Talk:Traditional African religions

Article Title

I think it should be changed to "African Traditional Religions" (pluralized). I don't know how to do this. But the current title, "African traditional religion" suggests that there one single traditional African religion, which is clearly not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.233.9 (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Article Length

For a search phrase with so many Google hits this article should be much longer. As Mbiti pointed out, there is no plurality of "gods", lesser or otherwise. One of the primary purposes of this book was to show that the Western practice of putting African religions at the bottom of the religious evolutionary pyramid was primarily an attempt to suggest that their religions were inferior and unevolved; perhaps this article shouldn't be repeating these myths? Also, all this talk about "worship" needs to go (perhaps "consultation", or even "veneration"?). Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 10:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't know enough about traditional African beliefs to comment on whether or not the belief in a plurality of gods is true, but I do know a lot about Hinduism and Buddhism. Hinduism acknowledges a plurality of gods (well, in essence they're just different manifestations of brahman) and Buddhism denies the existence of a god. I don't think either are considered "unevolved" religions since they are the oldest, and second oldest recorded faiths on earth. Anyways, my point is that saying Africans believe in a plurality of gods isn't necessarily deragatory. It's just un-Christian, and there's nothing wrong with that. It might just be a misunderstanding. Out of interest, is the belief in one over-arching god a result of missionaries? Or has that always been the complement to the many nature spirits and ancestors? Joziboy 20:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the sangoma link was a bad idea. Sangomas are healers and diviners, not priests. Actually, religious ceremonies are usually carried out under the guidance of the malume and nkali (malome and rakgadi in Sesotho, malume and makhadzi in Tshivenda, etc). Eg at my father's funeral last year there was no ngaka (although one of my relatives is one she was not overseeing any ceremonies), but an older female relative (rakgadi) who, among other things, wanted me to shave my dreads! Naturally I declined (and, as you should know by now, I don't do traditions, African or Western). Monotheism in Africa is not actually relatively young. As Mbiti pointed out ATR is about the family and spiritual power. The (half-)dead are still part of the family since their shadows (isithunzi as opposed to umthunzi, serithi/morithi etc) still exist (Ubuntu just means that your shadow only exists as long as there are people around to experience it, even after you become a spiritual being). continuing...

Now, simply saying that ATR is polytheist animism is simple and plain wrong. God exists, but is not given much attention since it's a very old, very remote being (no one knows its shadow), however, it's used to explain great events or events in very remote time (such as the creation of people). Note that most ATR societies have no beginning or end of time myths - there's simply no reason to believe that the infinite cycle of time has not always been that way and will not always be that way. This is what I meant about it being intuitive. It's a religion as well as a folk philosophy, with lots of varied rites and mythologies added for good measure. It's the base philosophy (shadows, infinite cycles, 2D time, etc) that is shared by a surprising number of separate societies. But this is what the article currently looks like... Btw I don't appreciate people claiming to use Mbiti as a source, then asserting the exact same lies he set out to disprove. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 23:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow this is all fascinating. I love religious studies (did it in first year, but sadly they don't know much about African religions in Scotland!). So is this Mbiti the book to read? Joziboy 09:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, get your grimy paws on it TODAY, as a start. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 10:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Traditional or Ingenious

Often and mistakenly so the terms traditional, indigenous and classical are merged into one understanding as it relates to African culture and history. It is a fundamental mistake as it warps and limits a true understanding of Africa and its many complex international relationships thus restricting and confining African history and culture. Traditional As these words relate to the religion, Islam becomes a traditional African religion, which exists in classical and contemporary Africa. It is often said by scholars and historians that Islam has been in Africa longer than it has been in any other part of the Middle East (bar Mecca in Saudi Arabia). True also, Judaism and Ethiopian Christianity have also been in Africa for such a long period that in certain places (and this is key) there are traditional African religions. This does not mean that all forms of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are classical or traditional. And hence terms like traditional African Islam are fundamental in defining the African reality in classical African and contemporary history: Just as Christianity traditional to Rome is starkly distinctive from Christianity local to Ethiopia. Fundamental ingredients embody the essences of these religions in Africa, which makes them traditional, and this must be recognised in any constructive appreciation of African culture and history. Indigenous Indigenous is a word that can only be used to relate to something fostered by that community which claims it. Because something is indigenous to Africa does not make it traditional or for that matter classical. Indigenous thus does not by default speak to a people’s legacy only to the fostering of that item.--Halaqah 14:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Vain attempt

I tried to make the article a tad more relevant by removing or rephrasing certain language and culture-specific parts.

Currently this article is a collection of irrelevant peculiarities. It would be nice if it actually said something usable and provided more info and a discussion of the topic.

There is an entire continent of Africans out there, and this article is embarrassing. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 09:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I have made a number of additions. These have been noted in individual edit summaries. They include adding two titles to the bibliography. Comments added within the article come largely from Mbiti and from Wole Soyinka's Myth, Literature and the African World (this last one of those two titles).Gallador 13:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

We have added some minor information to offer more clarity to some of the points made in the article. Namely removing the term pagan, and commenting on the use of the term animism, both of which we find out-dated and pejorative. We have also removed Ifa from the line of intercessionary lessor deities. Ifa is not a deity, but rather is considered a highly developed system of divination employed by the Orisha (Yoruba) and Vodou traditionalists in West Africa and in the Diaspora. Also, the use of the anthropological characterization of lessor deities is a bit awkard as well. In African Traditional Religions a "lessor deity" would be considered on the same par (or higher) as a Christian Angel. In African Traditional Religions it would be considered offensive and even dangerous to employ the term when praying to a specific deity for intercession. They are usually referred to by their cultural names i.e, Ogun, Da, Mami Wata,etc.,. This subject is very broad and attempting to cover the expanse of the African continent with so much religious diversity is quite a challenge. It would be the same as attempting to summarize all the indigenous religions of India. However, it is a start, and I hope others will assist in this effort. Apokassii 05:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edits are great -- thanks a lot!

I thought that Goddess was a bit redundant, since in ATR God rarely has a specific sex (often it's arbitrarily invented when outsiders specifically ask for it) but then of course, the English use of "God" is almost always male so it doesn't hurt to say that this is not generally the case in ATR.

It takes great care and hard work to prevent articles on African topics becoming the ubiquitous "primitive societies do all these things, without exception" I see so often in old sources and many new sources which cite from the old ones, perhaps changing "do" to "used to do" (as is often the case with Wikipedia).

Keep up the great work -- Wikipedia desperately needs more editors like this. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 08:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. there is so many articles of this nature that needs more editors. It is almost overwhelming. I am personally working on anther project now. If and when I get more time, I will try and assist with this one as well. Apokassii 15:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. We have removed the anthropological term cult in one of your sub-headings,and replaced it with (in this case) liturgy. Cult as it is understood in the West, carries a loaded bag of negative connotations, and has never fit or adequately described what are actually African congregational religious/spiritual clan systems. We have also added a photo if this is okay with you. The term Diaspora is used, because the priestess in the middle (white top) is an African-American priestess.Apokassii~17:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolute lack of details on Ancestral Spirits

One of the defining characteristics of African indigenous religions is that most veneration is directed at ancestor spirits. There is absolutely nothing detailing this in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hiranbalasuriya (talk • contribs) 16:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Animism and derogation

I find it hard to believe that the term "animist" is derogatory. It refers to a specific form of belief that natural phenomena and objects also have spirits - anima. That's all. Now, calling something a superstition might be considered derogatory, if this is presented as an objective statement. But calling a belief system that is animist, well, animist ... that's not really derogatory, is it now?

Antro etc 13:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That's like saying: "well, if they are evil terrorists then it's not insulting to call them evil terrorists, right?" Most ATR does not fall under the definition of animism (believing that every natural thing has a spirit) and therefore they are not animism. Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 14:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Animism is this context is inaccurate for many reasons, and since it describes the religious values of living people, there is just cause to make the case that it is derogatory. For more on this, please see my comments on the talk page of "animism" entry. Drewalanwalker (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

WANTED: WIKI-USERS WHO ARE ACTUALLY FROM THE CONTINENT OF AFRICA!

WHERE ARE THE REAL AFRICAN WIKI-USERS?

Alright, people, the African traditional religions article has been hijacked by Afro-centrists. The message in many paragraphs seems to be this: African traditional religions are just as ancient and good as European traditional religions and have suffered from terrible racism from western academia. Well, DUH!! We don't need you to tell us that in every sentence! Whoever this has an inferior complex, BIGTIME! Why not educate public by actually giving more information about the religions themselves [mythology, practices, that sort of thing!!] Also, can you believe the religions they are listing as African? Yes, religions like Santeria and candomble religion do have strong roots that go back to Africa, particular West and central Africa. However, Santeria is a cuban religion, not an african one. Candomble is a Brazilian religion. Black is not always synonymous with African and African is not always synonymous with Black! I mean this for the other African articles too! No, I am not from Africa Myself, but I would really real information on the continent, not the crap Afro-centrists and Eurocentrists give me!! >:(

The problem is that there's not a great deal of Internet access in many African traditional areas. maybe One Laptop Per Child will change that, but only time will tell. — Rickyrab | Talk 02:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

we cannot use contributions based on hearsay anyway. This topic like any other is subject to the WP:V and WP:RS policies. --dab (𒁳) 17:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Restoring to Previous Version

Hi, I'm busy now, so I haven't read in detail the changes made that I reverted. However, I noted that the changer deleted a lot of text, including the bibliography. If you have substantive additions with which to enhance this page, go ahead and enhance it correctly. Kindly do not deprive the page of so much of its value in the process of contributing to it. Gallador (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A Serious Revamp is Necessary

After reading this article, I am in agreement with everyone else that this article is in need of a serious overhaul with information from credible, non-Western minded sources. I would recommend that any who knows something real and valid pertaining to this topic to contribute to this article.

There is actually very little valid information in this article, and what is valid is not clearly articulated. I will do the best I can to clean up this article and add philosophical concepts, governance, and the things that this article lacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwjsmartdude (talk • contribs) 21:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I just went through and tried to start cleaning up and "fixing" parts of this article. I also have gone through and read every article listed in the category of African Traditional Religion (which there are way, way to few of), and think this is an area that can definately be shored up. I am coming to my knowledge of ATRs fairly recently, but I hope I can be of some help in making this and similar articles well-written and easy to use.

Some quick suggestions for you all to mull over. Some sections that I think would help include a general history (including how other religions such as Christianity and Islam have affected ATRs), ATRs outside of Africa, and "Extinct" ATRs (I'm sure there is a better term for that). Likewise, the current sections should be massively overhauled to make the sections flow. Would it help to have a box at the beginning and/or end to help with this? I hope I haven't overstepped my bounds here, and hopefully these advances will continue. - IanCheesman (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Language Families and African Traditional Religion

I'm glad to see some new changes here, and especially to see some more researched thoughts added. However I am not sure how meaningful it is to link religious beliefs to languages. I admit I have not been able to locate the new resources that have been recently added on this topic, but it seems a very simplistic way of looking at things. After all, the Indo-European language family is responsible for everything from Christianity to Buddhism to Celtic to Zoroastrianism and a whole lot more. I will continue to look for resources on this issue, and will wait to see what else gets added on this topic. (As for the intro paragraph, that is exactly where we should have those simplistic statements, as often times that is the only part of the article that people read. A simple explanation of some of the key concepts of what ATRs hold in common seems, to me at least, appropriate there) - IanCheesman (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

But why must they all hold things in common? Just because they are all on the same continent? As I'm sure doesn't need to be mentioned, our ancient ancestors had little idea of such modern day, politically constructed geography. Further, as you mentioned, the religions of Eurasia differ greatly. Although I see your point that they share a common language group (whose proto-religion can be ascertained btw) ultimately, the standards of academia suggest that language is a better grouping than simple modern day imposed geography. At least it connotes common lineage on the terms of the actual SPEAKERS within the language grouping. In any case, scholars like Chis Ehret are getting tenure at universities for grouping in this way. There is scholarly theory that validates the practice. What practices validate grouping by geography? Human geography? By the way, although the Greeks (Indo-Europeans) did indeed inject their own interpretations into Christianity, Jesus himself was of Afro-Asiatic linguistic stock. Christianity was not indigenous to Indo-European thought. That shouldn't be overlooked (for better or for worse). Plus, as you will see when I finish the section, many of the practices and beliefs on that list that are supposedly generally "common" to all African systems actually tend towards characterizing the Niger-Congo speakers predominantly (the most numerically dominant group in sub-Saharan Africa). Hence it leaves out the beliefs and practices of vital linguistic minorities such as the Khoi-San and the Nilo-Saharans...I guess, if you insist on keeping the list, this fact must be pointed out (ie 'the reason why most ATRs share these characteristics is because they are typical practices of Niger-Congo speakers, who comprise the majority on the African continent'--something like that...) Afiya27 (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, there are indeed scholars who have reconstructed an Indo-European-proto-religion:

Zoroastrianism, founded (by Zoroaster, Zarathosht, tradition holds) in ca. 750 BCE, is an important ideological root of post-exilic Judaism, and therefore of all the Abrahamic religions. As discussed in the Overview, it is (along with the ancient Greek, Roman, Hindu, Norse, Celtic, Baltic, and Slavic mythologies) a descendent of the prehistoric, polytheistic Indo-European proto-religion.--http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/eden/progen.html

Part of the reason for the Indo-European religious diversity (in contrast to ATRs) is likely the fact that, for better or worse, Indo-Europeans lived at more of a crossroads of diverse ideas and lines of thought than did adherents of ATRs (who were "protected"/isolated by the Sahara, and, due to relatively low soil productivity, maintained lower population densities...for better or worse, ATRs retained their general integrity, while many IETRs were radically reconstituted by "outsiders"). Afiya27 (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You make some interesting points. Like I said, I look forward to reading and learning more. - IanCheesman (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

As Ian has correctly pointed out, there are many problems with linking religious beliefs to languages. For one thing, linguistic groups are actually often-times a very inaccurate indication of common ethno-racial descent, and not the opposite as Afiya has suggested. I'll give you a very simple and relevant example (one which I also tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to make on the history page): The Omotic-speaking groups of southern Ethiopia are comprised of Bantus and Nilotes, not "Afro-Asiatic stock". They originally came from West/Central Africa about 3000-4000 years ago in what's known as the Bantu expansion. Only later did their native Niger Congo languages begin to take on some characteristics of Afro-Asiatic languages due to sheer proximity with the Afro-Asiatic speaking peoples of Northeastern Africa. In other words, Omotic languages, though they're currently tentatively classified as Afro-Asiatic languages, are not really Afro-Asiatic languages at all but languages that have come to resemble certain nearby Afro-Asiatic languages through a sprachbund effect. Many linguists have caught on to this fact, and the most recent works on the subject actually completely exclude the Omotic languages from the Afro-Asiatic linguistic family, contrary to what the older Ehret books suggest. An even better example of what I mean is the case of African Americans who speak English as a mother tongue yet aren't of "Anglo-Saxon stock". One therefore has to compare a lot more than just linguistic data (and recent data at that) to arrive at an ethno-racial conclusion. The African traditional religion article, however, is definitely not the place to do that. Middayexpress (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

So you suggest lumping them all together in the kind of disorganized "soup" that existed on the page BEFORE my changes? Ehret's tradition makes ROUGH generalizations that I think are more valid than just suggesting that the traditions of a whole CONTINENT are just lumpable together as "African" when the likely founders of the religions had no idea of such a concept. Afiya27 (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now you're just putting words in my mouth. I do not and would never advocate lumping all religious traditions practiced in Africa under any one umbrella term, whether "African" or otherwise. I have too much respect for and knowledge of the continent and its myriad peoples to do that. All I was doing in my previous post was correcting a few errors in statements you made above, and letting Ian know that his initial impressions weren't in any way untoward or altogether wrong. That's all. Hardly the stuff of CAPS LOCK spasms. In fact, I don't mind your edits at all now that they're actually properly sourced (or at least mostly; I've removed a link to NationMaster encyclopedia since it gets a lot of its information from Wikipedia itself). Middayexpress (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Traditional, indiginous, tribal?

I suppose the terms "traditional", "indiginous", "tribal" should not be used in the article. I think these terms are all pejorative and stem from a mindset rooted in colonialism and eurocentrism. This article seems like Ghetto in which some religions have been locked away.

The term "traditional" just lumps distinct religions together that should be viewed on the same level with all other religions. This term contains the view that there are some advanced religions like christianity and islam and then there is the traditional ones. If you read Ehret's book, a very different picture emerges: There are five distinct religious traditions in Africa (Khoisan, Koman, Niger-Congo, Sudanic and Afrasan, another one, Aksumitic religion with Asian origins should also be mentioned). The "Mosaic" or "Abrahamic" religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) are a branch of the Afrasan religious tradition. The Egyption religion is a cross-breed of Afrasan and Sudanic religion. Why is there an article about "Traditional African religions", but no article about Eurasiatic traditional religions lumping together the belief systems of Koreans, Indians, ancient Romans and so on.

The term "indiginous" is used to distinguish certain cultures ("indiginous cultures") from other "non-indiginous" cultures. The article should not use it but discuss it for what it is: an unscientific, pejorative term that should be avoided.

The same holds for the term "tribal". To cite from Ehret's book: "Clearly, "tribe" is an appellation Europeans have reserved for non-European ethnic groups and nationalities and most especially those of Africa" (The Civilizations of Africa, p.7). The article now states that "African religious traditions are defined largely along community lines". In the light of Ehret's book, that is clearly not so: There are a number of distinct religions that can be described without referring to single ethnic groups. Since these are very old, there is a lot of variation, but they are distinct religions. Why does nobody call Judaism a tribal religion (or Taoism).

This pejorative treatment of most African religions can also be seen from the fact that neither Egyptian nor Meroitic nor Aksumitic religion is included here. This shows that double standards are applied here (there seems to be a distinction between "indigenous peoples" and "civilizations" and these terminologies come from that mindset).

I suggest, we first write distinct articles about each of these religions. Then we include referencdes to these in the "Religion in Africa"-article (that is now very poor) and give that article a more historical perspective, explaining the historic links between some of these religions. Let us give African religions their rightfull place inside that article. Material from "Traditional African Religions" should be moved to the articles about the single religions and to the "Religion in Africa" article. The article "Traditional African Religion" should be emptied, stating only that this term is used to lump distinct African religions together.Nannus (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added some material, mainly but not only from Ehret, who is the definitive source on the topic at the moment. I have concentrated on Section 1 and expanded it. I suppose sections 2 etc. need a lot of cleanup. I intend to move the stuff from section 2 into the "Religion in Africa" article and then integrate the section on the Abrahamic Religions found there under the Afrasan tradition, where it historically belongs. So much for today. Nannus (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

So I assume someone named Ehret wrote this article....

But seriously artiaoismcle is ridiculously bad... wtf is an afraisan? there are africans in northern and north eastern Africa but no Afraisians. two options. Fix the article or just delete it. vap (talk) 08:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Ehret is professor for African history at the University of California in Los angeles UCLA. He coined the term "Afrasan" as an alternative to the term "Afro-Asiatic". The older view of the Afro-Asiatic language family is that when agriculture wasw invented in the middle east, these people moved into northern Africa. It is now known that this view is wrong and it is an originally African language family with just one branch in Asia, the Semitic languages. To emphasize that it is not really an asiatic language family, Ehret uses the term Afrasan in his book "The Civilizations of Africa". The article has actually improved a lot since I have seen it the last time. I came here today to start including the relvant stuff from Ehret's fantastic book and find to my pleasure that somebody has already started doing so. There is potential for improvement, but a start has been made. Nannus (talk) 10:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes Ehert wrote the article since no actually African can read and write or study themselves we are left to assume Ehert is the only person in the entire globe who is an expert on religions in Africa which he . A. Doesn't practice, B. Was not raised with. C. Studies from a Western slant, D. Probably is not fluent in any African language. E. Visits Africa in his holidays from USA. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 08:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Is the Cushitic religion part of the Sudanic Tradition or not?

There seems to be a difference in oppinion between me and Middayexpress about the status of the Cushitic religion. I wrote into the article that it belongs to the Sudanic tradition and this was reverted. So let me justify my oppinion: In "The civilizations of Africa", Ehret writes (page 79): "The history of these southern Erythraites provides an intriguing example of the spread of religion without the existence of either missionaries or religious writings." (page 79). I understand this to mean that the Sudanic religion spread to the Cushitic people. The resulting religion, like the Sudanic religion, is a monotheistic religion, not a henotheistic one as the religion of the older Erythraites had been. Ehret writes: "The Cushitic system of clans with clan priest-chiefs ..., which derived from their ancient Afrasan cultural roots, still persisted as the basis of social loyalty and cooperation amon the proto-Cushites, but the belief i a clan deity lost its salience. In its place, and no doubt as a result of their long association with the Northern Dudanic peopels to theri immediate east, the early Cushites adopted the Dudanic concept of Divinity." I think it is justified, based on this citation, to say that the Cushitic religion is basically a branch of the Sudanic religion, retaining some Afro-Asiatic elements, and not the other way arround. The old main elemnet of Afrasan religion (belief in Clan deities) was replaced by the belief in a single god. That is a change of religion. Since some elements of the Afrasan religion (like priest-chiefs and the belief in dangerous spirits where retained, one can call it a syncretistic religion that inherited something from both sides, but I think the main element is Sudanic. So I think when I wrote this into the article, that was no original research.Nannus (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree. I don't think it is at all justified, especially based on the Ehret source, to say that "the Cushitic religion is basically a branch of the Sudanic religion". But before I explain why, let me quote Ehret's passage in full here for reference.

"The history of these southern Erythraites provides an intriguing example of the spread of religion without the existence of their missionaries or religious writings. The religious beliefs of the proto-Cushites, probably as early as the seventh millennium BCE, came to blend two distinct religious traditions. The Cushitic system of clans with the clan priest-chiefs, the *wap'er, which derived from their ancient Afrasan cultural roots still persisted as the basis of social loyalty and cooperation among the proto-Cushites, but the belief in a clan deity lost its salience. In its place, and no doubt as a result of their long association with the Northern Sudanic peoples to their immediate east, the early Cushites adopted the Sudanic concept of Divinity. They chose their own word for the new concept of spirit, expanding the meaning of the old Cushitic root word *waak'a for "sky" to apply to both "sky" and "Divinity". The *wap'er still had religious duties, but these duties came to be redirected toward Divinity. The Cushites retained the old Afrasan practice of attributing bad happenings to dangerous spirits, although they now sometimes also viewed evil as a Divine retribution."

As can be seen, the Ehret passage is about the early Cushites, not modern Cushitic-speakers. If we are talking about modern Cushitic speakers and their religious beliefs, then we would indicate that they follow mostly Abrahimic faiths since those are the religious traditions most adopted (not Sudanic ones). Also, Ehret makes it clear in that passage that these early Cushites had pre-existing Afrasan/Afro-Asiatic religious beliefs/traditions distinct from those of their Sudanic neighbors. Only later circa the seventh millennium BCE would the early Cushites adopt the Sudanic concept of Divinity into their existing belief system. It is therefore I think highly misleading to suggest that the adopted Sudanic concept of Divinity itself is part of the early Cushites' original Afrasan religion, when Ehret himself makes it clear that it is not but is instead completely distinct from the latter. Let's not lose sight of the fact that this Wikipedia article is about traditional i.e. indigenous religious traditions, not adopted religions or aspects thereof. Thus, if we are to discuss the actual ancient Afrasan religion of the proto-Cushites, then let's do that and not insist that, according to Ehret, the Sudanic concept of Divinity (which the early Cushites adopted after the fact) itself forms the core or even any part of their original Afrasan religion, when of course he has indicated the opposite: that it is actually part of an altogether separate, non-Afrasan religious tradition. Middayexpress (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

When I refer here to "Cushitic religion" I do not mean the Abrahamic religions, especially Islam, that are probably dominant among speakers of Cushitic religions today. As we are speaking of religious traditions here, this article has a historical perspective. The African religious landscape cannot be well understood without this historical perspective. So I think it is generally justified to include old and also extinct religions here (I don't know if this religion is extinct now, I guess it has been replaced by Islam in most areas, do you know anything about this or have sources?). The term "Cushitic religion" as I have used it here also was not meant to refer to the Afrasan religion of these people before the events described by Ehret in the citation above.

The citation by Ehret means that there was a change in religion: originally the (Proto-)Cushites belonged to a version of the Afrasan religion, with clan gods and henotheism. This religion is covered by the general description and I did not intend to give it a special treatment here. Then, under Sudanic influence, the religion changed. I want to describe in the article the particular religion that was the result of this change since this was something new and unique that deserves to be mentioned separately. If you don't like this religion to be called "Cushitic" (although it seems to have been the main religion among Cushitic peoples for several thousand years) , we could use another name, e.g. "Waak'a-Religion", or "Cushitic Waak'a-Religion" or "Afrasan-Sudanic Syncretism among Cushitic Peoples" or "Cushitic Sky-God Religion" or something like that. We can search the literature if there is an established term. Since there are still Cushitic people today (most of them probably Muslims), the term "Cushitic religion" may be misleading and may be irritating for Cushitic readers who belong to another religion. So maybe we should just find another term to avoid missunderstandings and irritations.Nannus (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that when you state "Cushitic religion", you are not referring to the Abrahamic traditions which the Cushites later adopted (neither was I, for the record). What you don't seem to understand is that, unlike the Abrahamic religions which the populations in the Horn adopted wholesale very early on, the Sudanic religions were never "adopted" by the Cushites; aspects of the former just came to influence aspects of the latter's original Afro-Asiatic religion. Specifically, per Ehret himself, the early Cushites' belief in a clan deity was replaced by the Sudanic concept of Divinity; not that the Sudanic concept of Divinity itself was the original Cushitic belief: "...the belief in a clan deity lost its salience. In its place, and no doubt as a result of their long association with the Northern Sudanic peoples to their immediate east, the early Cushites adopted the Sudanic concept of Divinity". You have also suggested that "the citation by Ehret means that there was a change in religion", when this is not at all the case since Ehret himself writes that "the religious beliefs of the proto-Cushites, probably as early as the seventh millennium BCE, came to blend two distinct religious traditions". Note that Ehret does not state either that Cushitic religious beliefs were a blend of the Sudanic and Afro-Asiatic traditions, but expressly that they came to be that way and only from the seventh millenium BCE onwards i.e. after the Cushites' abandoned their original belief in a clan deity (which was part & parcel of their original faith) in favor of what he describes as the Sudanic concept of Divinity. Also, this blend of two distinct religious traditions was brought about specifically due to the Cushites' prolonged contact with their Northern Sudanic neighbors to the east ("as a result of their long association with the Northern Sudanic peoples to their immediate east, the early Cushites adopted the Sudanic concept of Divinity"). This is no different to the early adoption of the Abrahamic faiths by the Cushites as a result of prolonged contact with Semitic peoples from the Near East; only in the case of the Abrahamic faiths, these new religions completely supplanted the Cushites' original belief system, whereas per Ehret, the Cushites' only adopted the singular concept of Divinity from their Sudanic neighbors. In fact, he indicates that the Cushites still kept right on attributing bad events to evil spirits as they had before, and that the clan-priest chief still retained religious duties but that these were now just redirected to Divinity: "The *wap'er still had religious duties, but these duties came to be redirected toward Divinity. The Cushites retained the old Afrasan practice of attributing bad happenings to dangerous spirits, although they now sometimes also viewed evil as a Divine retribution." I therefore must reiterate that it is misleading to suggest or in any way imply that the Cushitic religion was replaced by a Sudanic one since Ehret of course only indicates that the Cushites simply exchanged their pre-existing concept of a clan deity for the Sudanic concept of Divinity i.e. a "blend" of two distinct religious traditions, not a replacement of one by another. And even if it were a replacement, that would be no different to the early wholesale adoption of the Abrahamic faiths by Cushitic groups since these faiths aren't, after all, "indigenous" to the Cushites either nor are they treated as such in this article (although, unlike the completely distinct Sudanic religious traditions, the Abrahamic faiths at least also ultimately stem from common Afro-Asiatic religious traditions as the original Cushitic religious beliefs). Middayexpress (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

"Controversy"

Iam going to remove the section titled "Controversy". I think it does not belong into this article. I am saving it here so it may be put somewhere else.

Christian pastors in Nigeria have been involved in the torturing and killing of children accused of witchcraft. Over the past decade, over 1000 children have been murdered with some being set on fire. Church pastors, in an effort to distinguish from the competition, establish their credentials by accusing children of witchcraft. When repeatedly asked about the matter, the Church has refused to comment.

Nannus (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ehert did write this article since he is the main one talking

Almost 85% of the references in an entire article on Africa are the opinions and study of one man C Ehert. Now he aint even an African (he is white American from America). Does that matter, YES. Because I think the best people to tell you about cars are mechanics. The best person to tell you the ins and outs of being African is probably an African scholar. Now during colonialism one voice Tarzan got to speak about all things African (and that became the unchallengeable authority on African people - as if African people cannot speak about their own reality). So some plurality demands the inclusion of diverse opinions. Not one white guy from LA. Now is there a shortage of Africans? Kwesi Prah, Molefi Asante, Maulana Karenga, and I am guessing numerous others with deep insight into things like Libation like Kimani Nehusi. And religion isnt even my specialty but already I dug up all of these guys. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 08:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't evaluate people based on race. That would be, well, ignorant. We evaluate people by how well their ideas are received in the scholarly community, and that includes evaluation by African scholars. That said, I deleted almost all of the refs to Ehret, since he based his conclusions on linguistics, and other linguists reject his linguistics. Just by WP:WEIGHT we can't give so much credence to hypothetical religious reconstructions. — kwami (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

3 - 1 Editors have cited an issue with the Ehert weighty opinion (see talk page above). I would go far to call them well researched fringe theories, doesnt mean they are not nice to have in here but I am sorry but 80% of a page on African religion cannot be What Ehert (a linguist)thinks. Impossible. And while I was not the one who deleted it, you have gone and undone other edits. now before adding it back maybe we should use the talk page as it is a massive section on one mans opinions on someone elses religion. You could never in a million years do this anywhere else, try it here Judaism or Islam see WP:WEIGHT I repeat and agree with this statement: concepts depending solely on Ehret, whose linguistics has been debunked, and who's not an authority on religion. Also removing paragraphs which don't actually say anythin --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Halqh, I apologize for removing your edits. I didn't mean to. I was just so shocked by the willful removal of ALL of the other/original stuff based solely on someone's top-down STATEMENT suggesting that 'Ehret was debunked' (rather than solid reasoning/rationale as to why/how this is so given Ehret's fairly respectable credentials, etc). In my humble opinion, such actions are disrespectful, and inappropriate. I looked on the page of the guy who did it 'Kwam...' something ... It seems that he has some linguistic training. But, in my humble opinion, it's still very patronizing to think that, solely on that basis, he can just come in and do what he did without providing reasoned argument. As you said, would he try that on 'any other page ...'? Heck, he could have even just added the criticisms of Ehret's analysis to the TEXT (i.e. after the initial mention of Ehret therein)! That could've added wonderful perspective/nuance. Instead, he just comes in and makes those sweeping changes! I mean, honestly/technically, regardless of what others (like him) say, Chris Ehret is a tenured prof at UCLA last I checked. So his colleagues THERE must see SOME merit in him! I could see if he were some kind of non-degree'd amateur. But he's actually 'paid his academic dues'! If people know of others who have differing views from Ehret, feel free to add them within the context of the text! That'd be great in terms of offering diverse perspectives. But, in my view, it's not cool or fair to erase Ehret 'just because' his views are THUS FAR the only ones presented/addressed! If one professional linguist (with tenure at a reputable university, etc) happens to have published a lot on a topic (compared to others), that is what it is! If people know of others who have different perspectives, feel free to add those! But don't just come by, offer up a single flippant comment, and then erase EVERYTHING! That doesn't make any sense to me! Before the addition of Ehret's lens, this page was a junk yard of random, jumbled, confused information on African Traditional religion. The addition of Ehret's style of linking the various traditions to their linguistic-roots at least added a DEGREE of nuance!

I see that 'Kwam ...' decided to retain the linguistic categorization for the Niger-Congo family traditions ... but none of the others ... Am I to assume from that that he agrees with Ehret's support of the idea that that mega-family exists (but not the others?)? I don't get it ... If you're going to dump on Ehret's approach, why even keep the label of the category as 'Niger-Congo'? Doing so implies that that's the only language-family in Africa that gave rise to a spiritual tradition! ... That's GOT to be inaccurate! And not just because 'Chris Ehret says so'! In other words, if 'Ehret's approach has been debunked', why not just randomly fling out examples of 'African traditions' SANS language-association? Why keep things in such piecemeal fashion with little to NO justification beyond a CLEAR dislike for Ehret('s analysis)? Because, again, in my humble opinion, disagreement with Ehret's rationale/approach could have simply been added to the text WITH the alternative rationales/approaches of Ehret's critics on this topic (PLUS references)! That would have actually been helpful! Afiya27 (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The issue is Weight, not if he has merit. I think we should discuss how to not lose a big piece of info but also make sure Weight is not violated. I think we can probably add it to his page, that means at least the information will not be lost. Cuz someone took the time to add it and I respect that. But far too much weight, regardless of how well researched it is. suggestions?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "Niger-Congo religion" is probably a meaningless concept, about as worthwhile as "Niger-Congo people", as if there were some kind of cultural connection among them. I only left it in because there were other refs involved, ones I knew nothing about. Replaced it with "West African", which in this context means the same thing.

Yes, Ehret is tenured. But other linguists don't think much of him: he doesn't bother to cite nor, it seems, even consider other research in the language families he postulates, for example, and no one person can do it all. And now he's extended his generally unaccepted linguistic conclusions to comparative religion, which isn't even his field. — kwami (talk) 08:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there any link to other academics refuting his theories?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 09:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Kwamikagami, So you're saying that you're perfectly fine with information you have NO idea about. It's just that when it comes to Ehret, because you recognize the name (and dislike your impression thereof), any and everything he writes deserves wholesale erasure??? As Halqh suggests, can you at least link us to a site that offers a more elaborated critique of him? Or do you expect us to just go along with this because YOU say so? Wouldn't that be mimic-ing what you claim to dislike about what Ehret does??? If that's the case, just as this section of the discussion page suggests that that whole section of the cite was only attributable to the views/intellectual-aesthetics of Chris Ehret, NOW it'll be say-able that the erasure of the section is mainly attributable to YOUR views/intellectual-aesthetics! What's the difference? Why do YOU get to trump Ehret based solely on your word? What CITATIONS can you link us to? There's not even any indication of your critique on Christopher Ehret's page! So why should we believe you? Afiya27 (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Um, yeah. I tend to edit things I know something about, and tend to leave alone those things I don't know anything about. I leave them to people who know something about them. Would you prefer that I edited things I knew nothing about? And the fact I haven't reworked Ehret's page is utterly irrelevant to this article. There are millions of WP articles that I haven't edited.

BTW, there's some criticism of Ehret at Nilo-Saharan languages#Ehret 1984 (1989, 2001). He's radically reworked that family, with consequently radical implications for linguistic history, but no-one follows him. Hardly anyone even bothers to debunk him (Blench is an exception), since there's nothing to debunk: it's just unsupported speculation presented as theory, speculation which fails to even respond to the criticisms leveled against it over the years. — kwami (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Kwamikagami, Okay. So then now my understanding of the controversy surrounding Ehret is that it has to do with things he's done WITHIN the more-or-less collectively-agreed-upon (amongst members of the African linguistic community) 'Joseph Greenburg-ian' language families of Africa. Hence, Ehret's assertions of the EXISTENCE of the language families 'Afro-Asiatic, Niger-Congo, Khoisan, and Nilo-Saharan' aren't, in and of themselves, the core of your and/or his other peers' 'beef' with him. Correct? .... Because, if that's the case, would I be correct in presuming that the core reason you erased the language-family categorization scheme is more because the details therein were ALL attributed to Ehret's ideas? In other words, if the page had been arranged that way due to the ideas of OTHERS, who were, in you and your peers' judgment, more linguist-community-accountable scholars, you'd have been okay with it? ... I ask because my impression of the existence of Wikipedia pages such as proto-Indo-European religion and/or books such as 'Black God: The Afroasiatic Roots of the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Religions' by Julian Baldick (see Amazon) is that, although it might not be the most 'politically correct' practice in the field of linguistics, people OTHER than Ehret have applied similar logic within the identity space of being 'respected/respectable linguists who desire to make evidence-based arguments that are accountable to the evaluation-standards of their peers' (i.e. something you seem to be intimating that Ehret doesn't do?, and/or has stopped doing post-tenure?). Afiya27 (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I have moved the well referenced undue weight text to his page. I hope one his fans can go there and sort it out. I am no fan of his but also think moving it there is the best solution.Christopher Ehert--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Afiya, one of the problems is reification of language families. Modern cultures are generally not going to follow language-family boundaries very well; certainly when linguists change their minds on which languages belong in a family, the speakers of those languages don't change their culture! When the Kadugli languages were removed from Niger-Congo, Kadugli speakers didn't abandon monotheism. Take Mande: there's legitimate debate over whether these are Niger-Congo or not, but that has nothing to do with which religion they practice. Rather than saying someone is monotheistic because they speak a Niger-Congo language, we should say they're monotheistic because they follow a monotheistic religion.

What Ehret is attempting to do is to reconstruct the ancestral religions of Africa based on linguistic evidence. If a bunch of people have similar religious beliefs, and speak related languages, one may infer that their linguistic ancestor had similar religious beliefs. That, however, is a historical question that is rather parenthetical to this article. Although extremely interesting IMO, even if Ehret were demonstrated to be correct it wouldn't warrant the amount of space it's been given here: It should be a section on religious reconstruction, not the basis for the entire article. Secondly, linguistic reconstructions are highly sensitive to the classification one uses. Since other linguists do not accept Ehret's classifications, his linguistic conclusions are thrown in doubt. And without his linguistics, what's he doing here? He's not an authority on African religion. — kwami (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I think your point is super valid. When they finally re-classify these unknown languages it will not alter their religion. Language classification is a funny field anyway. They must be some other experts who can add to the article that we can reference. I only know Opodu from Ghana.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 07:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Semitic as part of Afro-Asiatic/Afrasan

Given that Semitic religion also started as henotheistic (with plenty of evidence surviving in current religious books), isn't there any data on the relation between Semitic religion and the other (linguistic) branches? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.107.33.185 (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure! Try this book: "Black God: The Afroasiatic Roots of the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Religions" by Julian Baldick ... It's a good start. Afiya27 (talk) 05:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Egyptian/Nubian Religion

Why are these two not included as part of the African religion page? Egypt and Nubia are in Africa. Africans practice these traditions. Not griping as I really do not care, I'm just curious as to why these are always excluded (and any of these practices for weaponry, culture, etc) as being a part of African classification?