of us not literally to believe in these stories.” (Pg. 150-151)

She concludes, “I do not believe that we should continue to permit the doctrine of academic freedom to serve as a protective smokescreen for the kind of discourse that has no place in a university… once the first ethnic slur is made, or the first political insult, serious debate about historical accuracy becomes almost impossible.” (Pg. 158)

This interesting (and controversial) book will be “must reading” for those studying Afrocentrism, ‘Black Athena,’ the 'Stolen Legacy,' etc.

[Andrew McBurney · Rating 4 out of 5]

This will certainly be a controversial book, as the latest installment of the controversy it describes. Mary Lefkowitz is a professor of ancient history at Wellesley College. Anthony Martin taught classes in the Africana Studies Department. This book is Professor Lefkowitz's own story of how her questioning of a discredited theory, taught by Professor Martin, embroiled her in an ugly, years-long contest-of-wills between those who believe the teaching of history should be based on credible evidence, and those who invent their own version of history to serve their own ends.

Professor Lefkowitz makes a number of points very clear: She is an ardent supporter of academic freedom, which protects those who would teach controversial theories; but does not believe that academic freedom should be allowed as a shield for those who teach ideas that are demonstrably false. She believes that having civilized discussions and debates should be part of the academic environment. She also attacks postmodernism as a philosophy that allows the rationalization of even demonstrably false ideas as plausibly true.

Granted, this is her story from her point of view, though it is well-documented. However, after reading it, I think that Professor Lefkowitz would advise anyone wanting to learn more about the matter, to not let her book be the only source they consult. The lesson for all is to sift through the evidence and seek the truth.

[Anson Cassel Mills · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this brief volume, classicist Mary Lefkowitz (b. 1935) tells the story of how she “got in a lot of trouble” for exposing the vicious irrationality of Afrocentricism in general and that of her Wellesley colleague Tony Martin (1942-2013) in particular. She also correctly indicts a lazy postmodernism for the continued academic indifference to professors who indoctrinate their students with socially satisfying myths.

Lefkowitz has been justly praised for her defense of historical truth, and she continues to believe that her personal struggle enabled her to “convince quite a few people that myth shouldn’t be taught as history.” (149) Nevertheless, she takes as much refuge as possible from the protective coloration of the academy, firmly supporting tenure even for professors who turn history into fiction or into hate.

Lefkowitz has been through the wringer on this issue, but it might have been a lot worse. In defending herself from anti-Semitic Afrocentrists, Lefkowitz retained the politically correct high ground, and she also received significant financial and legal backing from Jewish advocacy groups. What if the Afrocentrists had defamed a different minority, say Christian fundamentalists?

[Steven · Rating 5 out of 5]

...Paved With Good Intentions

Another instance of attempting to rewrite history with a myth or two. Interesting parallels when you read other books on instances of embarkation of rewriting history without evidence only get debunked. Then someone launches an ad hominem without bothering to refute. Lefkowitz getting sued just to get her to stay silent is the same with Wright suing Lipstadt for the same reason. In the end, the falsifiers will play victim in their propagandistic playbooks. Sure, one wants put out fomas, but histories have already shown most myths can turn detrimental to one's health and well being when it turned out any form of hate we can do without. This story, History Lesson, is a sad one. It can be a teachable moment when one is to willing to consider. But, let's not kid ourselves. The minds were already made up before you even start the dialogue.

[Karen Hough · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent! Particularly in conjunction with “Not Out of Africa”.

[Daniel A. · Rating 4 out of 5]

History Lesson: A Race Odyssey by Wellesley College classics professor Mary Lefkowitz was rather a troubling read, on several different levels. The narrative of Prof. Lefkowitz's ordeal in combating antisemitism and allegedly inappropriate scholarship in Wellesley's African-American Studies Department—which I won't elaborate on here, as Lefkowitz's narrative is worth reading in and of itself—History Lesson presents itself as a cautionary tale of the risks of inserting politics into academia. While the Lefkowitz's main antagonist, the late Prof. Tony Martin, eventually suffered the consequences of his actions, I'm old enough to remember when the mainstreaming of Afrocentrism went hand-in-hand with antisemitism on college campuses, among those proponents Prof. Leonard Jeffries of City College of New York; that Wellesley College still seems to have a problem with Jewish people on campus and antisemitism is a sore point in my reading of Lefkowitz's narrative.

However, where History Lesson shines is in Lefkowitz's willingness to admit her own insensitivity, whether on a personal level, academic level, or cultural level; Lefkowitz is quick to make clear that African-American-oriented scholarship is both valuable and important, as well as that neglect thereof has caused inordinate damage. But ultimately, History Lesson, as the title suggests, is a cautionary tale; I don't know that it would help for me to say anything more than Lefkowitz already says in the book, as it very much speaks for itself, but that academia has, if anything, shifted the pendulum in the other direction is telling. Lefkowitz makes clear that while academic freedom has its limits, it is of tantamount importance, and that that is the key to scholarship.

[Hubert · Rating 5 out of 5]

A glimpse into the culture wars of the 90s in academia and beyond. Author Lefkowitz makes a strong case against the takeover of evidence-based historical studies by political polemic. As much a creed on what university students are owed educationally as a personal account of a scholarly debate gone sourly political.

[Mz · Rating 4 out of 5]

https://thraca.gr/2025/01/%ce%bc%ce%b...