Prof. Tony Martin
Blacks and Jews at Wellesley News
Broadside Number Four • March, 1998
The Onslaught Against Afrocentrism
Martin v. Lefkowitz: Libel Suit Involving Wellesley College Professors
The Appeals Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts recently handed Tony Martin a victory in his ongoing libel suit against Mary Lefkowitz. Martin, professor of Africana Studies at Wellesley College, is suing Lefkowitz, professor of Greek and Latin at the same school, for statements she published in Measure magazine. Lefkowitz alleged, among other things in her article, that Martin called a white student a fucking white bitch. “The young woman fell down as a result of his [verbal] onslaught,” Lefkowitz further alleged, “and Martin bent over to continue his rage at her.” Martin considered this statement defamatory and initiated a libel suit.
At the first hearing two years ago, African American Justice Charles T. Spurlock upheld Lefkowitz’s preliminary motion to dismiss the case. Martin appealed to the Appeals Court, which has now found in his favour. Lefkowitz had argued that she was expressing an opinion and that she was repeating a statement published elsewhere, and was therefore not legally guilty of defamation of character. The three-judge Appeals Court panel rejected her argument. “The repetition of a defamatory statement, if not privileged, gives rise to liability,” they wrote. “If, as alleged, the statement is false,” the Appeals Court continued, “the defendant cannot escape liability on the ground that her opinion is based on that statement.”
Lefkowitz began attacking Tony Martin’s Wellesley class on “Africans in Antiquity” several years ago. Her attacks escalated into a general assault on Afrocentrism, and appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Chronicle of Higher Education, New Republic and elsewhere. Her attacks culminated in a recent book, Not Out of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became an Excuse to Teach Myth as History, which has been heavily promoted in the New York Times, on National Public Radio, and elsewhere. Martin responded to her academic attacks in his 1993 book, The Jewish Onslaught: Despatches from the Wellesley Battlefront. In the statements forming the subject of the present libel suit, however, it is Martin’s contention that Lefkowitz appears to have stepped over the border between academic debate and defamation of character.
The Appeals Court judgement against Lefkowitz came as the Jewish Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith honoured her for her anti-Afrocentric campaign. Lefkowitz was a special honoree at the “elegant and inspirational evening” that marked the Anti-Defamation League’s 19th spring dinner. She was feted as one who “rose above pressure, fear and personal attack to firmly challenge erroneous afrocentrist [sic] claims on her Wellesley campus.”
The Boston Jewish Advocate (May 17-23, 1996) article cited above continued with Lefkowitz’s own spin on the current lawsuit: “I am the example of what ADL can do! When a lawsuit was served against me by a colleague whose views I challenged, Wellesley College was not there — but Lenny Zakim and the ADL were. They obtained counsel for me and stood with me as we refuted historical and anti-Semitic lies. There is a destructive afrocentrism [sic] on the campus today….”
A high-ranking ADL representative, Sally Greenberg, similarly appeared in court to help defend the interests of Alexander Nechaevsky, a Russian Jew who was apprehended by Wellesley College campus police after issuing threats against Martin at his college office.
The Appeals Court has remanded the Martin v. Lefkowitz libel case “to the Superior Court for further proceedings.” An earlier attempt by Lefkowitz to settle out of court was unsuccessful when Martin rejected her offer and the parties failed to agree on the basis for a settlement.
Lefkowitz Admits Her Words Were Untrue
But Wins Round Three
Lefkowitz won Round Three on a motion for summary judgment. Lefkowitz admitted that the offending words she wrote about Martin were untrue but contended, successfully, that because Martin is a “public figure,” as that term is understood in America’s libel laws, he has to prove not merely negligence on her part in not writing the truth, but also that she was motivated by malice. She claimed that Martin did not prove malice. Martin has appealed.
Tony Martin Wins First Round in Libel Suit
Martin v. Avik S. Roy ( MIT, ’93 and Yale Medical School), Trustee of Counterpoint Magazine
Tony Martin has won the first round in his libel suit against Avik S. Roy, a 1993 biology graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (and later a medical student at Yale University). Roy alleged in 1993, in the Wellesley-MIT student publication Counterpoint, that Martin obtained tenure at Wellesley College only after suing the college for racial discrimination, thereby somehow intimidating the college into overlooking his faults.
Martin has in fact taught at Wellesley College for twenty-five years, has been tenured for twenty-three and has been a full professor for eighteen. He is a much-published and well-respected scholar of African American history and well-known as an authority on Marcus Garvey. He qualified as a barrister-at-law in England over thirty years ago and has a Ph.D. in history.
When Martin brought the current libel suit in 1993, Roy countered with a motion for summary judgment, which the court has now rejected. Martin is represented by Winston Kendall, Esq., of Roxbury, Massachusetts.
Avik Roy was at the time of the libelous article a “trustee” of Counterpoint and was the magazine’s principal founder in 1991. Counterpoint has at various times been funded by Wellesley College, MIT and the right wing Madison Center for Educational Affairs.
Roy’s article came at a time of intense attacks on Professor Martin by the Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee and other Jewish organizations, who objected to his academic discussion of the Jewish role in the slave trade. Among the Counterpoint editorial advisory board members at the time of the libel was Mary Lefkowitz, Wellesley College professor and a prominent participant in the campaign against Martin. Jewish Wellesley College professor Jonathan Imber and well-known Jewish right winger David Horowitz were also listed on Counterpoint‘s advisory board at the time of the libel.
According to court documents, Roy claims to have been provided the libelous information by a Wellesley College student and Counterpoint colleague, who in turn received the misinformation from a senior Wellesley College administrator. Roy has so far refused to say who the student and administrator are. He has admitted having discussions, prior to writing the article, with Mary Lefkowitz and Alyson Todd, a former Wellesley student, Counterpoint editor-in-chief and Lefkowitz research assistant.
Wellesley College student, Samira Khan, was editor-in-chief of Counterpoint at the time of the libel. She was originally named in the suit, but Martin subsequently dropped her from the proceedings.
A year before writing the libelous article, Roy incited considerable controversy at Wellesley when he described African American Wellesley students as a “troupe of thugs” in another Counterpoint article. This was in connection with objections in Wellesley Jewish circles to an invitation to the Rev. Al Sharpton to speak at Wellesley’s campus.
Martin Wins Rounds Two and Three Against Avik S. Roy
Martin won Round Two: Roy asked the court to reconsider its decision. The court refused. Martin won Round Three: Roy asked for leave to have an Appeals Court judge reconsider the decision. The court refused. This case is now set for trial in July 1998.
Martin v. Wellesley College Discrimination case
Martin is suing President Diana Chapman Walsh and Wellesley College for his non-receipt of a merit pay award in 1994, when he was the only full professor evaluated who did not receive an award. Mrs. Walsh cited his authorship of The Jewish Onslaught and his classroom use of The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews as reasons for the punitive non-award. This case is still in its early stages. Martin is represented by Winston Kendall, Esq., of Roxbury, MA.
On the Road with the Jewish Onslaught
Organized Jewry’s frenetic response to The Jewish Onslaught continues unabated. Much of the response seems surreal, even insane, though no less dangerous for that.
After my speech at the Westin Hotel in Toronto, local Jews had the videotape of the event seized from the television station before they could air it on the news. The Jews were said to be examining it to see if it contravenes Canada’s hate law. I have read the law in question and nowhere does it criminalize references to Jewish involvement in the African slave trade. So I am as baffled as you are, dear reader, as to what all the fuss is about. Maybe it’s an intimidatory trick.
For several days before I spoke to the public at a school in Baltimore, organized Jewry created such a ruckus that you would have thought that Goliath was coming to town. My impending visit was main fare on the TV news and other media. The Jews threatened to demonstrate outside the school. They tried to pressure the school authorities into revoking permission to have the lecture on their premises.
The organizers of the event thought it necessary to place me in a less than likely hotel far from town to ensure my safety. When I arrived at the school I noticed five police cruisers parked in a side street nearby. I was later told that there were about thirteen cruisers in the vicinity, in addition to a helicopter which flew back and forth above the school as I spoke.
Since the school was deep in the Black community, the Jews had last-minute second thoughts about antagonizing the seven hundred Black people in the auditorium. They demonstrated instead at their own holocaust memorial downtown. There, according to next morning’s Baltimore Sun, a group of white skinheads turned up to take their minds off the African slave trade for a minute.
I spoke at Brookdale Community College in New Jersey sometime thereafter. In the discussion that followed the lecture, everyone from the school’s president to the community people attracted by the hype, testified to the reasonableness of my remarks, the need for temperate discourse and the tolerance of diversity.
Yet, nine months later, the Jews in the area, led by the Defamation League, were still going crazy. According to information received, they went to the Human Relations Commission of Monmouth County in an effort to have me branded as some sort of biased individual. When that failed they went to the attorney-general’s office at the Justice Department, on a similar mission which similarly ended in failure.
Columbia University provided more of the same. The young Jews there, like their adult counterparts, have entrenched themselves powerfully in the media — both the campus-wide and campus Jewish newspapers. They ran the usual scurrilous stories, of which their elders would have been proud, for several days, both before and after my lecture.
On the night of the lecture the Jews were out picketing. They distributed a piece of paper containing the usual American Jewish Committee-like quotations from former Wellesley Africana Studies chairman Selwyn Cudjoe and others of similar ilk. At Brookdale College I stole a glance at the stack of papers carried by the Jewish lady they sent to argue against me. She had a document similar to the one distributed at Columbia. (One has to admire the level of organization of these folk. The absence of truth and righteousness from their onslaught is the only flaw in an otherwise impressive campaign.)
When I spoke at Cornell University the lecture was well received and passed without incident. That is, until the young Jews went to work in the campus paper. (Funny how they frequently entrench themselves strategically where information and opinions are disseminated.)
The resulting article bore little resemblance to what had actually transpired. The Black community at Cornell were forced to take out a full-page ad in the campus newspaper to refute the lies and malicious innuendoes of the onslaughtniks.
At the now famous Howard University rally in April 1994, Richard Cohen, the Washington Post‘s dean of the Jewish onslaught’s op-ed spin doctors, was present. He beat a hasty retreat when recognized, his grey head bobbing up and down like a malevolent rabbit as he scurried in a semi-crouching attitude through the aisles of Cramton Auditorium.
The Jews had the last word, though. Unity Nation, the student organization sponsoring the conference, was banned from bringing speakers to Howard’s campus. Jewish groups then occupied the campus. The American Jewish Committee has set up an office in the heart of the “capstone of Negro education” (as Howard used to call itself), from where they now publish a magazine telling Black people how nice Jews have always been to them. They have also injected a course to this effect into Howard’s curriculum. (As we say in Trinidad, “You think these people easy?”) Some Howard students were suspended by their Negro administration for protesting the course.
Worcester State College
At Worcester State College in Massachusetts the onslaught rose to new heights, even by its own already elevated standards. A Jewish trustee resigned over the invitation to your humble editor. The mayor of Worcester was prevailed upon to call a press conference to denounce me before my lecture. Flanking him for the cameras were all the religious and civic leaders he could muster at short notice. A most ecumenical sight it was, too. The shepherds of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox flocks were there, as were top rabbis and Protestant dignitaries. The front-page photo in the city’s largest paper also revealed a Black “leader” or two, including a head Baptist preacher in charge and a top official of the local NAACP. This luminary, perhaps surprised at the prospect of making page one, seemed unsure whether to shuffle away or duck behind the reverend Baptist brother. He wore a pained and embarrassed look. He actually turned up at the lecture trying to explain away his presence at the press conference, as Negroes often do.
The president of Worcester State College (an Asian Indian) came under intense pressure. He finally buckled and wrote the attorney-general’s office inquiring whether there was any legal way he could prevent my lecture and/or impound my honorarium. The attorney-general told him “No.” (The attorney-general’s reply was leaked to me). To add fuel to the fire, the treasurer of Hillel (Jewish campus organization) at nearby University of Massachusetts, one Lynne Wolfson, issued a call to Jews to get out their AK-47 rifles to deal with the threat posed by my presence on the planet. Some of her remarks (from the Internet) were published in the Worcester State student newspaper. “I HATE HATE HATE Blacks and want tony martin (sic) dead,” she confided to the world. (I had spoken at the University of Massachusetts three months earlier.)
The morning of the February lecture dawned bitterly cold but about twelve hardy souls, led by what the papers described as a mixed race (and seemingly mixed-up) lady, were outside picketing. I felt so sorry for them that I almost invited them in, but my security whisked me through a back entrance, out of harm’s way.
Meanwhile the lecture had to be moved from its original location to the largest auditorium on the campus. Over six hundred people, including one self-professed Jewish holocaust survivor, turned out to hear me discourse learnedly on the African holocaust. Those who were led by the Jewish hype to believe that they were in for an “anti-Semitic” harangue were probably disappointed. (Not that the Jews were let off the hook for their substantial role in the slave trade.) The Jewish holocaust survivor expressed his disappointment by pelting me with five cents. Half the crowd had to watch via TV hook-ups in an adjoining area. It was the largest turnout to a lecture in the school’s history.
In the immortal words of the policeman detailed to escort me to the Columbia University lecture hall: “Some people just can’t stand the truth. That’s all it is.” Unfortunately for the onslaughtniks, truth is irrepressible when its time has come. And its time is now.
The Jewish Establishment Condemns Cornel West
When Rogues Fall Out
The Emperor West Has No Clothes On, Says New Republic
May Mark End of Jew-Responsible Negro Alliance
Is Skip Gates Next?
(Commentary on Leon Wieseltier, “The Unreal World of Cornel West. All and Nothing at All,” New Republic, March 6, 1995, pp. 31-36, cover story.)
There is nothing more awesome than a falling out among scoundrels. Scenes of great violence are bound to accompany such an occurrence. Feathers are apt to fly. Guts are liable to be strewn indiscriminately all over the place. There were accordingly scenes of great devastation in Harvard Square recently when Jewish “literary editor” Leon Wieseltier subjected Cornel West to the same scrutiny that a little boy once fixed on the emperor who had no clothes on.
After years of building up the “puerile” and “sill[y]” West (Wieseltier’s words) into the greatest African American intellectual of recent memory, one section of the Jewish establishment has now signaled his abandonment to the nether world of failed intellectual pretenders. They artificially built him up, Wieseltier seems to be saying, so they can “sho nuff” pull him down whenever they feel like — this big-word-mouthing, rapid-talking, testifying son of a preacher man.
West has long played a dangerous game of running with the Black hares while hunting with the Jewish hounds. Now, like the man caught between two stools, he is in danger of falling between them, flat on his waistcoated behind, helped by a not inconsiderable kick from Leon Wieseltier.
In April 1994 the African United Front of Los Angeles asked West, in an open letter, to “either speak up [for Black people] or sit down.” “Your fence straddling on behalf of Jewish leadership has gone far enough,” they said, “and many Black People see through it” (The Final Call, April 13, 1994). Now it seems that some elements of the Jewish establishment have seen through it too.
Wieseltier’s friendly fire is as devastating as an academic assault ever gets. One would be hard put to find as withering an attack, in several decades of the Jewish onslaught, against those Afrocentric folk they like to portray as “purveyors of classic anti-Semitism.” And at least Afrocentric folk can deal with the onslaught, because they are not beholden to the onslaughtniks for their reputations; nor are they dependent on them for their visibility. For the Wests of this world, however, with shallow roots in their own community, attacks such as Wieseltier’s could prove to be overwhelming.
Despite language that is often almost as turgid and incomprehensible as West’s, Wieseltier nevertheless displays flashes of eloquence as he knocks West around. “I turned to West, and read his books,” he says. “They are almost completely worthless.” He finds West’s works “noisy, tedious, slippery…sectarian, humorless, pedantic and self-endeared. His judgment of ideas is eccentric.” Not only that, but “West’s eccentricity is surpassed by West’s vanity.” And his vanity seems to be surpassed by his empty theorizing, for “West’s books are monuments to the devastation of a mind by the squalls of theory….The problem is that the union of theory and practice, in West’s hands, becomes a union of pomposity and enthusiasm….” In fine, West “is not a philosopher, he is a cobbler of philosophies….”
Wieseltier, along with the rest of the onslaughtniks, probably felt this way about West’s work all along. But, as in the case of other “responsible Negroes” of modest accomplishment, they turned a blind eye to his obvious shortcomings as long as they thought they could use him against the rest of us. West became the emperor with no clothes on. And even though the occasional innocent pointed to the emperor’s nakedness, the onslaughtniks preferred to avert their gaze and look the other way.
When West spoke in 1993 at Wellesley College (reportedly for a fee that exceeded two months’ salary for many of the school’s Jew and Gentile faculty), the student reviewer of the event was left in a state of great perplexity. Ignoring the pomp, ceremony and hype attending the emperor’s appearance, she innocently gazed upon his nakedness and called it as she saw it. Her analysis of his speech was essentially the same as Wieseltier’s analysis of the emperor’s writings. West, she said, “ducked the issue [of racial matters] by using words and phrases so vague and subject to interpretation that they had no true meaning at all.” “The best thing one could probably say about Cornel West’s lecture,” this student sadly concluded, “was that it was pretty harmless…because he failed to say anything truly original or meaningful on race in this country” (Wellesley News, December 6, 1993).
One of my brightest students also approached me moments after the lecture and asked, with an air of innocent bewilderment: “Do you have any idea what his lecture was about?” “My good sister,” I answered, “your guess is as good as mine. I don’t have a clue.”
As startling as Wieseltier’s assault on West may be, it ought not to have been a surprise to perceptive observers of the Jewish–”responsible Negro” alliance. When Harold D. Brackman of the Simon Wiesenthal Center published his little tract against The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews in 1992, he included a statement by West dutifully lambasting Black “anti-Semitism.” When Brackman reprinted his diatribe recently, West had been replaced by one Ephraim Isaac, an Ethiopian Jew who once solicited Black support in a long-lasting lawsuit against Harvard University. In 1993 two top officials of the American Jewish Committee actually attacked West’s largely pro-Jewish and anti-Black New York Times op-ed, which timidly criticized Israel’s Palestinian policies.
These may have been warning shots fired into the air. This time, however, Wieseltier got the go-ahead to aim at West’s waistcoat. In shooting West through the waistcoat, Wieseltier has also put the rest of the Jewish onslaught’s “responsible” Negro retainers on notice. The mood in Harvard Square and environs must be sombre now, as other artificially inflated “responsible” Negroes of modest accomplishment ponder the lessons of West’s precipitous (though as yet not fatal) fall from grace. To borrow the immortal words of the great James Brown: “What they gon’ do now? I don’t know, but whatever it is, it gotta be funky.”
Semi-Literate “Literary” Editor Can’t Spell
Leon Wieseltier’s Embarrassing Attack on The Jewish Onslaught
The ink had hardly dried on my review of four books in The Washington Post Book World when the antediluvian bigots and masters of deceit once more reached into their bag of dirty tricks.
A Jew by the name of Leon Wieseltier fired off a scurrilous letter to the Book World’s editor accusing me, inter alia, of mis-spelling “Despatches” in the subtitle of The Jewish Onslaught.
This medieval ignoramus apparently has not yet learned how to use a dictionary. If he did, he would have discovered, as most literate people already know, that the word has two acceptable spellings — “despatches” and “dispatches.”
Wieseltier claims to be “literary editor” at The New Republic, which no doubt explains the lamentable flow of garbage that sometimes emanates from the pages of that publication (though it is only fair to say that things are looking up since his incisive critique of the redoubtable Cornel West).
The Book World editor very charitably informed Wieseltier that “Incidentally, both dictionaries I consulted give ‘despatch’ as an alternative spelling of ‘dispatch'” (April 3, 1994).
When the Cat’s Away, The Mice Will Play
The onslaughtniks had a fine old time during my absence on sabbatical in 1994. They removed history cross listings from my courses, signed a statement supporting President Walsh’s intemperate letter-to-the-40,000, continued their barrage of lies in the press, rewarded their lackeys handsomely, and vetoed my merit pay increase, among other things. President Walsh asked a Martha’s Vineyard audience for help in dealing with my self-defense against the Jewish onslaught, which she described as her first crisis at Wellesley.
Meanwhile the trustees had a special screening, it would appear, of the C-Span videotape of my “African Holocaust” lecture at Howard University. Which is all to the good, for it should have been a useful learning experience for those among them who may still be open to the truth. If there are any such, they would have learned from my speech something of the horrors of the chattel slavery visited upon Africans by Jews and others. They may have learned about Jew Savannah in Suriname, the abode of notoriously vicious slaveholders. They may have heard my quotation from “The Ebb and Flow of Conflict,” 1977 UCLA Ph.D. dissertation of the Jewish Simon Wiesenthal Center historian Harold D. Brackman, wherein he identified the Babylonian Talmud as the source of the racist Hamitic Myth. This supposed curse on the African race was later used as a rationalization for the enslavement of Africans. The trustees may also have learned from my lecture that whereas Christians and others acknowledge their role in the African slave trade, organized Jewry and its hangers-on are the only ones left (at least in these parts) who become upset when anyone mentions this historical fact.
Boston Globe Refuses Paid Ad for The Jewish Onslaught
The Boston Globe has refused to carry a paid ad for The Jewish Onslaught, a strange decision for an entity which has already given the book so much free (albeit negative) publicity. “We can’t advertise just anything,” said the young lady at the Telemarketing Department, when she finally received the ad she had strenuously solicited for several weeks.
Lefkowitz Takes Onslaught to Sarah Lawrence College
Editor’s note: Alice Ilchman, former dean of the college at Wellesley, is now president of Sarah Lawrence College.
It would appear that Dean Ilchman developed a close friendship with Mary Lefkowitz in that period. Lefkowitz, of course, has been the most vocal of Wellesley’s faculty in her public crusade against things Afrocentric. From the New Republic to the Wall Street Journal to the Chronicle of Higher Education, to cyberspace, she has pursued a relentless effort to brand Afrocentrism as irrational, to deny the Africanness of Egypt, to suggest “Semitic” origins of Greek civilization and to reject African influences on ancient Greece. Her pet issue seems to be to establish Cleopatra as lily white (presumably as an Elizabeth Taylor look alike — Taylor, by the way, is said to belong to the Jewish faith).
Ilchman, as president of Sarah Lawrence, apparently invited Lefkowitz to address her faculty recently. Lefkowitz’s talk seems to have been to a marked degree an extraordinary diatribe against Afrocentrism in general and yours truly in particular. A Black faculty member who attended Lefkowitz’s presentation left in disgust and demanded a meeting with Ilchman to register her disapproval. Sarah Lawrence’s African American and Hispanic students further responded by inviting me to their campus. What follows is the text of their flier announcing my visit.
THEY DON’T WANT YOU TO KNOW HOW RACISM WORKS AT SARAH LAWRENCE COLLEGE, BUT WE DO….
As students who believe it is our right to know and respond to the various academic arenas in which racism abounds, we bring to you a speaker whose name has been disgraced and whose scholarship has been degraded behind his back and in front of his colleagues.
Last semester, President of Sarah Lawrence College Alice Ilchman invited an old colleague and friend to speak at a faculty-attended function. The speaker, Mary Lefkowitz, professor of Latin and Greek at Wellesley College, began her racist talk by denying the African heritage of Cleopatra, and continued her degradation of people in the African diaspora by slamming Afrocentricity as propaganda and Africa as backward. The discussion became so heated, and certain faculty members felt so degraded and insulted, that they walked out. Still Mary Lefkowitz went on with the silent approval of the administration and many faculty members, to charge the Black community with a conspiracy against the Jewish population. In making this insidious claim, Mary Lefkowitz, close friend and former colleague of President Alice Ilchman, displayed the syllabi of a professor of Africana Studies at Wellesley, Tony Martin. This blatant racist attack on a Black man whose scholarship she and others in the room did not agree with is against everything Sarah Lawrence College claims to be about. Clearly, what this college claims as truth and what is truth can be two different things.
TONY MARTIN WILL BE HERE AT 5:30 PM, TUESDAY , MARCH 7, IN TITSWORTH LECTURE HALL, SPEAKING ON “THE BELL CURVE IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE.”
[Lefkowitz’s attacks will not] be addressed during this event. The behavior of those who are supposed to represent the beliefs and the politics of this college is not worthy of any response.
Onslaught Hires a Witch
First the Russian Jew Alexander Nechaevsky comes on campus sweating profusely and threatening to “get” me. He’s no “wimp” he announces ominously. Now comes an alumna (class of ’32) threatening me with a righteous hex or, to be more exact, “a transcendental spiritual glare.” I suppose that must be the onslaught’s idea of a virtual hex. I wonder what’s next from the JOPOT (Jewish Onslaught Psychological Operations Team).
The good alumna, who says she attended a class reunion recently, boldly provided me with her name and address. Here, for your edification, dear readers, is an extract from her strange letter: “I am aware of the fact that you have tenure, and so you feel ‘safe’ about disclosing [sic] yourself openly. But, Professor Morrison [sic], the spiritual glare of the spotlight I shall put on you if you do not resign is not affected by the ‘safety’ of tenure….”
The onslaught has campaigned intensively among alumnae. Forty to sixty thousand letters to alumnae and parents, many hysterical and ill-informed letters in the alumnae magazine and equally hysterical harangues visited upon returnees to on-campus alumnae events have all been part of the fare of the last few years. This poor lady has apparently cracked under the onslaught’s not inconsiderable weight.
Double, double, toil and trouble, fire burn and cauldron bubble.
American Historical Association & African Holocaust Denial
Three Jewish historians in the American Historical Association, led by David Brion Davis, a convert to the Hebraic faith, recently got this once august body to declare by executive fiat that Jews played only a minuscule role in the transatlantic African holocaust, testimony to the contrary by their own Jewish historians and encyclopedias notwithstanding.
This is a sorry day for the American historical profession and reminiscent of the worst excesses of the inquisition. Henceforth, it would appear, areas of scholarly disagreement within the historical profession are to be decided by executive order from the AHA, egged on by intolerant Jews within their ranks. Within the next few years we can expect the Jews of the AHA to decree once and for all that the African holocaust did not happen. Or maybe they will formally excommunicate your humble servant from the profession.
This is not as far-fetched as it may seem. Jews in New York have already objected to African Americans describing the slave trade as a holocaust. And Jewish historians for years have been steadily whittling away at the estimates of Africans victimized in the holocaust of enslavement. When last heard from, they were down to ca. 15 million Africans, from earlier estimates of 300 million or more. In a few years they may get below the magical figure of six million. At that point the American Historical Association may well give its imprimatur to African holocaust denial. Bonfires of books expressing contrary opinions may become a regular feature of AHA conventions.
Big Lies — Harold D. Brackman, the Babylonian Talmud and the Invention of the Hamitic Myth
Dr. Harold D. Brackman of the Simon Wiesenthal (Nazi-hunting) Center has taken to denying the Jewish invention of the Hamitic Myth of late. The Hamitic Myth alleges that God, through the biblical Noah, cursed African people for all eternity, made them black and ugly, endowed them with thick lips, big red eyes, kinky hair and (for the men) elongated penises — all of this as a mark of his dislike for the race. To add insult to injury, God allegedly said that Africans would forever be slaves, “hewers of wood and drawers of water,” for the other races of humankind.
Yet, believe it or not, here is what Brackman himself wrote in his 1977 UCLA Ph.D. dissertation (“The Ebb and Flow of Conflict: A History of Black Jewish Relations Through 1900,” p.80):
“[T]here is no denying that the Babylonian Talmud was the first source to read a Negrophobic content into the episode” [that is, Noah’s supposed curse of perpetual slave status for the progeny of his son Ham].
A letter from the same Brackman appearing in the New York Times (Jewish owned) and the Buffalo Challenger (African American) mendaciously asserted that “A new charge…is that my dissertation proves that the rabbis who compiled the Talmud ‘invented’ racism by concocting the so called ‘Ham myth’….The fateful linkage between slave status and black skin as part of a divine curse was first made centuries later by Islamic writers” (New York Times, Feb. 14, 1994, p. A16).
Lenni Brenner knows a big lie when he sees one. He is author of Jews in America Today (Secaucus, NJ: Lyle Stuart, 1986) and Zionism in the Age of the Dictators (Westport, CT: Lawrence Hill, 1983). Here is his comment on Brackman’s reluctance to tell the truth: “It is amazing that anyone could lie about what he wrote in a book that sits in the libraries for all to check!” (N. Y. Amsterdam News, Feb. 19, 1994).
The onslaughtniks seem to have perfected the art of telling lies, as can be easily demonstrated in their stages of denial of Jewish involvement in the slave trade.
First they denied Jewish involvement altogether, as witnessed in letters to the Wellesley News and elsewhere. Next, they pulled a 2% figure out of Skip Gates’ hat: “Jews only brought to the Americas 2% of the slaves.” Then they said that pro-slavery Jews (like Judah Benjamin, secretary of state of the Confederacy), were not practicing Jews.
When none of the above seemed to work, they moved to distort the record in a fundamental and unprincipled way. Brer Cudjoe, former Africana Studies chair, alleged that The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews imputed to Jews a racial predisposition to slave trading — a most amazing statement. President Walsh took all this to new heights of mendacity when, according to the Vineyard Gazette (Martha’s Vineyard), she told an audience that “Mr. Martin has been criticized for writing and teaching that Jews created the slave trade and are conspiring to rule the world.” This, she said, “has all the hallmarks of classic anti-Semitic hate literature.” How approximately one day’s readings on Jewish involvement in slavery came to be transmuted by the learned lady into Jewish “creation” of the slave trade, etc., will forever remain one of life’s great mysteries. The only “classic” feature of this big lie is the regularity with which this tactic recurs in the Jewish onslaught’s arsenal of dirty tricks. Instead of debating real issues, these tricksters are more comfortable inflaming public opinion with lies and then attacking the lies of their own creation. Incidentally, Skip Gates was a fellow presenter with Mrs. Walsh at the forum in question.
Cudjoe appears not to have been invited.
THREATENING VISIT FROM A RUSSIAN JEW
One Alexander Nechaevsky, a Russian Jew living in the Boston area, was apprehended by campus police in Founders Hall after issuing threats at the Africana Studies department office.
According to the police report on that incident, Nechaevsky claimed that he had come to “get” Professor Tony Martin. He said he was no wimp and was from Russia where they knew how to take care of business (or words to that effect). He was sweating profusely when found by the police in conversation with Professor Larry Rosenwald of the English Department.
Efforts to have the state bring criminal charges against Nechaevsky have proved unsuccessful. A high-ranking member of the Jewish Defamation League turned up at court proceedings. She informed the magistrate, in answer to his query, that she was there to look out for Nechaevsky’s interests.
Death Threats From Harvard Jewish Student
Someone identifying himself as a Harvard University Jewish student has apparently been calling around the Wellesley campus uttering death threats against the humble editor of this broadside series.
In the most recent instance of which we are aware, the anonymous Jew told the student on duty at a dorm bell desk (reception desk) that Tony Martin did not have a real Ph.D. and ought not to be teaching at Wellesley, etc. etc. The student called campus police and was told that there have been other reports of similar calls. No official campus agency has apprised your humble editor of this development. He was informed of it by students.
History Department Continues to Ban Tony Martin’s Classes
After the onslaught began, Wellesley’s History department suddenly refused cross-listing to courses taught by Tony Martin, after cross-listing them for over twenty years. The recent History action was one of a series of moves taken around campus in the wake of Jewish agitation over Martin’s classroom consideration of the Jewish involvement in the African slave trade. It also comes after several years of attacks on his “Africans in Antiquity” course, primarily from a Jewish Studies specialist in the Religion department and sundry guardians of Western Civilization who inhabit the Greek and Latin department. These latter attacks began before the slave trade-generated onslaught.
The History department decision, which was not unanimous, has been widely condemned. An external evaluation committee appointed by the college administration declared “that the decision of the History department to stop cross-listing courses taught by Professor Tony Martin was not only inappropriate but makes it impossible for students in his courses to earn History credit.” A special curriculum review committee also went on record against the History department action. Shortly after the History department’s decision, the president and vice-president of Ethos (Black Student Union) visited the History chair to have the ban removed. History refused to budge. Persons who approached the college president and dean were told that it was a departmental affair. Dean Nancy Kolodny and President Walsh have said that the external evaluation committee’s statement on this issue constitutes the only portion of this report that the two top administrators disagree with.
An effort in Wellesley’s academic council by a European Classical scholar and Lefkowitz sidekick to deny multicultural credit to courses taught by Martin was surprisingly defeated. A similar attempt to excommunicate Martin’s courses from American Studies credit got nowhere. The silent majority, who have lately allowed themselves to be lassoed and dragged around by the intolerant minority, showed signs, in these two instances, of embarrassment at being led around by the nose.
Onslaught Takes One Chair…
The chair of Africana Studies was about to rotate back to Tony Martin in 1997-98 when the onslaught intervened. For the first time in the department’s twenty-five year history the normal rotation was interrupted. Nancy Kolodny (dean of the college, Friends of Wellesley Hillel) summoned members of the department to explain why Martin ought not to be chair. The department’s two other senior members, Judy Rollins and Selwyn Cudjoe, agreed with Kolodny. “Martin cannot represent my interests,” said Cudjoe, truthfully.
They brought in a Brandeis University professor as non-teaching chair. He simultaneously remains on the Brandeis faculty.
…And Gets Two
Professors Selwyn Cudjoe and Marcellus Andrews, main cheerleaders of Wellesley’s Black onslaught squad, have become the simultaneous recipients of endowed chairs, the first Black Wellesleyites so honored. Cudjoe is perhaps the most often quoted authority in anti-Martin articles by the Anti-Defamation League, by the defense in Martin’s libel and discrimination cases and in other places where the onslaught rears its ugly head. Brer Marcellus authored the most memorable lines of the onslaught when he called Wellesley’s Black students “intellectually weak and morally lazy” for supporting an unnamed “tenured racist” (Wellesley News, April 14, 1993, p. 13).
Tony Martin Broadsides:
Purchase Prof. Tony Martin’s The Jewish Onslaught: Despatches from the Wellesley Battlefront