Talk:Afrocentrism

Talk:Afrocentrism Archive1
Talk:Afrocentrism Archive2
Talk:Afrocentrism Archive3
Talk:Afrocentrism Archive4
Talk:Afrocentrism Archive5

Afrocentrict Historians

Many of the historians cited as afro-centrict have never claimed they were. Writing a book about ancient African cultures does not make someone an afrocentrist.

Cleanup

This page needs some TLC to become readable. As it stands, it flows poorly, and is hard to follow. Shall we try to improve it by consolidating thoughts, at least within sections? Godfrey Daniel 07:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistent and possibly racist capitalization

In the first paragraph, "black" always has a capital letter (ie, "Black") and "white" always has a small letter (ie, "white"). I don't know whether there is a reason for this, but it could be construed as racist. Furthermore, this capitalization is not consistently enforced throughout the article. For example, "white" is sometimes given a capital letter. I don't care about this enough to change it, but those who recurrently edit the article may want to decide on a capitalization scheme and adhere to it in their future edits. 160.39.236.134 03:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

We had covered this before. Apparently black and white should be all lowercase, because they do not describe specific ethnic groups or nationalities...whatever. As far as I am concerned Black people are a distinct named group, but fine, it's so nebulous, we can't agree on it at this point. --Zaphnathpaaneah 08:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Stylistically, "black" and "white" generally are both lower-cased. deeceevoice 12:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep the article tagged for eternity

Are we going to move the article up or not? It's got enough citations already. --Zaphnathpaaneah 08:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Zaph. I've gone over the text up to the "Debate" subhead. There are one or two of places that could use some citation, so please check my edit notes. I think I've preserved the original intent of the text with some tweaking to restore NPOV or to clarify, or just general nit-picking clean-up. deeceevoice 12:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey Zaph -- still pretty slim on citations. Check out the first few paragraphs. -71.112.11.220 06:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

P.E.A.C.E.

Why is there so much discussion on this concept of Afrocentrism?

It is because people think that having strong convictions is a virtue.

Be an Oak. Big and solid, right? Swing the axe enough and the oak will come crashing down.

Be a reed. Humble and flexible. Swinging an axe will be useless. The reed just sways with the wind.

Convictions...traditions...racism...all of this is a waste of time.

Stop that.

       you can burn reeds but big trees benefit from forest fires since the ashes are fertilizing.

Are you talking about martyrdom?

Ancient Egyptians are not Semitic bu Afro-Asiatic

I would like to know what mainstream scholar sees ancient Egypt as more related to Semitic than the rest of Africa. Ancient Egyptian civlization definately had more in common culturally with Africans because of the notion of divine kingship,circumcision at puberty,and the rainmaker king. The late Egyptologist Frank Joseph Yurco upheld that ancient Egypt was not Semitic but African! Linguist Arnold Lorpenio place the modern Beja language as most related to ancient Egyptian.

The old view that some dyanstic race came from Western Asian and civilzed the ancient Egyptians is called the dyanstic race theory that has been discared.

I am editing in these facts.

Plus the early languages of the Fertile Crescent were not Semitic but a non-Semitic language know extinct.

Ancient Egyptian was not Semitic with citation

Sorry in my last post I did not leave a citation. Here is the citation from the late Egyptologist Frank J Yurco. Yurco is by no means a Afrocentrist:

Frank Joseph Yurco

Jul 10 1996, 2:00 am   show options 

Newsgroups: sci.archaeology From: fjyu...@midway.uchicago.edu (Frank Joseph Yurco) - Find messages by this author Date: 1996/07/10 Subject: Re: The Semites Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

This topic has been the subject of much hot air and little real knowledge. There are no Semites. What there are, are Semitic languages, and speakers of those languages are Semitic speaking peoples. That would include all the speakers of the languages in the Semitic subfamily that forms part of the Afro-Asiatic language super family. Thus, all Middle Eastern peoples of Arabia, Iraq, and Syria can be classified as Semitic speakers, and so also the ancient Israelites, and any diaspora Jews who can trace back to antiquity. Of course, there have been converts to Judaism and Islam all throughout history, and those converts were not necessarily Semitic language speakers originally. So, the Iranians are not Semitic speakers and are unrealted to them, but rather are Indo-Europeans originally, and the North Africans, like Egyptians, Libyans and others farther west, are originally speakers of languages of the other sub-branch of Afroasiatic, the North African branch. Yes, those speakers extend down into Ethiopia and Somalia as well. Finally, Hamito-Semitic as a description of the languages or peoples of these areas is now discredited and no longer used academically. Partly this is due to the racial overtones that this term acquired in past writings. If you go back in prehistory, linguists think that the Afroasiatic language family originated in north Africa, either in the Ethiopian-Sudan region, or else around Lake Chad. The original speakers of these languages spread all over the Sahara during the Neolithic wet period, but as that wet period declined, they headed for neighboring river valleys, and some continued clear across the Red Sea into Arabia, where they settled and developed into the Semitic languages and their speakers. Two crossing areas from Africa to Arabia are the Somalia-Yemen area, and secondly, Sinai, from Egypt. Neither requires extensive navigation. Scholars think that the Semitic languages branched off from the North African sub-family around 7000 B.C.

Sincerely, Frank J. Yurco University of Chicago

-- Frank Joseph Yurco fjyu...@midway.uchicago.edu

Afro-Asiatic is the language family: it is considered to have the Berber, Egyptic (formerly known as Chamitic), Semitic (which is sometimes divided into subgroups such as Canaanite and Arabic), Chadic and Cushitic; the Omotic group is sometimes treated as part of it. On the Other hand, Africa is home to the totality of three language families (Nilotic, Khoi-San and Niger-Congo); 4 if Bantu is considered as a distinct language family. If you treat Madagascar as part of Africa, that makes a sixth language family native to the area: Austronesian. As an AFRO-ASIATIC language, the only languages to which it is closely related in Africa are spoken in the Horn, or in the strip between Sahel and the Mediterranean.

Divine Kingship is VERY FAR from being a purely African concept: it is found in societies from Classical Mesoamerica to Medieval Far Eastern Asia passing through Egypt and Ireland.

Finally, I hardly see how Beja would be the closest language to Egyptian when Coptic is still extant. Snapdragonfly 05:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually Afro-Asiatic most linguist like Joseph Greenberg and Christopher Ehret point to the original origin of Afro-Asiatic to the Horn of Africa,and during pre-history it spread to Yemen and not the reverse. Semitic is the only Afro-asiatic language spoken outside Africa and its origin is also in the Horn of Africa. Berber[Amazigh] is also a native Afro-Asiatic language that is spoken only on the continent of Africa! Coptic is the last phase of the ancient Egyptian language that is spoken primarily in church liturgy. My reference for Beja being the closest to ancient Egyptian is Loprieno, Antonio. (1995) Ancient Egyptian: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge University Press. Arnold Loprieno is the leading linguist on the extinct ancient Egyptian languages.

Also I am aware that divine Kingship is found in other regions of the world but the particular divine kingship in ancient Egypt was associated with the rainmaker king concept which is only found in African cultures. Early Egyptologist like Henri Frankfort pointed this out.

There is no such language family as Nilotic but I think you mean Nilo-Saharan.

capitalization

are Afrocentrism and Eurocentrism capitalized that way?--Urthogie 14:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC) PS: someone please archive the first 30/40/50 discussions in this talk page.--Urthogie

Lefkowitz quote

"One of Afrocentrism's most prominent critics, Mary Lefkowitz, has characterised Afrocentrism as 'a mythology that is racist, reactionary, and essentially therapeutic.'"

Lefkowitz didn't say this. African-American History professor Clarence E. Walker did [1] [2]. I'll change the quote to "an excuse to teach myth as history". --Jugbo

The Tao of Afrocentricity and Eurocentricity

It seems to me that Afrocentrism is a concious way to homogenize an African perspective and scholarship and counterbalance the primarily European dominated institution of "Modern Research and Scholarship." Because "Modern" Scholars and Academics often unconciously reinforce the institutionalized standards and conlusions of their forefathers, perhaps the idea of Afrocentrism and the efforts made on the Wikipedia page regarding Afrocentrism should be pursued in order to reinforce new concepts and innovations that come forth from those who are in support and exposed to the "Afrocentric" idea. Ratehr than debunking the scholarship behind it, i.e. Diop, DuBois, Asante, Henrick-Clarke, Karenga, etc. the discussion perhaps better look at reinforcing the validity of the ideas, with a breif section on the historical/ political contovercies surroundign the concept.

It seems that "Race," a European originated scietific established and term, has already polarized human segments and thus has given people a reson to conflict over "what comes from where and who?" Seeing that Race Theory has established Caucasian, Mongoloid, Negroid, etc. perhaps research and ideas on "centrisms" should be approached from such a perspective. Now that Afrocentric has been identified, there should correspondingly be made a page for Eurocentric, Asiacentric, etc.

The article in my eyes only needs to discuss: the social-political context of afrocentrism. the scholars of Afrocentrism Principles of Afrocentrism Applications & Interpretations of Arocentrism

Aside from that, everything else is extra and needs to go into Race Theory, Racism, Egyptology, etc.

I don't really follow your arguments here. There is already a Eurocentrism page. There is no Asiacentrism page, because there really is no such concept. Asian cultures do not on the whole obsess about "Eurocentrism", and are perfectly willing to accept that cultural and scientific modernity originated in Western europe without feeling that this somehow denigrates their own cultures or racial identity. The possible exception is India, in which the Hindutva movement is associated with an Indocentric model of history, a model that some editors on Wikipedia promote on relevant pages devoted to Indian history. But that arises from a very distinctive Hindu conception of history, which claims an "eternal" India-based civilisation. Paul B 11:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It is obvious that the Eurocentrism page exists, I was enumerating examples of centered thought. The point is that as a result of history, Afrocentrism has risen and the ripple from its presence aparently means that corresponding studies based in other cultural blocks are also valid. There is certaintly a sort of "Asiacentrism" that exists in the world, especially the United States in which Asians economically and politically band together. The question that arises has to be in regard to who that scholarship is.

The main point--besides pointing out the relativity of "centrisms"-- was that the criticisms of the article are rather deconstructive of the idea and movement Afrocentrism rather than explorative of it. Apparently if there is scholarship and sources cited, it is a real world living concept. Wikipedians would have more a productive time finding applications and innovations that have arisen and cite Afrocentrism that discussing wether it should exist or not. The fact that the page is on Wikipedia confirms that it has some degree of validity in the world.Aminatam 11:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that this article is a dreadful mess, the result of edit wars for the destructive attitudes of some editors are responsible. This mess is their legacy. It needs a proper cleanup. However, I think there is a distinction between Afrocentrism and what you call the "studies based in other cultural blocks". As we know, Western academia has always - at least since the nineteenth century - had departments devoted to the study of "other areas". Modern academic studies of, say, Chinese culture and history, grew out of that. Attitudes have changed over the years, and increasingly people of Chinese descent are working in those areas, rather than Westerners who have studied the culture from the outside. This is a fairly organic and continuous growth from the 19th century on. Afrocentrism is something rather different. It emerged as a political/cultural ideology and is still strongly defined by that notion. The study of African cultures continues just as the study of other cultures has, and in the same way it has increasingly shed "Victorian" attitudes. In America it has also expanded to encompass the study of links between African-American experience and native African cultures. The same is true of Asian-American explorations of, say, the Yellow Peril and other cultural attitudes that affected East Asian peoples. This is rather different from the kinds of claims made by Afrocentrists. Again, I think the only close comparison is the promotion by US-based Hindus of "saffronization" in historical studies. Paul B 13:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I am very offended at the content of this article. I am not black and can still see the plain bigotry portrayed in the argument that eurocentrism is more valid that afrocentrism. For as many examples that you found to prove that Afrocentrisim is false there are just as many to prove that it is true. Afrocentrisim has its faults just like euro centrism but I dont see wikipedia taking out as much time and effort to point those out on the eurocentrism page. I am very dissapointed.

An ambiguity

The following sentence reads (to me, at least) ambiguously:

Studies show that some members of these darker-skinned ethnic groups— with the exception, of course, of the Olmecs— and "Mongoloid" East Asians are genetically closer to one another than they are to indigenous Africans.

Does the 'exception' noted here for the Olmec refer to the first part of the sentence (ie the Olmec were not dark-skinned) or the second (implying Olmec are not genetically closer to one another)? I rather suspect the former meaning is what was intended, but it would seem to need rephrasing.--cjllw | TALK 00:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hoaxing?

Yeah, ok, I think massive elements of Afrocentrism are just silly (Cleopatra VII was Macedonian, not black), but should this really be tagged as a hoax? Wilybadger 02:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Most definitely. Afrocentrism is also pseudohistory, since what it teaches is obviously false. How can anyone really believe in the falsehood that Socrates, Plato, and just about every notable figure in antiquity, is black? The people who teach that also believe that history can be fictionalized according to the sensibilities of each ethnic group. 69.118.97.26 01:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Related (?) article up for deletion

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-African scholarship. Postdlf 22:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"Semitic"

This: "The conventional belief in a Semitic Egypt has been challenged by scholars who believe the cultural similarities between Egypt and the Levant are due to the exportation of cultural elements from the Nilotic civilizations, rather than the reverse. " Is meaningless. No one claims the ancient Egyptians were Semitic speakers, and as "Semite" isn't an anthropological term either, the reason why the term is used here seems non-existent.

North African Berbers aren't Semitic speakers either, and if anyone, the ancient Egyptians would be related to them. That's the conventional belief, not that they were "Semites".

A different worldview

Some corrections. Firstly, it's misleading to call Toynbee "respected"; he was a very controversial figure and his history of civilisations (from where the quote is taken) was heavily criticised at time of publication.

Secondly, Burgess was very much a nineteenth century figure (he fought in the American Civil War, after all). He did live until 1930, but his professional career and the main body of his work was within the nineteenth century.

In fact, the whole section "A Different Worldview" is heavily biased nonsense, but I'll leave it for someone else to sort out. 62.25.106.209 12:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the whole section under "A different worldview" is wholly unnecessary, since it basically reiterates the definition of Afrocentrism but with a biased tone. I'm going to take the plunge and delete it since it seems to be redundant. Ob5idian 00:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The debate over Afrocentrism

"While most modern scholarship, Afrocentric or not, at least nominally rejects the old racist ideas that black people had no culture or history independent of whites, such racist biases."

This doesn't seem to make sense, or at least doesn't read well. Also doesn't have a citation.

^Makes sense to me

Restructure

I pushed the discussion of Egypt to the bottom of the page. Why? Because it's an example of afrocentrism, albeit an important one, and the article should establish what afrocentrism is before going into such examples. 62.25.106.209 13:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

External links

An anonymous editor would like to have the following link included in the external link section: http://www.endingstereotypes.org/african_history.html. The editor has a direct relationship with the website (making it a conflict of interest issue WP:COI). I find that the material on the linked webpage is not symmetrically related to the content of this article. I also find that the editor has systematically added the link to a number of articles. On these grounds alone, I suggest that it should not be included. It is also worth noting that this article already contains too many external links - some of which violate WP:EL in other ways (and should be reconsidered.) Adding another marginally related link (not a judgement of the quality of the content) does not improve this article. Feel free to discuss the matter, but do not add the link before editors have reached consensus. Thanks. Nposs 21:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

2 many links, anymore n they will be more than the text, cut down the links by using direct footnotes for relevant points, dont add an article in the link section just to support one argument, footnote it.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 22:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Concern over language

When we use terms like "MOst Mainstream" this is a POV, when we use terms like this the quality and NPOV is comprimised. To report Neutral avoid these kind of phrases which i find dismisive like speaking about a child. But most scholars call this nonesense. Also show balance, the fact that Afrocentrics see the world as black and white isnt any different to the likes of MAry, it is funny that they say this yet at every chance deny that these people were black, if it isnt an issue why do they keep showing them as European. The point is both groups racial project so if one accuses the the pot calling the kettle black. show the balance.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 23:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Racial Projection

Racial projection

weasel

Afrocentricity tends to emphasize the racial and cultural unity of Africa as a whole as the home of black, or "Africoid," peoples. However, mainstream scholars assert that Afrocentricity relies on a projection of modern racial and geographical categories onto ancient cultures in which they simply did not exist. It is argued that in ancient Western culture, the distinction between Europe and Africa was not as important as the notion that civilized peoples encircled the Mediterranean sea. The farther from the Mediterranean they were, the more alien they were considered to be. This applied to all peoples. The equation of "African" with black identity has also been criticized, partly because movement of populations around the Mediterranean in ancient times makes any rigid distinctions among North African, Asian, and European peoples of the area problematic; and partly because the notion of a unified "black" or Negroid race is itself considered to be unsustainable by many modern geneticists. Further, Diop's claim to have discovered a pan-African proto-language is rejected by some linguists. Although the Bantu language theory is still considered valid, if not in agreement with Diop's own, it describes the movement of a language family from the western African Sahel south and east into southern Africa, and would not include languages of northern or Mediterranean Africa, nor those of the Ethiopian region and east African coast. Scholarship summarized in eg. Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel points out that, to the extent that Bantu languages are pan-sub-Saharan-African languages, it appears to be because the Bantu people displaced or absorbed other African peoples within the last few thousand years, not because the Bantu language family is representative of some shared pan-African culture.

I am removing this section of Afrocentrism because it is innacurate and does not reference its claim.

“Further, Diop's claim to have discovered a pan-African proto-language is rejected by some linguists.[citation needed] Although the Bantu language theory is still considered valid, if not in agreement with Diop's own, it describes the movement of a language family from the western African Sahel south and east into southern Africa, and would not include languages of northern or Mediterranean Africa, nor those of the Ethiopian region and east African coast. “

First of all, Diop did not categories his pan-African proto-language as only Bantu language. It was all African language group(Niger Congo, Nilotic, Afroasiatic, etc.). The writer of this piece is implying the Afro-asiatic language family was not part of Diop’s proto-language grouping.

“Scholarship summarized in eg. Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel points out that, to the extent that Bantu languages are pan-sub-Saharan-African languages, it appears to be because the Bantu people displaced or absorbed other African peoples within the last few thousand years, not because the Bantu language family is representative of some shared pan-African culture.”

The writer defines Diop’s pan-African proto-language as synonymous with Bantu or Niger Congo. The writer has quoted Jared Diamond ,a telltale sign. Jared Diamond believes in races. Jared Diamond has been awarded numerous scientific honors by the mainstream. Prominent mainstream personalities has called his work “revolutionary.”

But Jared Diamond has categorize African people into races and has tied language with race. He assigns “black” strictly with those that speak Bantu languages(Niger Congo). He created two new races in Africa the pygmy and the khoisan, again tied to language and physical types.

He is considered mainstream, but contradicts the notions that race does not exist held by mainstream scientist. In his map of the races of Africa, almost half of Africa is white. Jared Diamond classes the Dinka, the Nuer as whites. The darkest humans on the planet belong to the white race. Ethiopians and Somalis are now white. Africans in Chad are now white. All North Africans are now white, even though in North Africa there is a variation in skin tone and features. Gaddafi a Libyan with curled hair is white. Dark/brown skinned Morocans are white. Halle Berry(mother is white and father is black) walking in downtown Cairo would be considered more Egyptian than say Sandra Bullock. Halle Berry by Jared Diamonds estimation is a caucasian. President Nasser of Egypt with dark skin would be class as a caucasian. An Afrocentrist would say Jared Diamond is trying to restrict the “black” and expand his own race. Provide therapy for his white children.

Please sign your posts. I can't make any sense of what you are trying to say here. None of the first part of the passage has anything to do with Jared Diamond. The second part was added by a different editor much later. Diamond did not invent the idea that a "Caucasoid" category exists which includes dark skinned peoples. You seem to be confusing that concept with a rigid distinction between "black" and "white". The model dates back to the late 19th century, and has been mainstream since then. The idea that Kiosan represent a separate and earlier central African lineage (or "race") also dates back to early debate about the Hottentots (as they were called) as far back as the 18th century. Coon categorised them as a separate "Capoid" race. Nor is there anything new or unusual about the view that Pygmies also represent an isolated lineage. Genetics partly supports this view, but of course all racial categories are porus and are essentially models. As for your remarks about Gaddafi and curly hair, I don't know what you mean. Lots of people in Europe have curly hair. It's just a quirk that's more common in some people than others. Paul B 22:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

To Paul B P.B.-“Please sign your posts. I can't make any sense of what you are trying to say here.”

Its clear to me. All one has to do is re read. Break it down sentence by sentence. That is what a true scholar does, make sense out of confusion.

So you are clear to yourself. Congratulations. Pompous statements about what a "true scholar" does are empty, They don't make you any more coherent. Paul B 00:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to you. You raised the clarity issue. I think you are more deserving of the pompous description, sir. since you are such an expert on Afrocentrism and the history of racial categories. You are big expert. Not coherent to you.

More empty statements. Paul B 00:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

P.B.-“None of the first part of the passage has anything to do with Jared Diamond. The second part was added by a different editor much later. Diamond did not invent the idea that a "Caucasoid" category exists which includes dark skinned peoples.

I guess you are the author of the first part. Afrocentrist would counter the first part and say here’s looking at you too. This belongs under general criticism. No Jared Diamond did not invent the “Caucasoid” label, but has made pretty powerful claim in relation to Africa pertaining to the “Caucasoid.”

No, it was written by several people. I happen to know the history of the article. Paul B 00:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You know alot. I return the pompous description. To know the history of a wikipedia article is truly exceptional.

And sarcasm ceratinly isn't. Paul B 00:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

In this case it is, pertaining to you.

P.B.-”You seem to be confusing that concept with a rigid distinction between "black" and "white". The model dates back to the late 19th century, and has been mainstream since then.

You are causing me confusion with “black”(?) and “white”(?). Caucasoid is not a “rigid distinction”? Last, I checked racial categories developed from the 18th and 19th century are outdated. The concept of race is considered a social construct and has been discarded by mainstream scientist. It cannot be proven genetically and any categorization is usually arbitrary.

Yawn. Read the race article. All categories are porus, yes, but it is disputed whether they are arbitrary. Of course Caucasoid is not rigid. It never has been - even in Coon et al. You are the one who is mixing up matters by in one sentence claiming that categories are arbitray and in the next asserting that writers are claiming people for "their" race. Paul B 00:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I pray you don't have bad breath. The race article is a yawn, I would admit. With all the different theories one would conclude they are arbitrary depending on the scholar. If one creates a Caucasoid category that favors oneself isn't the writer claiming people for their race or group. Writing things the favors oneself, nationalist and racialist scholarship.

Do you make a profession of inane comments? To say that the Caucasoid category "favours onself" is simply to make an assumption. It can also be argued that it was a legitimate way of modelling a typology. These matters are still very much in dispute. Your comments are simply stereotypical of one one side of a many sided argument (viz "white people invented the Caucasoid category to claim the achievements of north Africans, Indians etc as their own"). If you look in detail at what quite maintraem writers in the 19th and early 20th centuries say, you will see that it's not as simple as that. Read what Fergusson or Flinders-Petrie argue about the racial history of Egypt. They are certainly chock-full of prejudices typical of the time - including black/white racial hierarchies but they do not simply equate Egypt with "Caucasoid" identity. And that's ignoring the issue of what both phenotypical and genetic evidence actually says. Paul B 00:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me the inane comments have come from you, after all you are the expert, implying professional. You are the one who is claiming you don't understand. It is not clear to you. I just merely reply. Frankly it doesn't concern me, what were all the differing racial views of 19th and 20th scholar century. I am only concern with which of the mainstream view took hold in African Historiography. Concerning race and the Hamitic Hypothesis, the thinking/writings of Charles George Seligman(C.S. Seligman for short) in his classic book The Races of Africa in 1929 which became commonplace and was sold as "proven truth." Giuseppe Sergi's Hamitic Hypothesis was not the norm in African Historiography. To Seligman, the Hamites were not of Africa. To the contrary they were "Caucasians."

You say, "Your comments(me) are simply stereotypical of one one side of a many sided argument (viz "white people invented the Caucasoid category to claim the achievements of north Africans, Indians etc as their own"). If you look in detail at what quite maintraem writers in the 19th and early 20th centuries say, you will see that it's not as simple as that"

What took hold and what was sold as "proven truth" was not all the differing views or "many sided argument." What the mainstream view on Indians and their culture is not relevant to me, only African culture is. In this case your neat little "north african" category. Based on what took hold in the writing of African Historography, the stereotype is true( "white people invented the Caucasoid category to claim the achievements of north Africans, ....as their own). It was not just "north africans." It was all African.

It is wonderful you have studied all these scholar, but irrelevant to what took root in African Historiography. Frankly all your comments have been "inane", pertaining to Afrocentrism. You are an expert in irrelevancy.

P.B.-“The idea that Kiosan represent a separate and earlier central African lineage (or "race") also dates back to early debate about the Hottentots (as they were called) as far back as the 18th century. Coon categorised them as a separate "Capoid" race..”

Far back, when racial categories relied strictly on physical types and on language. One of the greatest falsification of African History was the creation of the Hamitic Hypothesis. Now completely debunk(a product of white supremacist fantasies), tied physcal type and language. Everything civilize was created by hamites, (a “caucasoid” race with dark skin). Its extension included the laughable notion that the Zulu was a “caucasoid” with dark skin. You belittle yourself by taking the racial theories of Coon as valid. Coon was the peer of Nubiologist George Andrew Reisner. Coon studied with Reisner. Reisner in great length even faced with the iconographic data denied the Nubians were black. Denied the 25th dynasty of Egypt was black and preferred to refer to them as “Caucasoid.”

There is no such thing as a single Hamitic hypothesis. There were several different ones. Read, for example, what Sergi, writing in 1901 writes on the subject. You see, there you are again confusing the issue by talking nonsense about denying that the "Nubians were black", as though "black" is a race. One minute you want the concept to go away, and the next you want it back again. Nubians had dark skin. In that sense they were black. So are southern Indians and native Australians. That does not mean they are all related. That Caucasoid concept was an attempt to create workable categories at a time when bone structure was the most reliable way of constructing categories. Yes, of course it was often used in ways that reinforced racial hierarchies, but it was also used in ways that undermined them, History is full of complexities, not the nice simple story you want to tell. Paul B 00:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Giuseppe Sergi theory would not necessarily fall under the Hamitic Hypothesis. You don't know the meaning of Hamitic Hypothesis. His theories was certainly not mainstream, the mainstream of his time would silence him. The Hamitic Hypothesis was mainstream. Let me replace black with "Negroid" as oppose to "Caucasoid". So based on your statement the Nubians were "Caucasoid" because black skin color does not automatically put them in the "Negroid" race and "Caucasoid" is a "porous" notion? Coon's intention was only scientific when using bone structure in constructing his categories?

That's really amusing. I bet you've never read a word of Sergi, who was certainly very mainstream! I repeat, there is no single Hamitic hypothethis. There were several linguistic models of Hamitic language families, and there were various disparate claims about these could be mapped onto lineages for some African groups. If you look at the detail of what writers at the time say about the Tutsi, for example, these claims were just as often rejected as they were proposed. Of course you are again using "hamitic hypothesis" as a catch-all concept which reduces everything to a neat model of imperialist ideology ("whities said all the dominant African groups were descended from Caucasiod Hamites"). Paul B 00:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I will admit I have not read primary sources on Sergi. I have read synopsis of his thinking. He is irrelevant to the writing of African historiography. Again you assume to know what I know and you are in possession of a greater truth. I will re-iterate. Sergi's Hamitic model did not take hold in the writing of African Historiography. It was the writings C. S. Seligman. This is the Hamitic model I am referencing. This was the Hamitic model that took root, shaped racial opinions and African historiography. Yes it was as you write,"reduces everything to a neat model of imperialist ideology ("whities said all the dominant African groups were descended from Caucasiod Hamites")."

Its interesting you mention the the Tutsi's. To illustrate how pervasive Seligman's Hamitic hypothesis was. It took root in Rwandan. Tutsi's were hamites and received preferential treatment by Belgium. Hutu's were bantus. The Belgiums did not have the "many sided argument" you are talking about. Seligman's Hamitic Hypothesis is one of the factors leading to the Rwandan genocide. If Sergi's Hamitic hypothesis had taken hold it would not have happened.

So I want to tell a "nice simple story" lacking in "complexities". You know me, and you know Afrocentrism("the nice simple story", lacking "complexities"). You seem to bear a greater truth than me. A superior truth with your greater expertise. I return the pompous description.

P.B.-“Nor is there anything new or unusual about the view that Pygmies also represent an isolated lineage. Genetics partly supports this view, but of course all racial categories are porus and are essentially models”

It is very unusual to say they are not black. There are other “isolated lineages” in Africa, a testament to her immense human biodiversity. To say one is not “black” or is black is arbitrary, when one considers the genetic data.

That's based on the claim that very dark skin is a marker of particular lineages. Diamond is using the word black essentially for dramatic effect. Paul B 00:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Is Jared Diamond a writer of fiction and fantasy? He is using colorful words for "dramatic effect". A Phd in Geography, winner of the National Medal of Science in 1999, uses colorful words like black for "dramatic effect". You're saying the title of the last chapter of Guns, Germs and Steel, How Africa Became Black, "Black" is being used for dramatic effect?

Yes, even academics like to create catchy titles and make headline-grabbing statements. Guns, Germs and Steel is intended to be popular history. Paul B 00:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Again you illustrate how clarity escapes you. I am talking about chapter 19, the chapter titled HOW AFRICA BECAME BLACK. Jared diamond definitely defines what "black" is. Let me throw you a few quotes,

"Like blacks, pygmies have dark skins and tightly curled hair."

"In particular, Afroasiatic speakers mostly prove to be people who would be classified as whites or blacks, Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Congo speakers prove to be blacks, khoisan speakers khoisan, and the Austronesian speakers Indonesian. This suggested that languages have tended to evolve along with the people who speak them."

Guns, Germs and Steel is far from a simple "popular history." Jared diamonds aims was to answer New Guineans Yali's question,"Why is it that you white people developed so much cargo and brought it to New Guinea, but we black people had little cargo of our own?" Either you have not read the book or delusional, if you think that Guns, Germs and Steel is intended to be popular history

P.B.-“As for your remarks about Gaddafi and curly hair, I don't know what you mean. Lots of people in Europe have curly hair. It's just a quirk that's more common in some people than others.”

You seem to be confused by a lot of things. I think we have difference in meaning here. As a black person, I would consider my hear curled. Qaddafi’s hair closer to mines that white European straight hair.

No, not really. I just don't have a neat little packaged "race studies" story, So you think Quadaffi's hair is closer to yours and that this means something do you? And I guess on that basis we'll hear that Beethoven was black. Again you want to use phenotypical traits when you like them, but then they magically become meaningless when you don't. Paul B 00:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, you know me. You know Afrocentrism. You know what I took and Afrocentrism is "a neat little packaged "race studies" story." I will return the pompous description to you. Quadffi is "AFRICAN"! He has said it himself. He is in a region where Europe and Africa meets. I have never claimed Beethoven is "black". I have never claimed Cleopatra is "black". Now if they have African blood, according to the one drop rule of North American Society, they are "black". Blacks have always been in Europe from antiquity to the present. African Americans did not make the rule, it was forced on them. You claim there are multiple hamitic hypothesis. There are multiple takes on Afrocentrism. Runoko Rashidi might accept South Indians, Australians as extensions of Africa, I am not one who do.

If you think Mary Lefkowitz Not Out Of Africa, pamphlet has made you an expert on Afrocentrism, you are in for a disappointment! If you think Afrocentrism is "the nice simple story", lacking "complexities" and "a neat little packaged "race studies" story" you are in for some serious disappointment!!

No disappointment on the evidence of your comments. They tick the boxes oh-so neatly. The one-drop-rule exists nowhere in actual fact. It never even existed in America in reality, It was a dream in Stoddard's mind. Paul B 00:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I have given the evidence. You an expert in irrelevant minutiae. It ticks very well doesn't it. The one-drop-rule is alive an well in American society. It was not a dream in Stoddard's mind. Its a real social phenomena. Easy to illustrate. You obviously are not American. You study ideas on paper. You don't check how it manifest itself in reality. You an expert in irrelevant minutiae. Look at the mainstream American press description of Barack Obama(Mother is white[Kansas]. Father is black[kenyan]);

"Obama, like Rev. Jesse Jackson who previously sought to get into the White House, is a black man in an overwhelmingly white country"

"Obama -- only the fifth black senator in history -- openly relished his lack of Washington experience (causing one middle-aged white woman to exclaim “Thank God!”) while championing “politics not based on fear, but based on hope.”

"As for candidates, Sharpton said that it should come as no surprise that he is not automatically throwing support to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., just because Obama is black"

Check Halle Berry(Mother is white. Father is black.)

"I had a very strong mother," says Halle. "She was a white woman raising two black kids(she is one of those kids) all by herself."

"The annual Power 150 was launched in 1963 as "100+ Most Influential Black Americans." Halley Berry in a photo from a feature article about her in the May"

Go to google news do a search black + the person.

Let me re-iterate as you say my tickle. If you think Mary Lefkowitz Not Out Of Africa, pamphlet has made you an expert on Afrocentrism, you are in for a disappointment! If you think Afrocentrism is "the nice simple story", lacking "complexities" and "a neat little packaged "race studies" story" you are in for some serious disappointment!!

Recent merge

An editor recently merged part of the Afrocentricity article into here, and I merged the rest (although I then deleted most of it in the cleanup). The merged content is now a subsection of the section titled "Afrocentrism and the academy". Please evaluate the merged content, as it is somewhat redundant to the section to which it has been added, and take the appropriate actions: cleanup, incorporate, delete, etc. Please note, my merger of the article was done for technical reasons only (completeness of edit histories) and should not be taken as an opinion on the quality of the merged content and/or its relevance to this article -- Black Falcon 01:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Many Thanks 4 the merger completion, the other article was a disgrace. now we can set a new quality standard and develop this one, away from emotion.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 10:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed wrong information on Brazilian Census

I removed part of a paragraph that said:

"Official census on Brazil says only 1% to 2% of Brazillians consider themselves black, although 48% of the population, close to half, has African blood. Reading official data on Brazil, one would never know that a large segment of her population is of African roots. One has to visit Brazil to observe the African presence."

This figure is untrue and it can be easily verified: The Wikipedia article on Brazil states: "The 2000 IBGE census found Brazil to consist of:[7]

   * 53.7% white
   * 38.5% pardo or mulatto (mixed-race)
   *   6.2% black
   *   0.5% Asian
   *   0.4% Amerindian
   *   0.7% unspecified"

If one adds up the "black" and "pardo" percentages it gives us 44.7% of people with some level of African descent, which is not really far from the truth, although it becomes more complex when one understands that "pardo can also include people of Amerindian descent. It is also notable that in Brazil, White people carry a significant amount of Amerindian mixture. I couldn't find a link to the research that states this, but this is the author's site: http://www.gene.com.br/DrSergioPena/Curriculo/view/SergioPenaCurriculoVitae.htm

and this is the link to the official census data about race in Brazil: http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/populacao/censo2000/populacao/cor_raca_Censo2000.pdf

I thank you for the current data. But it does not disprove my point. I was quoting 10 year old data. I did not realize the Amerindian percentage was that low. In my mind those whites who are claiming Amerindian blood most likely also have African bloodlines. The racial dynamics in Brazil was not violent like the Jim Crow South and North America. Race is more malleable and gray. Afrocentrism in spirit, tries to rewrite African history from a black/ African point of view separating the western myth, falsification, and propaganda that has been spread in the last 500 years. Afrocentrism in spirit comes mainly out of the franco/anglo(more African American and Caribbean/even franco African spheres)world. A lot of afrocentric scholars that have been quoted on this site would not have heard or know the term Afrocentrism.

You illustrate the need for Afrocentrism. You seem to be offended that I would imply a large country like Brazil, half of its population has African blood. Your objective was to remove that high a number. I am not saying that half of Brazil is black(by North American standards of race that would be true). I said near half has African blood. You say a lot of whites have Amerindian blood, but can't prove it. Your reference is not clear and anecdotal. The true test is DNA. I will accept your edit, due to the fact that i don't want to get into a debate of the racial makeup of Brazil. This section is invalid to Afrocentrism. Only 6% of Brazil considers themselves black, even though the largest flow of African slaves went to Brazil.

I have removed this from the section:

Afrocentrists say most Brazilians with African blood do not consider themselves Black even with prominent African features. Brazil has never produced a black civil rights movement that asserted its African roots. Similarly, modern day Egyptians vary in skin tone and phenotype, including the Copts, who prefer to be classed as North African Caucasoid or caucasian. According to Afrocentrist authors, the eurocentric paradigm has taken hold of the social fabric of diasporic African peoples, thereby the need for Afrocentrism to counteract the paradigm with the greatest civilization Africa has produced.

It is irrelevant to the section. Omniposcent 00:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Egypt Section extremely onesided

The section on Egpyt seems to be more like a section denouncing any credibility of Afrocentrism, and more specifically the notion of ancient Egypt being a black civilization. 74.128.200.135 04:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Back on topic

I got rid of the long argument, because it is long, rambly, and not particularly devoted to improving the article and much more devoted to arguing. The fundamental objection was about the Eygpt section. The claim was that Afrocentrist views are presented unfairly. Reading through, if anything, they're portrayed as far more accepted than they actually are, as it is generally rejected by mainstream archeology as largely pseudoarcheology and racist dogma. Legitimate study is fine, but a lot of the "afrocentrist" movement basically makes stuff up or doesn't actually engage in real scholarship. A lot of its claimed evidence has been discredited. All of this seems to be shown in the article, and I don't detect any bias against Afrocentrism there. The section DOES need a lot of citations. Titanium Dragon 08:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You were losing the argument. I have backup copies of the whole thing. You could not prove your point. Every point you made was being debunk. If you persist to trash Afrocentrism and Afrocentrist. Question its foundation. I will repost the whole debate. You can't prove your point, you delete the whole thing. Whether mainstream scholars, white western scholars accept the findings of Afrocentrist is irrelevant. It is up to the African ("black or otherwise")to discover himself. I thought you were a creature of great sophistication. Some of your comments have been laughable. You are more naïve than I thought. You strikes me as very Anglocentric, Americo-centric, and very Eurocentric in your outlook and views. You are not titanium. You strike me as someone who has not travelled much or understand /knows other non-english speaking cultures. The issue you raise will require an entire book. I might write one one day. Your statement is inspiring an outline for a book and a lot of research. Thank you Wikipedia.Omniposcent 02:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Your points were naive Afrocentrism of the crudest kind, including the absurd claims of African presence in MesoAmerica. Please stop filling this with your pointless semi-literate ramblings, which do nothing to improve the article. By the way, TD merely archived the content of the page. He didn't delete it. Paul B 08:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What were naive about my claims? what was crude about it? You have made naive claims yourself which I will admit was "pointless semi-literate ramblings" which do nothing to improve the article. The ramblings from me were facts and data. If ignorant statements are made, one should correct incorrect information. 216.186.67.54 23:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we please not start arguing again? The talk page is about improving the article, it isn't a forum. Titanium Dragon 07:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of these claims are in appropriate articles, but its worth noting that the whole "old world - new world" contact is not accepted by the archeological community with good reason - there's no evidence for it. The Vikings are the only "old world" culture known to have contact with North America between the end of the last ice age and Columbus's trans-Atlantic voyage. No intermixing occured because no one, not the Vikings nor anyone else, left their genes in the Americas, and no pre-Columbian artifacts associated with old world cultures other than the Vikings have been discovered in-situ. A lot of people make wild claims about trans-Altantic contact, but if these people managed to make it they left no trace at all of contact. The Chinese certainly didn't find the Americas in 1421, for instance, in spite of the claims of the author of that book. Just because a kook claims something doesn't mean it is real or accepted. The archeological community requires evidence of out of place artifacts, and they simply have not been produced.

While periodic claims of pre-Columbian artifacts are easily found, they often seem to disappear entirely after their initial discovery. The reason for this is quite simple; these artifacts are found to be hoaxes or to be modern, and disproving something is generally given a lot less space than the initial sensationalistic story. That's why you haven't heard anything new from the BASE institute since they "found" Noah's Ark; they didn't. If something is mentioned once then vanishes entirely, this is generally indicative that it was a hoax or simply a mistake. If there was all this evidence, they wouldn't use the models they use, but there is no evidence of pre-Columbian trans-Atlantic contact.

Afrocentrism is seen by the archeological community as racist revisionist history, which it is. It is similar in form to the whites giving cultures to everyone myths that were common in Europe in the 1800s, the idea of the rest of the world being savage and uncultured. It basically tries to build a history of greatness for blacks; its name is something of a misnomer because it focuses on what blacks have purportedly done. They want to prove that blacks have had a major influence on the world, but most of their stories are bunk and are essentially racist myths, such as the Africans influencing the Toltec civilization.

I think this is made somewhat clear by the article, and is the reason for the complaints about it possibly being biased. However, I do not think it is biased to clearly show what is thought about Afrocentrism and why people dismiss its claims; it is certainly relevant to the topic. Note that despite it being discounted, we do have to be NPOV, but being NPOV does NOT mean we cannot show weaknesses or talk about why something is disputed; to ignore important controversy on a topic is not any more neutral than endorsing or fighting it. Show, don't tell is vital to NPOV writing. Afrocentrism being disregarded by the field it purportedly is a part of is certainly worth discussing, and the reasons for that dismissal should not be glossed over.

Conversely, it would be wrong to say "Afrocentrists made up X" unless it has been proven to be so. Afrocentrists make a lot of wild claims, and they should be clearly marked as such, but likewise, using adjectives inline such as "racist" are wrong unless it is clearly so or we're citing criticism of it (or Afrocentrist criticism of mainstream history for that matter, as Afrocentrists do like to claim people who dismiss their claims are racist).

Fundamentally I'm not seeing violations of NPOV against the Afrocentrist viewpoint; if anything, it seems that the Afrocentrist viewpoint is shown in a better light than it should be. Titanium Dragon 08:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Archeology is not the only form of evidence. Before the archeological data, the Viking theory was discarded by archeologist. Other forms of proof in Viking contacts were available, like the valued historical folkloric accounts in the Viking Sagas. Intellectuals adherring to the Viking theory were regarded as "kooks" by those who claimed to be scholarly. The Viking theory illustrates the point because mainstream archeology has not found proof does not mean that it does not exist or the theory is not fact. In fact the Viking Sagas gave the archeologists clues as to where to start digging for artifacts. Whether Chinese found America in 1421 is irrelevant to Afrocentrist. The student of Chinese history must take up this area of research. The author of 1421 is not "kook." He is more learned than those calling him a "kook."

One would agree pre-Columbian artifacts could be hoaxes, but there are non-archeological data that has not been debunk. The writings of the early European explorers has not been debunk. It is more reliable than the Viking Sagas. The forensic data has not been debunk. The archeological proof has not been ruled out completely, there was technical errors but no follow up. If someone is expecting news from BASE institute about Noah's Ark, that person is on something. ONE SHOULD SAY NO TO DRUGS. As an Afrocentrist, I do believe there was African contact with meso- America. At this point in time, I will not claim "influence" of Toltec civilization. Frankly, Ivan Van Sertima has provided a wonderful outline for aggressive Afrocentric research.

Afrocentrism is not the one with the history of racism or revisionism. If mainstream archeology was doing its job and remaining true to the tenants of science there would be no need for Afrocentrism. If mainstream archeology wants to outright reject Afrocentrism and some of its tenants without investigation, then it will be rejected as the mono focal, mono ethnic/racial , mono geopolitical/geographic Eurocentrist entity that it is. As an Afrocentrist, I am only concerned with archeology's scientific methods for digging for data, not necessarily its interpretaion of data. Interpretation of data is what separates Afrocentrist from Eurocentrist.

The revisionist charge has been hurled the way of Afrocentrist by Eurocentrist, but the one who is engaging in revisionism is the Eurocentrist, even in this talk page.. We see revisionism in the presentation of the Hamitic Hypothesis as a "many sided argument." Referring to 1800 white racism as just "the idea of the rest of the world being savage and uncultured" is revisionist.

Some have said Afrocentrism "basically tries to build a history of greatness for blacks." This is far from the truth. Afrocentrism seeks to make Africa and all its extension its focus of study. It literally means African centered. It is not a "misnomer." It was an attempt by African Americans to reconnect with their severred African past and connect it with the present. Afrocentrism considering it started in North America had to focus on the accomplishments of blacks,considering the direct assault on black/African humanity by mainstream academia. Some Afrocentrist went to the extreme. They to me were not as extreme as the mainstream.

Eurocentrist aims are to claim all human achievements to whites. Their objective is to prove biological, intellectual, and now geographic superiority of whites. They claim whites to be at the center of all human achievement or be regarded as such.

Some would like to believe that Eurocentrism ended in the 1800, it is alive and well, with works like The Bell Curve, IQ and the Wealth of Nations questioning the intellect of blacks. Cavalli-Sforza's The History and Geography of Human Genes' has been found to have an excess of Caucasian gene sampling and data that is predefined. It's author is now making linguistic claims such as the Afro-Asiatic language family being of Caucasian origins. Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel' has replaced biological supremacy with geogrraphic supremacy. He has excluded Africa in his macro techno complex of Eurasia. Frankly before the Greeks, there was no Europe in the complex. It was an Afrasian techno complex that spread to Greece and thereby Europe. At least one has admitted Europe is not a continent. There is six continents not seven. Diamond has also revive a crude form of the Hamitic Hypothesis.

All these works have been sold as truth by the mainstream. Its authors have received numerous awards, Kistler Prize, National Academy of Science Awards, Pullitzer Prizes. They have been endorsed by The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, PBS, National Geographic Society, and Washington Post. All popular publications. To Afrocentrist we have been there before. Pseudo-science being pimp as science or Eurocentrist interpreting data from their lens, feel good stories and theories for whites.

A white exposed to Jensen or Diamond will certainly have a burst of self esteem if not a superiority complex because the interpretation of the data has been deemed "scientific" by elite mainstream publications and institutions. An Afrocentric scientist interpreting the data concluding convincingly that melanin enhances physical and intellectual ability will certainly have an enhancing of self esteem if not superiority complex on blacks.

Look at the treatment of Martin Bernal( Black Athena vol. I, II, III ) by the mainstream. Bernal is as brillant as Jared Diamond and Arthur Jensen. The mainstream hasn't given him any awards. He has been crucified by the left and the right of the mainstream. Frankly his work is less dangerous than Diamond's and Jensen's. Those who argue that Afrocentrism is revisionist and racist, a view shared by the mainstream, here is looking at you too.

The article is very bias towards Afrocentrism and POV. Every Eurocentrist, white supremacist, Afrocentric hater(due to politics and propaganda) wants to put in his or her two cents, in an attempt to debunk afrocentrism. They create entire sections that are unsupported and debatable. All their arguments, mainstream or otherwise are bunk and weak. Their arguments don't cut it. When there arguments are challenge, they insult Afrocentrism as "revisionist", "racist", "crude", non "mainstream", and "pseudo-science" DiamondRat 00:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Titanium Dragon has become quite eloquent. There is no hyperlink to his user site. I pray that this is his signature. You make me feel like I am talking to another person, with a wordy pompous style of writing. That archive5 sure took a long time to post. I notice some added response, which I will respond to. I pray Paul B is not up to his old tricks. You should google yourself Mr. Paul Barlow. Very interesting stuff. But I will have to respond to the entries in Archive5. Deeceevoice made some serious charges. Those charges seem to be relevant.

Why is their a filter for this website. (link to attack site removed)216.186.65.143 21:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a filter because Rex Curry is an ultra-right-wing nutter who has been banned from Wikipedia after making paranoid threats to several editors. Rex amusingly states that I'm so ignorant that I didn't know that the Nazis "were elected in 1930"!!!!!! Genius, or what? What on earth do you mean that there is no "hyperlink to his [TD]s user site". Yes there is. Paul B 01:01, 28 April

Found another-- (link to attack site removed)--Truth is truth

--You seem to be doing quite a bit of deleting and editing--Stormie also admitted to past misbehavior in covering-up Dr. Curry's work with one of Stormie's cohorts. In the page history for the "Roman Salute" article, Paul Barlow declared that he is "covering up" Professor Curry's discoveries and "Stormie" adopted and repeated Barlow's action.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.95.102.79 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

"Professor" Curry, as he chooses to call himself, has made no discoveries at all. His "contributions" were deleted in line with policy by several editors. Paul B 22:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

In America right wing nutters have a say. They are not censured. Mainstream right wing "nutters" have said slavery was justified because civilization was being given to the African. The assumptions of the comment are laughable to me, but the right wing nutters have every right to write or say what they want to. Mainstream right wing nutters have been strong backers of the Bell Curve and scholars like Arthur Jensen. I will fight for their right to write and speak what they want to. Omniposcent 21:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What is being ignored?

Following my reading of both this page and the Eurocentrism page, I am none the wiser as to what exactly Europe is denying? As it has already been pointed out Aristotle didn't raid the library of Alexandria, so what have we stolen and covered up? There are no facts, just accusations of theft, and even what exactly was stolen isn't stated. Everytime 19:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

AAEV paragraph

This paragraph is unsourced and a lot of it seems like OR/trying to make African Americans look better. It is, after all, percieved as (and arguably is) broken English, and is certainly looked down upon socially. Titanium Dragon 10:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Language is about communication. I am for speaking "standard english." There are those who consider speaking /writing in a wordy pompous style as communicating. To them language is a woman putting on lipstick and mascara. Language is about looking pretty, almost effeminate. Those who write speak in that style are not communicating . Lets avoid that style. Each region of the world has its form of english. Those who speak/write in that pompous pretty style are being looked down upon as less manly, weird, pretentious by those they regard as speaking "broken english." They are trying to show intellect they don't have. Americans, I am positive, are looked downed on by some as speaking "broken english", but America has surpass her lessor origins. America shouldn't go backwards. To facilitate communication/education, use words average english speakers communicate with, avoid flowery, perfumed writings. It's odd. DiamondRat 00:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no. American English, Australian English, and the Queen's English are all well-recognized dialects, and they don't have trouble communicating with each other. (Also, interestingly, it has been said that American English actually resembles the English accent of the 17th/18th century better than the Queen's English; I'm not sure how true that is though). In any event, I've never heard any of them be referred to as broken English, whereas I've heard AAEV referred to it as such many times because it doesn't follow a lot of grammatical rules and is more difficult to understand. Titanium Dragon 20:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

They are all related to each other. They are all Europeans. Australia and those who speak the Queen's English might be referred to as the "white commonwealth." They are the ones who make the charge of "broken english." A good illustration of Eurocentrism, the need to feel superior. The need to be special. The need to be the center of everything. You see the same charge of broken english is made towards West Indian English. The West Indian is not of pure European extract. His language was derive from the attempt of enslave Africans to assimilate English. It is markedly different from "American", Australian, and the Queen's English and not easily understood by non West Indians. West Indians are able to communicate among themselves fine. Like West Indian tongue, AAEV is not a pure European extract. It is referred to as un-grammatical and difficult to understand typically by racist Eurocentrist who view blacks as less intelligent(frankly opposite) and who have no respect for anything that is not white, and want to be the center of everything.

What do you mean American English, Australian English, the Queen's English are well recognized dialects, and they don't have trouble communicating with each other? The Queen's English is a dialect? That is new to me. What is "American English"? Each region of America speaks differently, the greatest difference being North and South. Paul Barlow in Alabama would be viewed as "talking funny." He would frequently get "I don't understand you. You need to speak proper." Paul Barlow would not be accepted in upper crust white Southern society because of the way he speaks. He would be looked down upon as being less, same with the North. TD need to speak for himself when he says "they don't have trouble communicating with each other"

Frankly the paragraph on AAEV needs to be deleted. It is a footnote to Afrocentrism. It occupies to much space. It is not a major theme. Raimhotep 14:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Queen's English is a dialect. All forms of the language are dialects. The paragraph on AA English was imported from the Afrocentricity page when the two articles were merged. You can see the discussion about it on the talk page there (Talk:Afrocentricity). I do think the paragraph is confused for reasons I gave there. There are of course forms of AA English that are directly influenced by West African languages, such as Gullah, but it's difficult to really apply that concept to urban/slang forms of speech or to dialects that emerge from local forms that are not specifically AA. Paul B 08:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was uncivil of TD to call the Queen's english a dialect. I thought it would mean fighting words to you. Urban/slang is another way of enriching and increase the language palette. It adds flavor, color, and a lot of "Bling Bling" to "American" English. Since you are not offended, now I can say you are not "Phd."

AA is not a major theme. It needs to be removed.

Raimhotep 08:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"Since you are not offended, now I can say you are not "Phd."" What does that mean? I rewrote the section. However, it's still arguable whether or not it has anything to do with Afrocentrism. Paul B 08:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

AA is not an afrocentrist obsession, only those who want the world to be a reflection of themselves, Eurocentric drivel. Those referring to other peoples tongue as "broken english" and calling other people "semi-literate", it is wonderful one has cannonize ones language. Communication is not prostitution. Language should not be used as a harlot uses makeup to attract clients. DiamondRat 04:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

George James

George James isn't in the list of important Afrocentrists, despite his book Stolen Legacy being very influencial on the movement and many of the myths from it finding its way throughout Afrocentrist thought, such as arguments that the greeks stole their culture from the Egyptians. That the book is laughable amongst real scholars is unimportant, because it resembles the rest of Afrocentrism in that manner; he is definitely an important influence. Titanium Dragon 23:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

George James should be place in his time. Stolen Legacies was written in 1950. Was it only George James spreading myth? The mainstream elite were spreading more myth than George James. George Andrew Reisner(1867- 1942) was creating imaginary races for Nubians. Nubian Pharoah Tuharqa was a white man to Reisner. Reisner is described by the mainstream as "One of the most prominent founding fathers of modern scientific archaeology." He was also Assistant professor of Egyptology at Harvard University. Charles George Seligman(1873-1940) wrote Races of Africa (1930). Here is an excerpt about Seligman: "Seligman received a great deal of recognition for his work as well as multiple awards. Perhaps the highest accolade he received was in the publisher’s note of his work Races of Africa. It is an index of his scholarship and expertise in all fields of anthropology that what he could do almost single-handed has now required the collaboration of many.” This is the man who came up with the Hamitic Hypothesis that is behind the Rwandan genocide. Pseudo-science now debunk. He was mainstream. Who has spread the most myths, George James or the mainstream? George James thesis is still very valid. Afrocentrism has grown more sophisticated. Diop being trained in the sciences remains the most influential. He made the same claims that George James made. Diop did not say "stole" but influenced. There is an error in the article. George James and Cheihk Anta Diop were not aware of each other. George James worked in an anglophone world. Diop worked in the francophone world but both reached the same conclusion, separately. DiamondRat 00:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Contradictions

Perhaps somebody should point out the inherent contradictions in Afrocentrism? Eg.

The Greeks were supposedly white racists who stole "African civilization" yet the Greeks are also claimed to have originally been black(Winter). Christianity is a "Devil doctrine" that promotes"racism" and "white supremacism", yet Jesus was supposedly black. The USA was created as a white supremacist state built on the backs of black slaves, yet many prominent Americans, eg George Washington, are claimed as having been mulattoes "passing as whites". The Arabs are "Evil invaders" who drove the "indigenous North Africans"(ie blacks according to Afrocentrism) southwards, yet people claim that the original Arabs, and later the Moors were black. The Spanish were "racist slavers and plunderers" yet other Afrocentrists claim that Spanish civilization had "African origins".

These are just a handful of these sort of internal inconsistencies. I believe that highlighting these and other examples would help clarify what Afrocentrism is truly. I haven't added any information to the actual article until I hear other people's views/ideas about this......4 May 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.25.255.218 (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

What are you talking about??? You seem to make things up. A lot of afrocentist are muslims. Your ip address indicates you are from South Africa. You sound like a white man under siege. Your comments are very POV. If you edit the article please reference your claim.Raimhotep 06:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Afrocentrism is not a single phenomenon. Of course some writers who see themselves as Afrocentrists make preposterous claims, but not all do. There's no reason why al writers shoud agree about everything. Clyde Winter is a rather extreme figure. Spanish civilization did have "African origins" in the sense that the Carthaginans from North Africa established cities there. But the Carthaginians themselves were orginally Phoenicians, so this whole argument is really rather circular. Paul B 13:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You could just say afrocentrists make preposterous claims; you don't really need to qualify it, as that is the reason it is seen as pseudoscience. That it is not uniform is no real surprise; afrocentrism is like 9/11 conspiracy theories and creationism in that regard, in that they make highly inconsistant claims, both internally and between groups. Titanium Dragon 01:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I am semi-impress. Paul Barlow displays intellectual nuance, I thought was lacking. He still falls short, like most Eurocentrist in the interpretation of data. Clyde Winter is not that extreme in his conclusion. It is not just '"African origins" in the sense that the Carthaginans from North Africa established cities there. But the Carthaginians themselves were orginally Phoenicians." The Phoenicians were descendants of Canaan, one of the sons of Ham. The sons of Ham were Mesraim(the Egyptian), Kush(the Ethiopian), Phut, and Canaan. All affiliated with ancient African nations/civilizations. Kush was certainly "black." Mesraim(Egypt) in her iconography certainly did not draw herself as whites like the Libyans or Syrians. In the Babylonian Talmud, it says the Canaanites were cursed by God by being painted black. I don't exclude the Phoenician from being an "African extension", biologically. Plus,in Carthage there was the presence of the "true negro" types. Proof is found on the coin heads of Carthage. So Clyde Winter is not that extreme in his conclusion. It is not just in the "sense that the Carthaginans from North Africa established cities there. But the Carthaginians themselves were orginally Phoenicians, so this whole argument is really rather circular." Omniposcent 23:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless you are a biblical literalist the list of sons of Ham has no relevance to understanding ancient history. The Babylonian Talmud refers to Ham being 'stricken in his skin' for having sex in the ark, but the Talmud has no value whatever as an historical source for the bronze age! Anyway, has it occurred to that this inevitably implies that his brothers were light skinned, making nonsense of arguments about race? The earliest images we have of occupants of Canaan are from Egyptians. They clearly depict them as pale skinned. Paul B 06:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It is naive to take the Bible literally but it is also naive to discard it as having "no relevance to the understanding ancient history." Ham in Hebrew means heat, burnt, and dark. The environment, the process of generating the quality of, and the quality of high melanic peoples is defined. All his son except Canaan are in Africa. Africa is not an icebox.

The Jewish Midrash is the oral commentaries on the scripture written down, predating the Babylonian talmud. The Midrash Bereshith says(Noah to Ham},"You have prevented me from doing something in the dark, therefore your seed will be ugly and dark-skinned"

Midrash Rabbah, Genesis says, "Ham and the dog copulated in the ark, therefore Ham came forth Black skinned." Thereby, one can infer what being "stricken in the skin" means in the Babylonian Talmud.

Oral traditions are timeless. They are handed down from generation to generation, bronze age or whatever age. Plus Oral traditions reveal the ethos of a people, invaluable. The list of the sons of Ham reveals a world view, with historical/verifiable nations. Interesting, the Ancient Greeks had a similiar world view about the "sons of Ham."

In the tomb of Ta-Seti I, the color of the Canaanites are just a shade lighter than the Egyptians. They were not snow white, like the Libyans. Plus, excavation of Canaanite sites revealed, they share cultural traits with other semitic speakers but also strong Egyptian traits, at an early phase of their history.

I don't exclude the Phoenician as a non-"African extension." I am not referring in the racial sense of "the true negro." I would not just view Cush's brothers as just "light skinned." They could be brown chocolate, reddish copper(Egyptian}, and tinges of orange/yellowish hue(the non mullatto hue). All natural to Blacks. Not just the jet black of the "true negro." Omniposcent 05:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Oral history of events hundreds of years before is of zero value, especially since the history is beng constructed for ideological reasons. Almost all "four race" pictures show the Canaanites as considerably lighter than the Egyptians. The Greeks had no opinion about sons of Ham, because they'd never heard of Ham. You use the word "blacks" in such a broad way that it becomes almost utterly meaningless. Paul B 09:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I read the Bible and clearly written history hasnt done to well either-eh. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 01:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

That is what was said about the Viking Sagas, the archeologist used to discover Viking villages in the new world. That is what was said about the Illiad, used by Heinrich Schliemann(pseudo archeologist to some of our professionals) used to locate one of the greatest archeological find in history, the mythic Troy. No Sir biblical oral traditions have infinite value. The canaanites were not depicted as snow white, like the Libyans.

You illustrate why clarity has always escape you. Naive are we? The Greeks knew the Egyptians and the Kushites. They gave extensive references to their physical type.

Blacks are not just coal black. Visit West Africa. You will see chocolate brown, copper red, and orange/yellowish hues and all shades in between. I am not using black in such a broad way that it is meaningless. Omniposcent 06:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You're being silly. The Viking Sagas were composed BEFORE the Americas were discovered, and weren't made for idealogical reasons. Conversely, linkage to Egypt came later on in Greek history as an attempt to increase their prestige; this is common, the same reason the Jews claimed their ten commandments were very old and came down from God, ect. Oral histories can be more reliable or less reliable, and in particular the Greeks were fond of making stuff up to make themselves look smarter. See Atlantis - it was made up. A lot of "knowledge from the Egyptians" thing was an attempt to link their culture to ancient and impressive monoliths when no such linkage exists.

And as for Troy, I would not call it one of the greatest archeological finds. We've found tons of old cities, and Troy wasn't very special. People just had thought it didn't exist, but it did exist - that doesn't mean the Illiad is any less fictional than the Bible. They may have fought, but the war did not go down like it did in the Illiad.

Oral history is unreliable; a lot of it is junk or simply heavily mangled almost beyond recognition. A lot of it is just made up. Sometimes it works out, but oftentimes, its about as useful as the story of Noah's Ark. Moreover, when you KNOW they're doing it in order to increase prestige, then you know you have to take a hard look at it, and the evidence simply says "no". Afrocentrists throw out everything that disagrees with their racist theories, which is why it is pseudoscientific at best. Titanium Dragon 06:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarity seems to be a mystery to you Omniposcent, since you keep contradicting yourself. First you say that the Greeks had "a world view" about "the sons of Ham", then in defence of this nonsense you say that the Greeks knew of the Egyptians and Ethiopians. Well, yes, of course thery did, but they did not say they were sons of Ham, did they. Nor did they see any connection between them and Canaanites/Phoenicians. Likewise, the brothers I was referring to were Hanm's brothers, bot Cush's. If Ham being "stricken in his skin" refers to him becoming black, but definition this means that Shem and Japheth were not "stricken", so must have been non-black. Leaving aside the fact that this makes arguments about racial ancestry absurd (since it makes the children of the same parents into different "races"), it also means that the Israelites were a visibly different race from their co-inhabitants of Canaan. If you think the oral history relating to the family of Noah is "timeless", then you must belive it actually occurred. Paul B 14:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Eurocentrist/Afrocentric Haters will stoop to any level to hold on to their sacred cow of Black inferiority. They are obsess with Afrocentrism because it threatens their sacred cow. Eurocentrism is a mental disorder, a neurosis/psychosis. Eurocentrists will accept nonsense over commonsense. They will accept 911 Conspiracy Theories over truth, right in their face. DiamondRat 04:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Given that blacks have an average IQ 15 points lower than whites and asians AFTER compensating for their lower socioeconomic status, it isn't particularly surprising that their accomplishments have been somewhat less. Whites don't obsess over afrocentrism; a lot of them don't even know it exists! It has been completely dismissed by the scientific community as racist nonsense. Europe didn't steal its culture from Africa, and blacks didn't come to the new world in prehistoric times to teach the Toltecs how to build pyramids (ironic how they have no problem being racist against every other race, yet claim racism when their claims are shown to be false). Titanium Dragon 06:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I trust that serious editors will disregarded clearly racist people editing here.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 01:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The Gold Seal Campaign

For the sake of Wikipedia and controversial articles...

Gold Seal Campaign:

What do you think of this? The administrators of Wikipedia establish a Gold Seal campaign for certain articles. This “Gold Seal” will indicate for a given article it’s factuality and lack of vandalism. Basically it will show..

1-This page is properly cited.

2-This page has been verified.

This will be an important step for Wikipedia. It means students, high school included will be able to cite Wikipedia in their work. As of now many schools do not allow students to this.

As for editing an article, It will still be allowed yet a person can easily revert to the Gold Sealed, verified page on Wikipedia. This will be an amazing step for Wikipedia, though difficult, it will allow readers to know for sure what they are reading is true. It will surely improve Wikipedia’s image in the public sphere. Of course someone will have to organize this, but in then it will be sufficient use of labour. — mattawa

Ideas like this have been around for a while, and a techinical change in the software is in the works that would help accomplish this. I suggest you discuss this at the Village Pump. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 19:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

TO AFROCENTRIC HATERS (AH)

One might want to put all criticism under General Criticism. Omniposcent 23:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think its better to write it inline; it seems to be working alright. And we aren't "afrocentric haters". We're trying to make the article NPOV. Titanium Dragon 08:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It should not be put inline. To put it inline makes the whole article appear like a forum on Afrocentrism. It has not been successful. All it has cause is edit wars. TD by far is the biggest Afrocentric Hater in this talk page. Insulting Afrocentrist, with uncivil terms like "racist", "revisionist", "pseudo-science" etc. He has not been able to prove a thing. He is certainly POV in his perspective. Raimhotep 14:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

They aren't "uncivil", they're true and are generally accepted by the scientific community at large as such. There's a reason afrocentrist claims are not taken seriously and are not given prominance in article such as Ancient Egypt; it is because they are false. Making Wikipedia better is my primary goal, and I don't want people reading or citing this article thinking that afrocentrist claims are generally accepted. Titanium Dragon 08:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

POV JOKES

I removing this sections, it is a pov joke, no mention of afrocentrism.

The award-winning alternate history novel "Lion's Blood" (2002) by Steven Barnes, and its sequel "Zulu Heart", present an alternate world where African and Middle Eastern states are the dominant superpowers of the world. In this history, it is Blacks who have colonised America, and Whites from a largely tribal and backward Europe are being sold into slavery across the Atlantic, to work on Black-owned plantations. All of this would seem to entitle the books to be considered as Afrocentric fiction.

If one envision afrocentrism as such. There is historical precedent, not just in fiction. After all most of the slaves in the Roman Empire were Germanic tribes and people. Blacks weren't slaves. They were diplomats, soldiers, and artisans. They were of high status in the Roman empire. Darker skin was affiliated with high intellect and civilization. Western Europe and Northern Europe was viewed as savaged and uncivilized. The blacks in the Roman Empire were the ones cracking the whip on the pale Germanic slaves. Read Frank Snowden, he is certainly not an Afrocentrist. DiamondRat 06:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What a lot of nonsense. The Roman empire was largely colour-blind, for sure. Slavery was not based on race, but the claim that blacks had some sort of special high status is without foundation. In any case your comments are irrelevant to the section. It was not "pov". It was just a description of alternate-history fiction. Paul B 09:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it was color blind in our modern sense of color. It doesnt mean there wasnt ethnic racism. But clearly being African then probably meant you had an easier life than now. But do note that Rome would have viewed Western (real white) Europe as backward, thus the above brother is not off his head. But I dont think it was a colorized as we like to make out.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 01:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)