Talk:Afrocentricity/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Ancient Egyptian was not Semitic with citation[edit]

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

Ethiopia and Sudan are not part of North Africa, they are sub-saharan countries.
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[edit]

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[edit]

"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[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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

"Semitic"[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

"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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Racial projection[edit]

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.[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. 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[edit]

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[edit]

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.[citation needed]

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

Egypt Section extremely onesided[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Why is it that the Afrocentrics never seem to use Haplogroups or skull analyses in their arguments? The claim the early civilizations in Europe were all black. Where are all these ancient black skeletons in Europe? Why do Europeans have such a low percentage of black African DNA? They claim the Middle East was black. Jesus was black. Buddha was black. Everyone was black! But DNA does not agree with them! The claim whites come from albinos. The absolute truth is, Afrocentric beliefs are just as racist as Eurocentricity!


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 (talkcontribs) 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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

DNA taken from an ancient Phoenician by National Geographic, shows that he had Haplogroup J2 which is an indigenous Haplogroup of the Middle East. Seeing the Canaanites were the ancestors of the Phoenicians, it is likely that they to carried Haplogroup J2. Also the Phoenicians left the calling card at the settlements they established, Haplogroup J2. So were the Phoenicians black? Not likely!

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 they 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 Ham's brothers, not Cush's. If Ham being "stricken in his skin" refers to him becoming black, by 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 believe 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)

White supremacist/Eurocentrist once thought they were physically superior to blacks. They thought they could out run, out box, out bat , out jump the black. Like intellectual superiority, this was an ingrained notion, a sacred cow, within western white culture. It was so ingrained that when boxer Jack Johnson (boxer) won the Heavyweight Champion of the World in 1910, white America's psyche was rocked. Their sacred cow was literally pummelled and slaughtered. Whites felt humiliated. They began to attack African Americans. Twenty three African Americans lost their lives. The impact was not just felt in America. In Europe, Jack Johnson (boxer) was banned in Sweden. Today, to think and say whites are physically superior to blacks is to make a joke. This IQ debate is a continuation of Eurocentric/supremacist drivel, to hold on to the sacred cow of black inferiority and the need to feel superior to others.

Asian IQ in North America was pretty low at the turn of the 20th century but a hundred years later it is higher than whites and blacks. So what happened? Asians evolved into higher beings, with superior intellect?

IQ test requires a certain amount of academic acculturation, familiarity with testing, an understanding of academic verbiage, and a certain mode of thinking, acculturation, mode of thinking, verbiage which African Americans regard as "acting white", "selling out", a denigration of their identity and culture.

Plus in America, the ethnic group that has made the greatest attainment in education are African immigrants, surpassing Asians and most white immigrants.

TD should be the last person to question and comment on the IQs of others. He has serious comprehension issues, which would indicate a two digit IQ, below average.

I never said whites obsess about Afrocentrism. I said Eurocentrist and AH obsess about Afrocentrism.

No Afrocentrist has said that Europe stole her culture from Africa. G.M. James has said that Greeks stole their science philosophy from Egypt.

No Afrocentrist has made the claim in "prehistoric" times Africans came to the new world to teach Toltec how to build pyramids. I don't think TD knows what prehistoric means? The proper word would be precolumbian. The Africans doing the teaching would not have reached that state of technological innovation, in prehistoric times.

TD provides quite a bit of comic relief. DiamondRat 06:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The Gold Seal Campaign[edit]

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)[edit]

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[edit]

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)
I doubt he is your brother. Wht delete a section which is about alternative history novels because of the absurd claim that it is POV. The ancient Greco-Roman world had a number of inconsistent ideas about skin-colour, none of which were very ideologically important. See Polemon's Physiognomica. Paul B 15:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The editor is using "brother" as African Americans use it in their language. In your society you may use it in the sense of verifiable bloodlines. Because you don't use it in that sense, does not mean its not valid. More Eurocentric drivel. The need to feel better than others. The need to be the center of things. Their music is classical(standard) music. Their civilization is classical (standard). Drivel! Drivel! Drivel!

Black folks are seen clearly as more intelligent than the northern Germanic tribes by the Greeks and Romans. Aristotle wrote,

"The races that live in cold regions and those of Europe are full of courage and passion but somewhat lacking in skill and brainpower...."

Roman architect, Vitruvius Pollio wrote,

"Northern people steep in a thick climate in a reluctant air, are chilled by the damp and have sluggish minds...."

"Now Southern peoples are of acute intelligence and infinite resource...."

Kush was never conquered by Rome and was a thorn in Rome's side. Romans and Greeks had great respect for them. There were black slaves in Rome but very few.

The POV alternate history implies that Afrocentrism seeks to create a black supremacist version of world history, and it express anti islamic sentiments. It implies Afrocentrism is nothing but fiction.

Again the fiction is not without precedent. When Rome decline, Europe was in her Middle Age. Around 1200 the pre-eminent civilization was from the Middle East and Islamic. They thwarted the crusaders in the holy land. The Moors took southern Spain. Eastern and Central Europe were repeatedly being invaded by Asiatic Mongols(the other pre-eminent power), who would sell the white slavic populations to muslim slave traders, a very profitable trade. In fact the gun was an Arab invention. The primitive gun was called the madhfa. The major tool of European Hegemony was a Muslim invention.

I think Paul Barlow is offended that his Germanic ancestors were referred to as "savages", "cannibals", "barbarians", and not too bright ("sluggish minds") by Europe's pre-eminent civilization in ancient times. Ironic, the same terminology used to describe Africans by his imperialist grand-daddy was once used to describe his Germanic ancestors.

Polemon's Physiognomica is not a concern to me. Wikipedian policy expressly states "show don't tell." Reading Frank M. Snowden, Jr. is adequate for me. Frank M. Snowden, Jr. has reference hundreds of Greek and Roman sources. He could also read those sources in the original language. His passing is truly a loss to African Historiography. I will be crucified for saying this but he was "Afrocentric" in his own way. The "brother's" work is invaluable to African historiography in the ancient world, may he rest in peace. DiamondRat 06:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I know perfectly well how the editor was using the word brother. It's an affectation, and nothing to do with countering "Eurocentrism", since the very concept of referring to non-relatives as brothers in this way was imported from European culture (Quakers, trades-unionists, radicals etc)! You are not displaying the vaunted intellectual prowess you attribute to your ancestors. If you had done you would know that Polemon says exactly the same thing as your other sources. Kush was of almost no significance to the Romans, apart from some trading relations. They were never any kind of a threat to them, unlike the Celts (in their early history), the Persians and, yes, the Germans (later on). Why would I be offended that some of my ancestors were referred to as "savages"? Everyone's ancestors were "savages" at some point in history. Ethnic point-scoring is infantile. Most of what you say here is completely beside the point. Alternate history literature is a well known genre, which creates imaginary events that might have happened (like Nazis winning WW2 etc). These novels imagine the possibility of African-centred world empires, You have provided zero evidence that there is anything 'POV' about that. Paul B 08:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


If you knew perfectly well how brother is used, why did you say, "I doubt he is your brother"? You are displaying the sluggish trait attributed to your ancient ancestors. I don't buy your argument that the use of brother for non-relative is western or European. The concept is found all over Africa: An Ashante would say, minua bema for brother, minua ba for sister;In Amharic, wendimay for brother, ehitay for sister;Swahili dugu for brother, eaea for sister. The concept is not alien to Africa, The concept did not originate in Europe.

It was never a vaunt of the intellect of my ancestors. You are interpreting it as such. I hope to purge the word "vaunted" from my mind. The word should not be used to charm a woman. Who uses such a word to communicate? I never said the Kushites were my ancestors. My roots are in West Africa. Based on my phenotype more likely Yoruba/Edo stock. Kushites, based on phenotype are more related to Dinka/Nuer peoples of Southern Sudan.

Trying to whitewash history are we? The German/Celtic tribes were no threat to Rome. Rome was threatened from within. She was decaying from within. The Germanic tribes were vultures seeking carrion. The German tribes were a nuisance at the Western front only. Persia was a threat at the Eastern front. Kush was a threat at the Southern front. Kush would continuosly attack Roman Egyptian territories. Kush and Persia were organize states with standing armies. Those Germanic tribes weren't. At her imperial might, she could never conquer Kush. Kush fought Rome to the eventual end of Rome.

North Africans are not Kush.

You may label your ancestors as savages. I would never label my ancestors savages, such a loaded word. I don't accept your linear progression of from savage to non-savage. Who is more savage old Germanic tribes who practice cannibalism or Nazi Germany?

The author of the work is not afrocentric. No where in the book, it mentions Afrocentrism. The work and author have never been cited among and of being Afrocentric. It violates wikipedia's rule of "no original research." It is a POV joke. DiamondRat 01:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Old germanic tribes, obviously. The Nazis weren't savages; they were quite civilized. They were also evil. Being evil and being civilized are not mutually exclusive; indeed, the USSR proved that even under despotic leadership in a messed up society you can accomplish great things (well, assuming you have Nazi rocket scientists to help you). Arguably, the Soviets and the Japanese were savages comparitively; the US, Germany, and the UK did not engage in the looting or rapine the Soviet Union and Japanese did (the Germans did also commit genocide in the same way as the Soviet Union and Japanese did). Today, those countries are all allies, if rather tenous ones (Russia doesn't get along with the other Western nations very well). The Germanic tribes were something of a threat to Rome; Hannibal beat the Romans down pretty well using the "savages", and eventually they caused the collapse of the Roman empire (though it was already in decline by that point). It is worth noting that the Romans considered everyone who WASN'T Roman beneath them; the Egyptians and Greeks had somewhat special status (honrary Romans, if you will, though both were controlled by Rome at the height of its power) but everyone else was a "barbarian" (though it didn't have quite the same connotations necessarily as we do today). They would have called the Chinese such, even though the Chinese were a pretty potent rival civilization with roughly comparable technological achievements.
Also, just because a book doesn't say it is afrocentrist doesn't mean it isn't; intelligent design proponents try to distance themselves from the word "creationist", despite being creationists. Titanium Dragon 09:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

To say that the Germanic tribes were not a threat is hilarious. Do you have any notion about Roman history? Remember the Battle of Teuterburg Forest? No threat? What about the Alemanni? Why was Rome thrown into a crisis when 3 Germanic tribes united and invaded Italy? Rome tried multiple times to conquer and subjugate the area we now know as Germany, but failed. However this Kush you speak of, proved to be no threat to Rome, and I have never heard of any serious harassment of Rome's southern and eastern borders by Kush. Where the HELL did you get the idea that the Germanic tribes were cannibalistic?! Please make sure you are well versed in a subject before you make asanine comments like that one! Canutethegreat 23:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Some sections are far too long[edit]

in the interest of making this a better article consider, spliting topics, or adding sub-chaps Afrocentrism and the academy and History of Afrocentrism (is 2long)--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 01:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The "disputed" tag[edit]

Why is the tag constantly being removed? It is obvious from these discussion pages alone that the page/article is HIGHLY disputed for a variety of reasons. Both in terms of neutrality, and in terms of factual accuracy. Either the article needs a MAJOR clean-up (primarily in terms of POV), or the tag should remain... 16 July 2007

It must be the work of some afrocentric administrator, most probably Ezeu, who removes tags from all articles where these topics are contested.
Right, Mariam, so he removes them because he's "Afrocentrist"? That must mean that the objection is that the article is biassed in favour of Afrocentrism. But hang on! Many people who have complained object that it is biassed against Afrocentrism. So what exactly is the issue? Paul B 14:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The lead section has been changed[edit]

It now reflects the scholarly consensus that Afrocentrism is pseudoscience. http://skepdic.com/afrocent.html This definition also has a reliable source. MoritzB 19:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

^Isn't a reliable source to describe an entire academic approach, this is covered in the article.. No need to try and undermine the entire article with some obscure, POV source from some website. You wouldn't even be able to use this as a reference in a high school essay.Taharqa 02:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You make the unverified claim that Afrocentrism is something other than pseudoscience. It isn't. Your claim is debunked in the book published by Robert Todd Carroll, PhD.
MoritzB 06:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Robert Carroll is entitled to his view, but that does not make it fact, anymore than it makes his opinions of all the other subjects he discusses fact. Paul B 08:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Your ::personal opinion:: of the definion of Afrocentrism is not a fact. Carroll's book is a reliable source and consequently his definition should be used.
MoritzB 09:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
You do not understand the concept of a Reliable Source. It does not mean that all opinions expressed in them can be presented as truth. The Washington Post is a reliable source, but also gets things wrong sometimes, like all newspapers, and also expresses opinions, which cannot be presented as if they were facts. The Skeptic's Dictionary is one person's personal opinion, that's all. Reliable sources can also contradict one another. The Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, defines Afrocentrism as follows "Afrocentrism - cultural and political movement whose mainly African American adherents regard themselves and all other blacks as syncretic Africans and believe that their worldview should positively reflect traditional African values." They say nothing about "pseudoscience", but they do say that it has had "significant opposition from mainstream scholars who charge it with historical inaccuracy, scholarly ineptitude, and racism". That's a balanced presentation. Paul B 09:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The article deserves a balanced lead section and therefore both opinions of Afrocentrism need to presented. Especially because Afrocentrism is regarded as pseudoscience by reputable academicians.
You should also note that Encyclopedia Britannica did not describe Afrocentrism as science. It is a political movement, nothing more.
MoritzB 09:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course it's not a "science". No-one ever said it was. Actually Carroll never say's it was "pseudoscientific" either. You have misqouted him. He says "pseudohistorical". However, it is more than just a political movement. Part of the problem of definition is that "it" encompasses a wide variety of views. It's easy to quote from nutty Melanin Theorists and say all this is nonsense. It's more difficult to grapple with the more problematic questions about the definition of "African" and the history of cultural influences. Paul B 10:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Yet the Afrocentrists also dabble in the field of science saying that the Egyptians were black, Blacks are more intelligent because of melanin etc.
I corrected the Carroll quotation.
MoritzB 12:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


^^The point is that you can't pass these opinions off as fact ir give them priority over other opinions. They are all to be expressed neutrally in the article, no need whatsoever to put one opinion in the intro..No one for one, has proved what the Egyptians were, race doesn't exist, Black = dark skin, and surely they were Africans.. That's besides the point tho.. And the Melanin theory is bunk, but let it be covered in the article.. Also, these crazy theories you cite cannot be attributed to Afrocentrism, but the people who adhere to such theories. Be specific, you're generalizing an entire approach.. I've never read that melanin theory repeated too many times, so please provide a few examples of afrocentrics using this argument for the ancient Egyptians or whoever else. From what I know, that's Crests theory and she doesn't apply it to ancient egypt.Taharqa 17:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

MoritzB, you seem to be biased against all African centered perspectives and you bring this way of thinking to wikipedia, pushing your views into articles. Not cool.Taharqa 13:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL, I am against Afrocentrists, not Black people. The Afrocentrists who think that Ancient Egyptians could fly and were quantum physicists ARE delusional. And I did not even mention you, Taharqa. I don't even know your race.
MoritzB 06:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

^Which testifies to your bias as this is POV-pushing, which you have openly stated. Nothing wrong with having a POV, but to use it to prove a point in an article's intro is wrong. I agree that such claims are ridiculous, but you seem to apply it to "all" or even many afrocentrists, when not one example is noted. Too much generalizing and I still haven't figured out how the majority of people define the term and how it can apply to so many people with in the said discipline.Taharqa 05:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Afrocentric bias in the article[edit]

The following paragraph is a good example: This Afrocentric view finds itself in direct opposition to the conclusions of Eurocentric scholars such as British historian Arnold Toynbee, who regarded the ancient Egyptian cultural sphere as having died out without leaving a successor, and who derided as "myth" the idea that Egypt was the "origin of Western civilization." However, there are numerous accounts in the historical record dating back several centuries wherein scholars have written of an Egypt and its contributions to Mediterranean civilizations.

The article says that Toynbee is "Eurocentric" which is a pejorative term used to describe historians who are not objective and biased against non-European civilizations. The article implies that Toynbee was wrong. However, that is just the Afrocentric POV.

MoritzB 12:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


Excuse me? It is a Eurocentric point of view to defend his views.. He was indeed Eurocentric and I will quote him:


When we classify mankind by colour, the only one of the primary races... Which has not made a creative contribution to any of our 21 civilizations is the black race.('The Study of History', Vol 1, as quoted in Jackson: 1972:184)Taharqa 22:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The established view is that Egypt was not the cradle of civilization unlike the Afrocentrists claim. That title belongs to Sumer and the foundations of Western civilization were laid in Greece and Rome. http://www.rhodes.edu/4799.asp
MoritzB 14:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

What does that have to do with Toynbee being Eurocentric? You like to see yourself. "the foundations of Western civilization were laid in Greece and Rome", who were influenced by Egyptians. Omniposcent 23:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Over-emphasis on "Mythology" in this article[edit]

This article ha clearly been edited from the perspective that Afrocentricism is nothing more than a mythological construct, when in truth there are only certain components or schools of Afrocentric thought for which this criticism is fair. Note, for example, that the entire Afrocentric perspective receives the "skeptic" treatment in the first paragraph of this article. This sort of criticism, from only one individual, should absolutely be moved down to the "Criticism" section of the article.

Also, there are no doubt different varieties, and the criticisms expressed in this article only apply to those varieties which teach mistruth for the sake of a social or political agenda. On the other hand, there is no doubt a school of Afrocentric thought that simply asserts that Africa has a central role in world history and culture, as the article's title suggests. For example, Egypt, Timbuktu, Ethiopia, and other parts of Africa clearly preceded European civilization in their cultural greatness and sophistication.

Say what you will, but I think that the tone of this article at many points is inappropriate and quite disparaging to sober, fact-driven Afrocentric though. Thomasmallen 19:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that a "significant minority" of Afrocentrist support racist and totally pseudoscientific Black Supremacist theories and these theories are taught in American schools and universities. This fact has made the claims of these fringe academics notable enough to be featured in a Time article.
And as Afrocentrist claims are notable just for their racism and pseudoscientificity I think the article should focus on these aspects.
MoritzB 21:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but they should be focused primarily in the "Criticism" sections. I think everyone is in agreement that the "Skeptics Dictionary" part deserved a less prominent position than the second sentence of the article. Thomasmallen 15:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that Afrocentrism is so soundly rejected by so many people, the criticism should probably not be sectioned off but rather integrated into the article; the reason is that the criticism would look very choppy, but integrated flows much better into the article. Moreover, the criticism section is likely to end up as long as the rest of the article put together, and as the racist overtones and rejection by experts is a lot of what makes it notable, I think it is better integrated into the article. Titanium Dragon 10:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


^That defends on who you let define "afrocentrism", since afrocentrists themselves contend that it has nothing to do with reverse racist pseudo-science, but is a discipline which seeks to see Africa in a proper light to world contribution. Any black academic with a a faulty premise seems to be deemed "afrocentric", which is sort of a blanket term with no definitive value, like race. We need to apply the definition to those who created the word and discipline. Which is why we have a criticism section and the afrocentric perspective separated. I know how a lot of this works. Integrating it is almost an effort to discredit every claim afrocentrists make. We'll have a claim made by a noted afrocentrist, then immediately after someone writes the so typical, "however, many disagree with this and that, blah blah. I gives priority to criticism over the entire article and leads readers to believe the rebuttals and not think for themselves. The criticism so far is redundant, I've never even heard about afrocentric claims of flying machines in Egypt, etc.. These are fringe theories that barely surface, I have no idea why some of these nonsense claims are applied to an entire approach to researchingTaharqa 05:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That's like the Ku Klux Klan saying they aren't anti-black, they're pro-white. And yes, white supremecists OFTEN use such language. Why? Because it is more socially acceptable. However, we are not a font of propaganda; we should report things as they are, not as they want to be presented, and given credible sources outside of Afrocentrism describe it as such, it should be described as such, the same way we describe the Ku Klux Klan as promoting racism. We should NOT apply the word of Afrocentrists precisely for this reason; we should say how they describe themselves, but we should also say how others describe them, as that is more important. People do NOT have the right to choose how they are presented on Wikipedia. Titanium Dragon 06:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What? Are we seriously comparing Afrocentrism to the KKK? Sorry, that won't work and the fact that Afrocentric theory is taught in school while Nazism isn't testifies to the lack of comparison. There is even debate over the validity of Eurocentrism vs. Afrocentrism. As far as people not having the right to represent themselves on wikipedia is nonsense. Criticism is noted, but the article isn't about criticism. It is describing what Afrocentrism is and the people who can best describe it to you are those who created the word and practice the discipline. As far a "reporting things the way they are", again, that is subjective, the way things are come from different perspectives, which is why there is a criticism section. If there is a reliable source that testifies to a particular view, then it should be presented, period. One thing I do know about wikipedia is that it aims for neutrality, and it is not neutral to propose littering random criticism all over the page, especially when a lot of it is POV. Afrocentrism in my opinion definitely does not promote racism in any way shape, or form, it is a response to racism and extremists take it too far some times. How others describe it varies immensely. Some describe it as racist, and their views are in the article, afrocentrists say otherwise, and their views are in the article. No one has priority over another, period. Outsiders have no better insight on it than insiders and anybody can be affected by bias.


Suggested reading:

Building Bridges to Afrocentrism

AFROCENTRISM: The Argument We're Really Having Taharqa 18:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not comparing Afrocentrism to the KKK; I was pointing out the flaw in your argument. You said that we should let the Afrocentrists self-identify, but we obviously don't let the KKK do that, and nor should we let anyone else do so because that is in complete contradiction with the NPOV policy we have. Afrocentrism is a racist idealogy, so is comparable to white supremacy.
First off, reading the article from the University of Pennsylvania, it points out that Afrocentrism is racist bunk invented to inflate the self-image of African Americans. Ancient Egyptians weren't black, they were Egyptian. Afrocentrism comes up with completely inaccurate claims - Greek threft of knowledge, Egypt being the origin of a lot of stuff it wasn't the origin of, ect. Basically, that article says that they need to basically fix Afrocentrism without calling it is racist nonsense directly.
Fundamentally, it is not acknowledged as valid by credible people in the field because it is racist mythology. Yes, there are some who describe themselves as Afrocentrist who deny they are trying to be exactly that, but just because a white supremecist claims that they aren't anti-black that doesn't mean that we should put that forward as the primary point for white supremacist articles.
Not acknowledging that it consists of misconceptions, exaggerations, racist mythology, and is a way to make blacks feel better about themselves would be dishonest and would not be NPOV, as that is the viewpoint of the vast majority of the relevant fields. Titanium Dragon 01:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well let me point out the flaw in your argument. Using the KKK as a comparative example IS considered "comparing", and this is your point of view. Nothing here violates NPOV, so please don't throw that in my face as there are 2 sections devoted to criticism. This is a format seen through out wikipedia. Also, I really and honestly couldn't care less about your opinion on afrocentrism, please see Wikipedia reliable sources, in which you are not one so your opinion really doesn't hold that much weight and I actually totally disagree with you and feel that such blanketing is rooted in Eurocentric discourse. Afrocentrism and "white supremacy" are two different things, the polar opposite of white supremacy is Black supremacy, so you again fall short. What the author who represents the University of Pennsylvania is doing is pushing their own point of view and has nothing at all to do with why the term was coined and practiced, as the University did not invent the term nor are they the driving force behind it, but have researched it and drew a conclusion. For another point of view merely read those articles I presented which gives a more neutral point of view, which is the goal of wikipedia, not to slander in which you seem so eager to do, instead of seeking neutrality, you disregard every other point of view in favor of your own, which you have openly stated, which is not allowed here.


Telling me that Ancient Egyptians weren't "black" is useless and POV-pushing, again, I did not ask for your opinion and to simplify it by saying "they were just Egyptian from the very start" is more dishonest than anything else. Until you can tell me why southern predynastic and early dynastic Egyptians shared more affinities with Kerma Nubians (Brace 2007, Keita 2005,1993) and why they had tropical body plans similar to other Nile Valley and East Africans (Robbins, 1983,Zakrzewski, 2003), why they spoke an African language that emerged in the south of Egypt(Ehret, Igor Diakonoff and Lionel Bender), lived and migrated from inside of Africa,(Trigger, Shaw, etc.) and still not have any relationship to the "black" people further south, then I suggest you take your Eurocentric, take Egypt out of Africa discourse elsewhere.

Even the most renowned Afrocentric critic cited in this article had this to say:

Recent work on skeletons and DNA suggests that the people who settled in the Nile valley, like all of humankind, came from somewhere south of the Sahara; they were not (as some nineteenth-century scholars had supposed) invaders from the North. See Bruce G. Trigger, "The Rise of Civilization in Egypt," Cambridge History of Africa (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1982), vol I, pp 489-90; S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54 - Mary Lefkowitz http://www.historyplace.com/pointsofview/not-out.htm

Renowned Egyptologist Frank Yurco stated:

Among the foreigners, the Nubians were closest ethnically to the Egyptians. In the late predynastic period (c. 3700-3150 B.C.E.), the Nubians shared the same culture as the Egyptians and even evolved the same pharaonic political structure. Frank Yurco ("WERE THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS BLACK OR WHITE?")

^Neither hardly being afrocentric so those that scream "afrocentric" in reference to Egypt and Africa are merely pleading to ignorance. The other stuff I can understand. But Afrocentrists in general just wish people would keep their dirty paws off of Africa, especially European interlopers who have nothing to do with Africa, even if there was Near Eastern influence in some parts. In any event, definition of "Black":

Black person - a person with dark skin who comes from Africa (or whose ancestors came from Africa)

^"Egyptian" isn't a skin tone that indicates dark or light complexion, and last time I checked, Egypt is in Africa so your point is null n void... If they weren't black, neither were Nubians, if Nubians weren't black, neither are Sahelians, if Sahelians aren't black, neither are Westcentral Africans and so on until Black just doesn't exist, I can't take the simple appellation, "they were just Egyptian" seriously as it creates a false dichotomy between them and Nubians, which is demonstrable wrong, period.

Anyways, no one has censored these criticisms of Afrocentrism, again, there are two criticism sections where you can rant on all day about how much Afrocentrism is a racist pseudo-science only created to appease African-Americans and has nothing to do with fighting oppression, academic racism, underrepresentation, self-determination, and a right for one to tell their own story. I personally think that is all crap and a way to undermine any African scholarship which exposes the fallacies of Eurocentrism or has views that threaten the established dogmas. These are ad hominems and no evidence of this besides silly accounts of ancient hand gliders and someone's opinion has been presented so no one can attack the arguments and pin point exactly what is racist about the thought pattern and what African-Americans have to do with it. It is racist in my opinion to accuse claims of African achievement as racist, since it implies that Africans haven't achieved anything. Outside of the Nile valley, the Mali empire, Ghana empire, Songhai Empire, etc. etc. would all beg to differ, as would any intelligent student or scholar of Africa. Anyways, please refrain from giving me your redundant opinion, especially ones you are unable to support. Thank you..Taharqa 19:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. Thomasmallen 04:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
You fail. Here's why: you define blacks as "people from Africa". According your defintion, every single human in existance is black. Thus, your definition is worthless. Saying that Egyptians came from sub-saharan Africa is to say they are human; every single person came from sub-saharan Africa at some point or another.
Aborigines from Australia are a completely different race from people in sub-saharan Africa; just because their skin tones are similar doesn't mean they're at all related. Many people from Japan have as white of skin as I do, but we're different races. What race fundamentally is is actually simply "variant subpopulation". Afrocentrists try to claim Egyptians as a part of their "race", but the reality it is that they simply aren't a part of their variant subpopulation. They were their own subpopulation, which interbred somewhat with africans, as well as with people from Europe and the Middle East, though the European influence was largely later on in their history. However, as people were much more isolated in 3000 BCE than they are today, "race", as it were, isn't really all that meaningful; modern races are significantly more mixed than races were back then, and the majority of Egyptian descendants are not black at all but today would be seen as middle-eastern, though this is partially a function of Greek and middle eastern colonization.
The Egyptians do not correspond to any modern race; their "race", as it were, doesn't really exist anymore. Claiming them to be "black" is blatently false because they aren't a part of that modern race. It is simply an attempt by racists to claim an ancient civilization as their own, which is funny because most of their descendants would today not be identified as black at all.
Criticism sections are evil; it is better to integrate criticism into the article rather than have a whole section devoted to criticism. In specific, because afrocentrists make a lot of erroneous claims, it'd be stupid to have a criticism section that basically goes through the entire article and mirrors it with reality. Saying it is racist idealogy and the like is appropriate for a criticism section, but because so many of their claims are erroneous it would be better to integrate the criticism of those claims into the main article where those claims are made.
The point is not to "rant" about the article; the point is to make a NPOV article. Afrocentrism is considered to be trash by everyone in the field who isn't an Afrocentrist, and by the scientific community at large, and their claims are directly contradicted by real, physical evidence. It is racist mythology, and it should be made clear in the article that people consider it such and WHY they consider it such. It would simply not be a NPOV article without this aspect. When your field claims to be scientific but doesn't adhere to science and the scientific community rejects you...
In any event, people don't assert that Africans have done nothing; however, their impact on the world at large has been minimal, especially as far as science is concerned. The muslims, the asians, and the Europeans all were more advanced scientifically, and the Africans never successfully exported their culture elsewhere, and when they themselves were exported, until recent times it was as slave labor, which made it much more likely for them to be assimilated into other cultures as a subclass.
There is a lot of cool stuff in Africa; a lot of ruined civilizations and one that has managed to survive until modern times. However, their impact on the world has been minimal due to their location and lack of technology. The Egyptians were one of the great powerhouse cultures of history, but since the fall of Carthage African civilizations have played very little role in the world at large save as a backdrop for European conquest. As such, it is no real surprise that they have less attention paid to them than more influential civilizations. I suspect that as time goes on more will become known about them because other civilizations will be better explored; it wasn't until the 20th century that the mesoamerican civilizations really were scrutinized heavily, maybe the 21st century will bring more focus on ancient African civilizations.
However, study of African culture is not Afrocentrism. No one is saying that studying Africa is racist; it is making up stuff and trying to claim people and acheivements for a "race" that are racist. Afrocentrism focuses on trying to inflate the achievements of blacks, such as claiming blacks came to the Americas and influenced the Toltecs, trying to claim that Egyptians were "blacks", and similar nonsense. Afrocentrists try to put blacks on top of the pile of history, quite erroneously. This is why it is called racist mythology. Titanium Dragon 00:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

References[edit]

I am removing this criticism from the article. Whoever wrote that criticism reference your source and put it back. It was tagged as citation needed before.

"Another common critique is of the United States-centered nature of the Afrocentric project. Although the largest African diasporic population exists in Brazil rather than in North America, the scholarship is overwhelmingly concentrated on the latter, and the experience and values of Black Americans have been taken as normative."

The section on the History of Afrocentrism, sounds like an Afrocentric Hater or Eurocentrist sat down and pulled ideas out of thin air. Diop was not aware of Afrocentric thinking in North America. No where have I read that Diop was influence by Dubois. Please cite your sources in this section. If you don't, you leave the section open for major revision by me.

The notion that some Asian population (South India, Oceania) are related to Africans is more a Runoko Rashidi perspective. It needs to be attributed to him, not all Afrocentrist. The most influential thinkers on Afrocentrism, Diop, James have never made such claims. Van Sertima never claimed Olmecs to be Blacks. Wikpedia does not do original research. Omniposcent 23:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This entire article is rife with unsourced claims; please reinsert the removed section and add a {{Fact}} tag. If we were to remove all of the unsourced material, this article would be a quarter as long. If after a while we can't find any sources for these, then we should remove them.
I'm trying to go through and tag the article, though my tags are far from all-inclusive; I'm sticking tags into sections of claims, but I'm not tagging each individual claim; most likely, they will require multiple sources but I don't know for sure. Hopefully this will bring more attention to the lack of citations in this article and get some good sourcing. Titanium Dragon 01:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It was tagged as citation needed before. No citation was given. It is wikipedian policy that states no original research. If the material is unsourced it needs to be removed. DiamondRat 05:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Genetics and race theory[edit]

This entire section seems completely out of place; it doesn't seem to have any bearing on the article whatsoever. Is there some reason it is there, or should I just delete it? Titanium Dragon 01:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Delete it.
MoritzB 21:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization of criticism[edit]

I think the criticism sections need some serious work. There are several major flaws with it:

  1. Criticism of individual claims are not well integrated into the body of the article.
  2. Criticized ideas are introduced in the criticism section, rather than in the main body of the article.
  3. The "general criticism" section basically repeats the whole racist mythology thing, which is brought up in the other criticism section.

I will try and think of some way of better integrating the criticism and putting the more general criticism of Afrocentrism together. Titanium Dragon 01:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, plus it goes against the typical format found on wikipedia, which is general body and then criticism. DiamondRat 05:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Look at stuff like Holocaust Denial; I think the content of that article roughly parallels what the content of this article should look like. Titanium Dragon 00:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

One person is entitle to his opinion. The format has worked fine for the vast majority of articles. The point is the haters and Eurocentrist don't have a greater truth. That Englishman found that out. DiamondRat 04:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is it called Afrocentrism?[edit]

Why isn't it just called Egyptcentrism? Other that the Egyptians, what other civilisations are mentioned in this page in the context of discoveries etc, or in any context actually!? Everytime 09:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Because this article is not about Egyptcentrism. If it was, it would be titled "Egyptcentrism". --Ezeu 10:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Afrocentrism extends beyond claiming Egypt as a "black civilization". It extends into all sorts of random racism, ranging from blacks bringing pyramid-building technology and techniques to the Toltecs to many scientific achievements supposedly being stolen from various blacks/Africa and presented as other peoples' own. This article probably has a lot on Egypt because it is the easiest to source and/or simply because that section has grown out of control and no one has bothered to add other things (also, for instance, the Toltec stuff is elsewhere). Titanium Dragon 10:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Those are peripherial claims. Some of those claims\authors, I have never heard of among major Afrocentric thinkers and not a pre-occupation with fact finding Afrocentrism. To all students of Africa, Van Sertima's theory should not be discarded. His arguments are sound, if anything one should lookout for prescence. Polynesian being in South America before Columbus is now fact. The theory has been around because boat enthusiast noticed that native boats were of the same design as those in polynesia. DiamondRat 05:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Levin's views[edit]

Prof. Michael Levin, a well-known scholar, has published a book in which he sharply criticises Afrocentrism. The book was published in 1997. http://www.amazon.com/Why-Race-Matters-Differences-Intelligence/dp/0275957896 Levin's views should be included to the article. MoritzB 22:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Many scholars have written books about Afrocentrism. Praise be on Levin, but who is he but an insignificant other? --Ezeu 00:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
It should not be included in this article. Levin has a racist agenda, is a white nationalist, and regularly attended white nationalist conventions. He is biased against blacks. This article does not have to represent a view as being equal or significant. see WP:undue. Perhaps we could mention that many critics of afrocentrism believe africans are inferior like Levine does. This whole article is biased. It needs to be semi protected from wikiwarriorsYVNP 09:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Levin simply expresses the mainstream view that no indigenous civilization ever arose in sub-Saharan Africa and the continent was "outside history" as Hegel and Julian Huxley have said.
MoritzB 11:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
That is not in any way a "mainstream view" - it is at once utterly false (one can easily cite to the quite mainstream historical work on the West African states, such as ancient Ghana) and fundamentally racist. It's a pity that racists (such as apparently Mortiz here) justify the extreme views of the Afrocentrists by engaging in this sort of idiocy. collounsbury 19:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC).
Please do provide citations to the "mainstream work" then. Levin is a mainstream scholar.
MoritzB 17:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Afrocentrist and Afrocentrism don’t seek validation, acceptance from hedgemonic Eurocentric entities DiamondRat 05:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Afrocentric POV-pushing[edit]

The POV of an Afrocentric scholar included in the article: "However, while these charges may be reported accurately, it is not usually incorporated into Afrocentric curriculum and is seen by many afrocentric academics as one of many trivial distractions to the central issue."

The Time article disputes this saying that: "incredible as it may seem, these fallacies are being included in public school multicultural courses in a growing number of U.S. cities and espoused in black-studies departments on some college campuses".[1]

This is relevant and editors deleting this information are engaged in censorship, IMHO.

And Ramdrake, what "outdated (1930)" you claimed to remove? Levin's book and the Time article were not written in 1930. MoritzB 22:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Please cease and desist reverting these edits. They were made in good faith, are well cited, and are good examples of criticism of Afrocentrism. The Time Magazine article in particular is a great example of criticism of Afrocentrism and just how mainstream to Afrocentrism many of these claims are. Titanium Dragon 18:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
And yes, we all know Levin is racist. However, it is not our job to censor him, and his quoted criticism of Afrocentrism is not entirely unfair (though I'd dispute the lack of any significant black leader; the UN Secretary General was, I would say, important, though his prominance increased rather considerably since that quote was made, and both Nelson Mandella and MLK had significant impacts outside of the black community). Titanium Dragon 18:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Though, after some reflection, MLK isn't actually from Africa. Titanium Dragon 00:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

^Dude you make absolutely no sense, quoting an outdated racist as scholarly criticism of a discipline that didn't even exist at the time the person even wrote this? Did the author ever mention afrocentrists? Were they attacking afrocentrism or race? I think that is obvious so take that to a a white supremacy article.Taharqa 19:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Levin wrote his book in 1997.
MoritzB 00:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Glad you checked the source Taharqa. Besides, this entire page is full of racist black people, so why shouldn't there be a racist white guy here too? Titanium Dragon 00:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Better source than Levin?[edit]

Is there a better source for the content of his quote that isn't Levin or someone else who is kind of crazy? I know that crazy is a big part of Afrocentrism, but it might be cool if the criticism section had less crazy in it than the main article. However, I think the content of his statement is essentially true, and I'm sure other people have expressed it. Titanium Dragon 00:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Arnold Toynbee's who was a mainstream historian opposed to Fascism wrote that "when we classify mankind by colour, the only one of the primary races... Which has not made a creative contribution to any of our 21 civilizations is the black race."
Would it be appropriate? The Levin quote should stay, anyway. It is eloquent.
MoritzB 02:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Toynbee is not (i) a current historian, and (ii) dated - indeed badly dated histories are only of historiographical value, not for current facts. Sadly, you make the Afrocentrists appear rational and give support to their attacks on genuine mainstream historical analysis by dragging out racists and outdated historians. (collounsbury 14:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC))
I really don't see what is so controversial about the fact that the European explorers found no wheels for making pots, grinding corn, or for transport, no farm animals, no writing, no money, and no numbering systems used by indigenous non-Muslim tribes of Sub-Saharan Africa. (Rushton 2000) The relevant data was published before the 20th century and the age of the sources is not any kind of problem.
MoritzB 14:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Levin is a great scientist and there is nothing wrong with his views. Franz V 16:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I pray Levin doesn't give you the old salute for that comment. Levin would be mad. DiamondRat 18:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe the things that I read on here sometimes, it is disheartening at times, but I guess that I can expect no more from the ignorant peripheral of society. People are logging on to wikipedia, tracking down 100 year old sources that don't square with mainstream view in academia, something that has nothing to do with the article, and tries to impose it in the page. We even have a biased racist questions and assertions from the thread starter asking whether or not we can found a better source for someone saying the same thing, exemplifying a preference for these outdated kinds of views and their content. Who,ever can with a straight face reply that Levin was a "great scientist" definitely needs to check their ideology and do a bit more reading.


Here are just a few pre-colonial Kingdoms/city-states throughout tropical Africa.

Ghana Empire, Mali Empire, Songhai Empire, Swahili City-States, Kanem Empire Bornu Empire, Kingdom of Kongo, Great Zimbabwe, Djenné-Jeno, Djenne, Timbuktu, Walata, Nok, Kingdom of Aksum, Benin Kingdom, Ife,


^Those are just some..

Quotes from medieval travelers concerning these states:

Concerning Ghana:

Ghana is…a great empire and of a power which is formidable. - al-bakri (1067)

Concerning Mali:

"Among the kingdoms of the rulers of the world, only Syria is more beautiful. Its inhabitants are rich and live comfortably." - Mahmud Ka'ti, medieval Syrian scholar

Concerning Songhai:

"the people of Songhay surpassed all other Negroes in wit, civility, and industry."- Leo Africanuas, 16th Century

Concerning Kingdom of Kongo: "Its inhabitants are courageous and always ready to take up arms, to drive back the enemies from Angola…in case of need an army of four hundred thousand warriors can be mustered." ~ Two Portuguese writers at the end of the sixteenth centuries

Concerning Swahili city-state of Kilwa:

"We stayed one night in this island [Mombasa], and then pursued our journey to Kulwa, which is a large town on the coast. The majority of its inhabitants are Zanj, jet-black in colour, and with tattoo marks on their faces. I was told by a merchant that the town of Sufala lies a fortnight's journey [south] from Kulwa and that gold dust is brought to Sufala from Yufi in the country of the Limis, which is a month's journey distant from it. Kulwa is a very fine and substantially built town, and all its buildings are of wood.." - Ibn Battuta (1300s)


Those are just a few.. I know it must be shocking to the Eurocentric community but it is all recorded and documented.

Now I suggest people read this as this seems to be the focal point of the problem, a lack of education and reading, which is why people are digging up old, outdated, pseudo-science that has been debunked for years and years now. 100 things that you did not know about Africa..

As far as so-called "negroids" and their contribution to science; how about reading this 140 page paper over viewing it?:

African And African American Contributions To Science And Technology —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taharqa (talkcontribs) 17:39, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

^Though given the appeal to false authority and the inference that a lack of reading is involved, I wouldn't be surprised if those in question didn't read this.Taharqa 17:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

How are these glowing reviews? How do they disprove the statement? He claims that the world would not have been lacking for the loss of sub-saharan Africa. Would we be? None of these civilizations impacted the world at large. Indeed, buildings built out of wood are hardly advanced; people have been building stuff out of wood since the stone age.


It isn't lack of education, it is lack of caring. These civilizations are all gone. Their cultures are gone. The only African country that survived was freaking Eithopia, something I notice you didn't even MENTION. By comparision to the eurasians, and even the Native American civilizations, these weren't impressive.

Your kind is now part of Asia. You once separated yourself from Asia. Is it,you relize that you not the smartest beings on the planet. Neither are you the most physical. You are not superior. I think that is what your Jarred Diamond realized. That is why he reconstructed Eurasia. In North America, it is now understood that Affirmative Action in the California University systems was not Blacks hurting whites but whites were benefiting most. Whites were hurting Asians. Plus their IQ's are higher. No their cultures did not die. I have no ill will towards native americans. so I won't compare African civilization to Native America civilization. They have never insulted Africans. DiamondRat 07:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Scientific knowledge - none of it comes from sub-saharan Africa.

Initially, none of it came from Europe. A lot of teachers in North Africa came from Timbucktu. Teachers from Timbuctu were prized all over the muslim world. They were training the scholars. what is the point? are you trying to say Blacks did not contribute to scientific knowledge. Sub-saharan is Geographic designation. North Africans are Africans biologically related to all Africans. Physical appearance are adaptation to environment. DiamondRat 07:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Cultural impact - "African" (read: black) culture is limited to blacks, and it itself has been molded by Eurasian culture, with most blacks being Christian or Muslim.

To say sub-saharan Africans never successful exported their culture and mainly were assimilited as a subclass culture in the new world is more Eurocentric drivel, the need to feel special. The most iconic, famous, vibrant, hip, happening nations in the new world seems to have taken quite a bit from its “assimilated” “subclass” African population, USA, Brazil, Cuba. If Europe had successfully exported her culture to the new world, the USA would be a fish ‘n’ chips eating, waltz dancing, opera listening nation. The USA is known for break dancing, the moon walk. She is known for songs titled “Roll Over Beethoven.” Personally, Fish ‘n’ Chips are for has beens. I don’t eat dinosaur food. The new world countries where European culture was completely assimilated and the process of “whitening” was successful with no “assimilated” “subclass” African population certainly can’t be describe as iconic winner nations. The USA, Brazil, Cuba are winner nations. They are iconic and awe inspiring, their cultural forms are emulated/imitated around the globe. Did the Europeans assimilate the African or did the African assimilate the European? Those are the big questions about those societies. To say that sub-saharan Africa had little impact on world culture is to have a two digit I.Q. DiamondRat 07:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Leadership - Kofi Anan is the only African leader to have had any impact on the modern world.

Numerous other leaders on other continents have had little impact on the world. Every man has his day. Who would ever think that Englishmen, builders of the mighty British empire would occupy a subclass status to its ex colony and just follows its ex-colony's coat tails and dictates. DiamondRat 07:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You have completely failed to demonstrate how this quote is inaccurate. Indeed, I suspect you don't like the fact that it is correct. Titanium Dragon 02:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether it is correct or incorrect it is insignificant.DiamondRat 07:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, that paper is typical Afrocentrist trash. When you try to ascribe to Africians inventions such as "fire", it isn't meaningful. Why? Because EVERYONE was Africans at that point. That's like saying whites invented fire; it is obviously true, but completely misleading as the invention of fire occured before our species -existed-.
The fact that he refers to religion as science also indicates he is, in fact, worthless as a scholar. Many of his sources are other Afrocentrists, people whose work has been criticized heavily for its lack of reality.
Even funnier, he suggests a link between the menstrual cycle and the lunar cycle, a link which does not, in fact, exist.
Lines such as "man discovered Maat" just shows how useless this paper is. Do you really think this guy is at all a reliable source, a useful scholar, or indeed someone who even has a grasp on reality? If so, then I can see why you might have problems. Titanium Dragon 02:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Your ilk has yet to disprove my trash. You have put out quite a bit of trash yourself. DiamondRat 07:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Titanium Dragon writes:

How are these glowing reviews? How do they disprove the statement? He claims that the world would not have been lacking for the loss of sub-saharan Africa. Would we be? None of these civilizations impacted the world at large. Indeed, buildings built out of wood are hardly advanced; people have been building stuff out of wood since the stone age.

^We see that you exemplify your ignorance rather well. According to the Dragon, people have been building out of wood since the stone age, and not in stone as the label implies. This further reinforces the fact that racist individuals tend to possess exceedingly low IQs. These are merely but a few quotes, again, refer to 100 things that you did not know about Africa for a full reference. Would the world be lacking for the loss of "Sub-Saharan Africa"? Apparently so since this is the cradle of human kind, the original place of human development, the birth place of critical thought, music, math, and religion. Did they impact the world at large? Well, West Africa is the birth place of the Iron Age[3] and the Nubian desert shows the fist instance of applicable astronomy in the form of the world's first archaeoastronomy site[4]. Swaziland contains the oldest metal mines for mining[5], the oldest known math demonstrations in arithmetic were found in Africa[6]. The oldest known art work can be accredited to South Africa.[7] The first monarchy in history, even before Egypt is attributed to their brothers in the south.[8] These people were also the first to domesticate cattle[9][10]. Not to mention that unlike Europeans, Africans developed agriculture independantly[11] and the Neolithic revolution which brought agriculture to Europe from outside, was in equal part attributable to so-called "sub-saharans"!

If the late pleistocene Natufian sample from israel is the source from which the Neolithic spread was derived, then there was clearly a Sub Saharan element present of almost equal importance as the Eurasian element - C. Loring Brace[12]..

And again, for a more elaborate presentation see: 100 things that you did not know about Africa

^Obviously you and Levin are among the low IQ racists alluded to.

Titanium Dragon writes: It isn't lack of education, it is lack of caring. These civilizations are all gone. Their cultures are gone. The only African country that survived was freaking Eithopia, something I notice you didn't even MENTION. By comparision to the eurasians, and even the Native American civilizations, these weren't impressive.

Correction. On your part it is a lack of education and I have demonstrated that, and will again as you've made another gross historical error. Every civilization that existed during those times anywhere are all gone, so mentioning that is redundant. You claim that I did not mention Ethiopia, well let us evaluate this claim, shall we? I will half quote myself.

I wrote:

Timbuktu, Walata, Nok, Kingdom of Aksum, Benin Kingdom

Uh oh! We have yet again exposed you to be completely ineducable which is why it definitely is a lack of education on your part. Askum was in present day Ethiopia and the predecessor to medieval Ethiopia. By all accounts, the people in question lived in Ethiopia, were Ethiopians, and were referred to as such by the ancient Romans. So how is it that I did not mention Ethiopia (the longest standing civilization in the world, next to China) unless you were not aware that Askum was in Ethiopia? LMAO!! My goodness, don't embarrass yourself like this. In addition, how is an early university suited for 20,000 students (built by Mansa Musa at Timbuktu), that is a candidate for one of the new 7 wonders of the world[13], and an empire that was bigger than all of western Europe in Mali and Songhay, while Europe was in the dark ages not impressive? Not to mention that all of these were Iron age states, with Nok being among the first and that during the era of Timbuktu, actually Eurasian or Arab scholars for the most part didn't even have the credentials to teach there![14]. Not to mention that Askum minted some of the earliest known coins from bronze[15] and some of the first known Cheques were described by ancient explorers as having been in Ghana(see 100 things you did not know about Africa). Show me a Native American university in the middle ages and I'll consider. South West Asia outdid Europe for most of history, so I don't know if that's saying much, although Mali and Songhay was on par with anything during that era. Anyways, you obviously just don't know what you're talking about so I'll disregard you for now.Taharqa 07:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Eurocentric/racist POV-pushing[edit]

The Eurocentric stormfront user has introduced some racialist nonsense into the article and tries to pass it off as scholarly criticism. Sometimes I wonder, where do people get this stuff? Do they rummage through old race sites all day, looking for outdated discredited sources to bring to wikipedia and try to manipulate it and give the illusion that it is some how relevant to the topic. Are they projecting their own views? We clearly see that MoritzB likes to publicly ridicule users by making threads and accusing them of so-called "afrocentrism" whenever anyone objects to his/her racist pov-pushing nonsense.Taharqa 19:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You're almost as edifying as the other fellow. In fact your POV editing is one of the causes the article is a sewer in general, not that this excuses the racist. collounsbury 23:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC).
What makes you think I am a Stormfront user? That is slanderous.
MoritzB 00:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

RealHistory is an extremely black racist site no different to Stormfront!

Collounsbury, you make no sense as I barely edit this page and only have to revert the vandalism. If you support racism, that it your prerogative, but I will not be chastised by those who condone racism, even if you're being passive-aggressive, since of course you're doing nothing to quell the issue nor have you shown any of my "POV edits". Providing balance in the face of pov-pushers looking high and low to defame the object of this article and omit neutrality, is not pov, editing against pov is not pov, I suggest you stop being an arm chair critic and actually start up a reasoning process since your skills as a judge and "neutral observer" should benefit us all.Taharqa 16:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Afrocentrism is racist mythology. Academia knows this. You apparently don't. Titanium Dragon 02:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Your academia has produce more racist trash than the Afrocentrist. You are entitle to your opinion. DiamondRat 05:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Prof. Leonard Jeffries[edit]

Some astute observations (lol) by him, again reported by Time. -- "Russian Jewry had a particular control over the movies, and their financial partners, the Mafia, put together a financial system of destruction of black people." This was "a conspiracy, planned and plotted and programmed out of Hollywood" by "people called Greenberg and Weisberg and Trigliani . . ."

-- "Rich Jews" operating in Seville and Lisbon and Hamburg and Newport, R.I., and other cities financed the African slave trade.

-- Whites are "pathological," "dirty," "dastardly, devilish folks." http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101910826-157721,00.html

Perhaps a section about Afrocentrism and antisemitism would be appropriate? Tony Martin (professor) is another Afrocentrist Jew-hater. The views of Louis Farrakhan and Nation of Islam are also documented. MoritzB 00:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If one wants to attribute anti-semitism to Afrocentrism, one is naive. Looking at Arthur Jensen and Jarred Diamond, both Jewish, if I am a naive Afrocentrist I might conclude that Jews are racist towards blacks. They are providing scientific justification to white supremacy. This is not the case because Martin Bernal is jewish. Lots of Afrocentrist use his work. If all Afrocentrists were anti-semites, they would not use his work. DiamondRat 05:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Including Michael Levin. There seems to be a rightward shift within American jewry more recently.DiamondRat 18:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

So... first you claim afrocentrists aren't antisemetic, then you prove you are, in fact, antisemetic? I'm kind of missing your logic here. Titanium Dragon 20:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Protected[edit]

Due to sterile edit warring over the past few days (40+ edits to achieve this) the page is now protected. Regards, Christopher Parham (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Quantum physics and "psychoenergetics"[edit]

Taharqa made a suggestion:"As far as so-called "negroids" and their contribution to science; how about reading this 140 page paper over viewing it?": http://www.pps.k12.or.us/depts-c/mc-me/be-af-sc.pdf

The "black" Egyptians were surely creative.

"The ancient Egyptians were known the world over as the masters of "magic" (psi): precognition, psychokinesis, remote viewing and other underdeveloped human capabilities.31 Unfortunately, that legacy has been cloaked in controversy, marred with misunderstanding, and veiled in mystery. The problem begins with the multitude of meanings of the word "magic," many of which are often contradictory. Therefore, before discussing this subject, we first must know the extremely significant distinction between (non-science) "magic" and (science) psychoenergetics." ... "Psychoenergetics (also known in the scientific community as parapsychology and psychotronics) is the multidisciplinary study of the interface and interaction of human consciousness with energy and matter. Magic is the conscious attempt of an individual to `imitate' through ordinary sensorimotor means the operation of psychoenergetic (psi) phenomena. Thus, genuine psi phenomena such as precog-nition, psychokinesis, and remote viewing, in the distant past as well as the present, has always been closely associated with "magic," and the attempt to separate the two has only been a fairly recent activity. Psi, as a true scientific discipline, is being seriously investigated at prestigious universities all over the world (e.g., Princeton and Duke). We are concerned here only with psi in Egypt, not "magic.""

Taharqa's "scientific" paper about the scientific contributions of "negroid" people seems to be badly written science fiction. But please read the paper. It is funny. However, it is worrisome that the paper is a part of the "Portland Public Schools Geocultural Baseline Essay Series."MoritzB 01:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


Hi MoritzB:

First of all, this is complete hyperbole, where does the guy mention quantum physics? Brush up on your science please, you won't embarrass yourself next time. What is your point in selecting the most theoretical part of the entire paper? He is merely describing the ancient belief system of the Egyptians and how it coincides with Psychoenergetics. He is also citing his sources and notes right after, that Egyptologist Christian Jacq states psi to be an "exact science".. Also, Adams is highly respected in the field and has been researching this for many years, and he's actually required reading in many public schools. You noticed this and instead of accepting the authority, you question it based on reasons that I feel are obvious. To dismiss the entire paper by nit picking over one theoretical section is absurd and says less about the author or the content contained within. Making another section just to ridicule, only exposes your gross ignorance pertaining to what is cited.


Table of contents:

1 PART I - HUMAN BEGINNINGS AND AFRICAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO SCIENCE..............................4 HUMAN BEGINNINGS......................................................................................................................................4 MAN DEVELOPS FIRST TOOLS, LANGUAGE, DISCOVERY OF TIME...............................................5 MAN DISCOVERS FIRE....................................................................................................................................6 PROTO BEGINNINGS OF ASTRONOMY.......................................................................................................6 BEGINNINGS OF SPIRITUAL SCIENCE: PSYCHOLOGY AND RELIGION.............7 EVIDENCE OF BEGINNINGS OF GEOLOGICAL SCIENCE......................................................................8 FIRST STEPS TOWARD MEDICINE...............................................................................................................8 FIRST SYMBOLIC WRITING, MATHEMATICS AND CALENDRICAL NOTATION............................9 SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND INVENTION IN THE NILE VALLEY....................................................9 BEGINNINGS OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE...........................................................................................................9 DEVELOPMENT OF WRITTEN SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE AND ART WORKS.............................................................10 DEVELOPMENT OF THE FIRST PARADIGMS.........................................................................................................11 ANCIENT NILE VALLEY HYDRAULIC TECHNOLOGY..........................................................................14 A. The Nilorneter: The First River Depth Gauge..............................................................17 B. Water-Lifting Devices.................................................................................................17 EGYPTIAN COSMOLOGY/TIME IN THE EGYPTIAN MIND...............................................................18 THE EGYPTIAN SYSTEM OF MEASURES......................................................................................................21 EGYPTIAN ASTRO SCIENCE 24.....................................................................................................................23 A. THE EARLIEST INSTRUMENTS......................................................................................................................23 B. STAR CLOCKS...............................................................................................................................................25 C. EGYPTIAN CALENDARS................................................................................................................................26 D. THE IMPERISHABLE STARS, PLANETS, ZODIACS AND ASTROLOGY...............................................................28 E. ASTRONOMICAL TEXTS.................................................................................................................................31 F. ASTRO-ARCHITECTURAL ASPECTS OF THE GODDESS SESHAT........................................................................32 ARCHITECTUAL TEXTS, TECHNICAL TERMS, AND ARCHIVES.......................................................34 THE GREAT PYRAMID..................................................................................................................................36 THE SCIENCE OF SOUND..............................................................................................................................38 PSYCHOENERGETICS....................................................................................................................................41 EGYPTIAN MEDICINE...................................................................................................................................42 MUMMIFICATION...........................................................................................................................................46 PAINTING - A WINDOW TO ANCIENT EGYPTIAN CHEMISTRY........................................................48 EGYPTIAN METALLURGY AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING..........................................................50 EGYPTIAN AERONAUTICS...........................................................................................................................52 CONCLUSIONS OF NILE VALLEY SECTION............................................................................................54 AFRICAN SCIENCE AND THE ISLAMIC TRADITION.............................................................................55 THE HOUSE OF WISDOM - EGYPT'S PREMIER SCIENCE ACADEMY...............................................56 ASTRONOMICAL KNOWLEDGE OF MALI'S DOGON PEOPLE..............................................................60 AFRICAN STEEL-MAKING, SHIP-BUILDING AND MEDICINE.............................................................61 CONTEMPORARY AFRICAN SCIENCE......................................................................................................61 SUMMARY: SCIENCE IN AFRICA................................................................................................................65 PART II - AFRICAN-AMERICAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY...............67 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................................67 AFRICAN-AMERICANS PLAY KEY ROLE IN DEVELOPMENT OF AMERICAN MEDICINE........67 PATENTS, INVENTIONS, AND CONTRIBUTIONS....................................................................................71 SUMMARY: AFRICAN-AMERICAN SCIENCE...........................................................................................84 CONCLUSION......


^I put in bold what you selectively nit picked and any blind man can see that you're biased and picked the most hypothetical chapter in the entire presentation to isolate and ridicule, while trying to apply it to the whole. Even with that, I pointed out that he cited a noted Egyptologist for what was asserted and the entire paper was reviewed and approved by noted scientists, namely a physicist and engineer, to assure its accuracy. Of course we don't care about what some stormfront user or wikipedia editor has to say about the data in question, we're only concerned with presenting facts by way of good science and reliable sources. In which case the information cited is sound (he didn't make any unattributed claims) and we see that you have no rebuttal, which is why you quote some obscure passage, laugh, and eventually give up all rationality in favor of cheap antics.. Have fun though..

No matter how much data you throw in some people's faces they rather vomit the food for thought instead of possessing healthy minds. They also do 1 of 3 things:

1. Attack the source of the information when they can't refute it 2. Attack one trivial aspect of the data that they may disagree with and fallaciously use it as a measuring stick for an entire issue. This is called a fallacy of composition.. 3. Remain ignorant..

MoritzB in this case has chosen both options 2 and 3; it is hard to take the guy seriously.Taharqa 02:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Taharqa, you are priceless! I couldn't paste all 150 pages here. But this the Afrocentric view of Egyptian medicine:

The Egyptians diagnosed and treated trans-material disturbances. To the minds of the Egyptians, in fact, to most African people, all elements' of life, whether human beings, animals, plants, gods, and even inanimate matter such as stones and stars, are imbued with a trans-material primordial energy. The ancient Egyptians call this creative energy "za" (known as "prana" to the Hindus and "chi" to the Chinese), which human beings, under special conditions, could manipulate. The god Heka was also the personification of this energy. They understood man's vital essence, the spirit, to be contained in a net of energy: the body.34 Thus, in the process of healing, the psi-physician/priest actually sought to restore the energetic integrity and harmony of the ill person. By the laying-on-of-hands, he or she could transfer their "za" which they received from the Pharaoh, who in turn received his "za" from the sun, to the patient. This "magico-spiritual" aspect of African medicine still baffles Western-trained scholars and practitioners, and as such is dismissed, belittled, or downplayed. However, recent research is uncovering the "hard" evidence of the validity of this aspect of African medicine: instruments which measure the extremely weak magnetic fields of the body have demonstrated the reality of that laying-on-of-hands healing modality. Furthermore, more than 30,000 physicians, nurses, psychologists, and other health practitioners world-wide have been taught a variant form of the ancient Egyptian laying-on-of-hands procedure called "therapeutic touch," developed by Doloris Krieger, M.D. and a professor at New York University School of Education, Health, Nursing, and Arts Professions.35 Therapeutic Touch has been shown in controlled experiments, in hospitals and clinics, to enhance the body's immune system's functioning, lower blood pressure, and help the patient relax, thus reducing stress. Contemporary-medicine is now beginning to discover what African people have always known, that treatment of man's trans-material nature was central to the healing process.

MoritzB 02:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't see this section before I replied above. Anyway... do you not realize that this paper is what is called "Afrocentrist mythology"? Because that is exactly what it is. Do you not understand that this entire paper is a piece of garbage that got laughed at, sighed at, or simply went largely unread after he wandered into insanity rather than, say, science? If you want to talk about scientific achievements, you might want to look at, I dunno, science. Titanium Dragon 02:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
True though apparently this thrash belongs to the curriculum of Portland Public Schools in Oregon.
MoritzB 03:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

MoritzB fights the good fight against racist anti-semitic afrocentrist by pointing out Afrocentrist who believe in holistic medicine, telekinesis, and ufos. fight the good fight DiamondRat 19:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, refer to my first rebuttal here.[16]

MoritzB, you haven't said anything, you merely keep selectively quoting and putting what you personally take to be far-fetched in bold print. It is not an argument. You have refuted nothing by way of the 140 pages and your emphasis is only on Egypt, when it covers a wide array of inventions and scientific discovery. Here is a partial list of African-American inventors.[17] Concerning the essay though, again, you've said nothing and what you're doing is arguing by way of straw man. The vast majority of what he says is cited and he attributes it to others; he is at times virtually quoting verbatim. This entire project was reviewed by scientists. Whenever something like this is published however, there will always be Eurocentric denyers who seek to undermine the claims, but it never works because their arguments are fallacious and like you, they zone in on one or two trivial aspects and beat it to death, while ignorning the rest of the 140 pages which details much more than what you cited and no way have you or can you refute it all by shunning it and giving it pet names like "afrocentric". Neither have you even refuted what you cited more than ridiculed it as if you debunked it by simply citing it. LOL! He equates this method with the "Therapeutic touch". Now why would this be any different than Chinese acupuncture which is also widely used in the states? Also, everything that he says about it is absolutely correct as reported by the people that he cited, as can be seen here.[18] So you have been rejected once more and exposed for your folly. The folks at the school boards (not just portland either) who incorporated it would probably think you're silly. The only thing that I noticed is that the author seemed too enthusiatic about mysteries which seemed to defy common understand and was overzealous in presenting it as infallible; however, 90% of the information contained within the bredth of the text is verified and none of it is actually refuted, so again, you have no argument and you may want to learn about critical thinking since everything you write is founded on some type of fallacy. Have a nice day. :) Taharqa 07:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree fully with TD. The entire paper is a piece of garbage that got laughed at, sighed at, or simply went largely unread after the author wandered into insanity rather than, say, science?
You know, Werner Heisenberg never cited black people in his papers about quantum physics.MoritzB 20:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of a better npov article[edit]

TD’s arguments are becoming redundant. Someone who does not know what prehistoric means should not be making grand comments on history. Ones opinions should not be taken Seriously. What the editor meant was that Egyptians are biologically Africans. They evolve in Africa and shared common culture/ethos with other Africans. Egyptian maternal lines can be traced to East Africa,related to modern day Ethiopians. Paternal lines are all native to North Africa. If I want to say that they are black, I am within reason. They are genetically related to all African peoples. They have no genetic relations to Southwest Asians or Greeks. No evidence exists that prove modern day Egyptians are mix. Most Afrocentrist don’t accept the notion that South Indians, Australian, and Oceania populations are related to people from Africa. Major figures of Afrocentrism have never commented on this association. Runoko Rashidi is the main author of such an association. Eurocentric scholar Jared Diamond makes such an association in his understanding of Papua New Guinean, Yali’s comments. He has receive the National Academy of Science Award.

If race is a variant subpopulation, the Greeks and the Romans were not of the same race as Northern and Western Europeans. They certainly did not look like real whites. Claiming them to be “white” is blatently false because they aren’t a part of that moden race. It is simply an attempt by racists to claim an ancient civilization as their own, which funny because most Greeks and Romans viewed Western and Northern Europeans as savages and dumb, a people beneath them. An ancient Roman and an ancient Greek would be offended to be placed with modern day white people.

To say that Africans contributed little to science and world culture is to say very little. The same goes to saying sub-saharan Africa has contributed very little to science and world culture(certainly not here,far more than others). NUMEROUS OTHER CULTURES/PEOPLES HAVE CONTRIBUTED VERY LITTLE TO SCIENCE AND WORLD CULTURE,CERTAINLY NOT NOTHING. One can say Eastern Europe has contributed little to science and world culture, certainly not nothing.

The development of science was an accumulation of knowledge from various societies in Africa, Asia, and Europe with the greatest accumulation, integration, fruition, and institutionalization in Western Europe. Muslim civilization was multi-ethnic, it was comprise of Mandinkes, Somalis, Arabs, Persians, etc. Islamic civilization was able tap into the knowledge base of the various societies it converted, the older civilizations of Mesopatamia, Egypt, and others.

Again, to say Africans contributed little to world culture and science is to make an insignificant comment. The statement reveals natural hostility towards Africans and a perverted sense of proving black inferiority intrinsic in Western societies and its Eurocentric hedgemonic institutions. Diop and Bernal have pointed that Egyptians had philosophical concepts that is science.

To say sub-saharan Africans never successful exported their culture and mainly were assimilited as a subclass culture in the new world is more Eurocentric drivel, the need to feel special. The most iconic, famous, vibrant, hip, happening nations in the new world seems to have taken quite a bit from its “assimilated” “subclass” African population, USA, Brazil, Cuba. If Europe had successfully exported her culture to the new world, the USA would be a fish ‘n’ chips eating, waltz dancing, opera listening nation. The USA is known for break dancing, the moon walk. She is known for songs titled “Roll Over Beethoven.” Personally, Fish ‘n’ Chips are for has beens. I don’t eat dinosaur food. The new world countries where European culture was completely assimilated and the process of “whitening” was successful with no “assimilated” “subclass” African population certainly can’t be describe as iconic winner nations. The USA, Brazil, Cuba are winner nations. They are iconic and awe inspiring, their cultural forms are emulated/imitated around the globe. Did the Europeans assimilate the African or did the African assimilate the European? Those are the big questions about those societies. To say that sub-saharan Africa had little impact on world culture is to have a two digit I.Q.

To imply that African culture has not been studied extensively and there was not enough information to reconstruct its history is the reason why it gets little attention is a smack of revisionist thinking. This talk page seems to put out quite a bit of revisionist Eurocentric ideas, like the Hamitic Hypothesis was a “many sided argument” and white racism was just whites viewing nonwhites “as savage and uncultured” rather than whites viewing themselves as a superior race mentally and physically. Europe had completely colonize Africa. Her scholars had access to lots of primary sources and lots of African ruins. What happened most of those sources were misinterpreted, discarded, and distorted. Lots of scholarship on Africa are around, but a lot of scholarship before the last 30 years, written by Europeans, are garbage and nothing but trash. The myths they have created are worse than any myths afrocentrists have created. Their sins/crimes are worse. They did it under the guise of science and the “scientific community.” Afrocentric scholarship has not been implicated in genocide. It has not perpetuated virulent racism and ruined the image of an entire continent. Most scholars who we view as Afrocentric took a radical position against these hedgemonic Eurocentric “scientific communities”/entities. Pivotal Afrocentric scholoars must be placed in the context of their time. Criticism is being hurled at 20 to 30 year old works. G.M. James is dead. Diop is dead. Afrocentric scholarship is not static.

Yes, not all studies of Africa and African diasporic peoples are Afrocentric. But if it fits the criteria Molefi Ashante has outlined: 1.Africans are in the center of the historical event, not the periphery 2. The language, wording is African and not made up by non-african entities. It is Afrocentric. ( http://www.dailymotion.com/visited/search/africamaat/video/xktn5_lafrocentricite-par-molefi-k-asante) As African scholars begin to rewrite their own history away from the distortions and outright lies most of it will meet the Afrocentric criteria.

One constantly hear, that Afrocentrism is not accepted by the scientific community. Which scientific community? The scientific community that awards Jarred Diamond the National Academy of Science Award. The scientific community that awards Arthur Jensen the Kistler Prize. To say that the scientific community does not accept Afrocentrism is to say that Nazi scientific circles do not accept the scholarship of Jewish historians about jewish historical events and even the notion of being God’s chosen people. Afrocentrist and Afrocentrism don’t seek validation, acceptance from hedgemonic Eurocentric entities, largely due to its activist and anti-imperialist roots. This does not mean that Afrocentrist reject science. But when one gets into “community”, one gets into a lot of unscientific things, politics, social group sync, baggage, prejudices,racism. On this talk page one does not see any hostile input from the Asian “communities”, Native American “communities.” One sees and sense hostility from Grand Dragons from dixie, Englishmen with “PhD”s, Irishmen who make inaccurate/opinionated statements everytime, white rappers who expose racism/anti-semitism by pointing to Afrocentrist who believe in telekinisis and UFOs, all from the Caucasian “communities.” Sounds to me the Caucasian “communities” rejects Afrocentrism. They are the only ones who reject Afrocentrism, communities who are known for virulent racism and anti-semitism.

Afrocentrism does not reject science. I encourage all Afrocentrist to study scientific methodology. I will encourage all students of Africa (Afrocentrist, Africanist, and African/African American students /all African diasporic students )to especially study Genetics, DNA science or understand its verbiage. The area is where most of the Eurocentric supremacist/racist drivel will pop up. It has already started, the biases in Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza work, the work of Bruce Lahn which the mainstream press has implied that brain size is the reason that civilization started, due to mutations in genes that control brain size that is prevalent outside Africa. Its author has been influence by Western racialist thinking. DiamondRat 04:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The only Afrocentric school I care for is the one that is espoused and explained by Molefi Asante and "fact driven" Afrocentrism. If one thinks by exposing the belief in telekinesis, holistic medicine, and ufo's of some Afrocentrist is going to debunk Afrocentrism, one will be dissappointed. Afrocentrist and Afrocentrism don’t seek validation, acceptance from hedgemonic Eurocentric entities. Rastafarianism is the closest thing to Afrocentrism, but not exactly. There is scholastic side to Afrocentrism that can take on different flavors alternative, spiritual, and "fact driven" flavors. Whoever placed the Rastafarian link is engaging in original research, no where does the article ties Rastafarianism to Afrocentrism. DiamondRat 23:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Every single human being on the entire planet is related. And just because you say they are black does not make it so, especially given many, many prominent Egyptologists say that is not an accurate assessment. Did the Greeks and Romans consider northern Europeans beneath them? For a long time, yes. However, they interbred with them a great deal, making them the same population, and their descendants are, in fact, white, sharing ancestry with many northern Europeans very recently. All of Europe interbred a great deal. The same is not true between North and South Africa, which were much more seperate gene pools thanks to the Sahara desert. The definition of a population is a group which interbreeds a great deal, a gene pool if you will. Egypt's gene pool is no longer extant, and the population there got absorbed by the Middle East. Conversely, the Greeks and Romans never really were a seperate gene pool, with a great deal of interbreeding with foreign Europeans; indeed, the edges of "Greece" and "the Roman Empire" were often rather ambigious, and people moved across those borders a great deal. The US is NOT known for break dancing or moon walking; maybe among blacks, but not among the general populace. Indeed, our dancing takes a lot from Europe, especially formal dancing. There's other dancing, sure, but it ain't the moonwalk or break dancing; the other mainstream sort of dancing is something I don't know the word for. The US isn't known for black music, either; its known for rock primarily these days. The Beach Boys and such were the old archetypes, then later groups like Nirvana. Really, if any music from the US is known as American music, it is country! We are cowboys, after all. The US is certainly a "winner", but Cuba? Brazil? Both are third world countries; Cuba is POOR, and Brazil is not a wealthy nation. Europe, the US, Japan, and Australia are by far the wealthiest countries, and are all eurasian. Brazil is behind China economically, and China is considered an "emerging nation". South Korea is another wealthy nation. All touched by European influence, very heavily, and indeed only the Korean, Japanese, and Chinese cultures remain (though, to be fair, they weren't near as far behind as everyone else was). And yes, the Europeans did assimilate the Africans. Blacks in the US speak English, are Christian, and their culture is largely derived from European culture with poor southern influence and some African influence thrown in. Indeed, many Africans IN AFRICA speak a European language, and many of those who don't speak Arabic. Africa HAS been studied less than many other geographic regions. Or, rather, sub-Saharan Africa. Lots of study is given to Egypt, but much less time and money is spent on studying civilizations in Sub-Saharan Africa. Indeed, I suspect more money is spent each year searching for Atlantis than is spent on the study of sub-saharan Africa. This isn't revisionist thinking, this is something we like to call reality. Of course, I suspect that this is at least in part because they HAD no real impact on the world, nor were they particularly interesting compared to other civilizations. The native American cultures are interesting because they show that civilization as it were had multiple starting points; their civilizations never interacted with other civilizations until well after both cultures had invented the written word. Other cultures DID have impacts on the modern world throughout the world. Finding out who the sea peoples were is far more interesting to a lot of archeologists than going down into malaria-ridden countries in search of buildings which have probably been torn down for mosques. And saying "not been implicated in genocide"... seriously, genocide? What Europeans have commited genocide against the Africans in the last 30 years? None, that's how many. Indeed, the people killing Africans en masse are other Africans! And saying "which scientific community"... the scientific community is the community which, I dunno, actually practices science, rather than perpetuating racist mythology, making up crazy stuff, and claiming Africans invented healing magic. Yes, that's the mainstream scientific community, where reality reigns, the scientific method is followed, and papers are peer-reviewed. I suspect English is not your first language, so you may be at something of a disadvantage in this debate as your lack of practice with the language will instead be mistaken for lack of education. However, it is evident you buy into Afrocentrism, so you probably believe mainstream science is not what it is, and it will be difficult for me to disabuse you of the notions you have about it, especially with the language barrier. I'd suggest reading other articles about science though, so you can see outside of the Afrocentrist mythology. Titanium Dragon 07:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again, ignorance prevails. Pop culture indeed reflects black culture for the most part and most musical forms which are prevalent here like Jazz, Blues, Hip Hop, even rock was created by blacks. Blacks contributed many inventions, labor, and billions a year as consumers, etc..

The Sahara was not a barrier in the past, and in fact only became that way around 2500 B.C.[19], which was after the onset of dynastic Egypt, so back then there was no such thing as "north" and "south" Africans. Besides, the Nile Valley was never a barrier and still isn't.

The civilizations of Africa I addressed above and won't do it again since I'm not your teacher and have no time for repetition. The citations will be there for future reference though. In summation, I suggest you try reading since it can benefit you a lot; it definitely shows that you don't really like to read, but hopefully you can over come that phobia (books don't bite) some day. :)Taharqa 08:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've read a lot more books than you have, likely, and a lot better ones to boot. Black culture had an impact on jazz, the blues, hip hop, rap, and rock, but they weren't the origin of them, and indeed the modern versions of them (particularly rock) have drifted considerably from their (American) origins. And yes, I'm aware of desertification, though to be fair the Sahara was drying up considerably prior to 2500 BCE, and indeed the process continued through 2000 BCE or so if I recall correctly.
It is pretty obvious you don't want to read what I have to say, which is probably why the page is protected. Titanium Dragon 07:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

A few more facts to TD's comments. TD might want to get more familiar with American culture. 1. Most cowboys in the West were Blacks. Hollywood can be deceptive. 2. Country Music was influenced by the Blues. 3. Christianity and Islam was founded in the Middle East, thereby it is Asian. It did not originate in Europe. It spread to Africa and Europe. How is it Eurasian?Some the oldest Christian societies can be found in North Africa and Sub-saharan Africa. The Coptic Church in Egypt and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church in Sub-saharan Africa. Christianity was not introduce to Africa by Europeans. 4. Internationally, the world is more interested in doing the Salsa and the Lambada than some Waltz. They are very formal dance styles. 5. The mainstream view is always being pushed. The view I gave on the population makeup of Egypt is very mainstream. There is no evidence that Egyptians are mixed. They are not related to Greeks or Southwest Asians. Their maternal line extends to East Africa, related to Ethiopians. Paternal lines native to North Africa. This is mainstream Egyptology. DiamondRat 03:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you're totally missing my point. Look at Japanese and Russian perception of the United States for why they see us as cowboys. And your hilarious belief that the majority of cowboys were black shows just how embedded into Afrocentrist mythology you are; about 15% of them were black. There were as many hispanics, if not more, than there were blacks, and there were also lots of Native Americans in addition to the whites, who probably made up roughly 60% of cowboys. As for "country was influenced by blues", sure. And blues was influenced by white folk music, and African-American music was corrupted by exposure to white church hymns, and a lot of the African music itself in Africa was influenced by the cultural exportation of Islam and Christianity from the Middle East to Africa.
And yes, every one of the major world religions was founded in Eurasia. Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam, the four major world religions, were founded in the middle east or India, and Christianity and Islam ended up being adopted worldwide. What is your point? My point was that the blacks in the US were assimilated into the European culture, which did draw some things from the Middle East; Europe exported culture to the Middle East and vice-versa for a very long time. The Middle East was highly successful at exporting its culture up until Europe became dominant and the Middle East fell behind.
None of that changes my point, though, which is that blacks were inarguably assimilated into the European culture. Or are you going to argue with that?
It is evident you don't understand what Eurasian means. Eurasian means it is from the Eurasian continent, the single largest continent in the world. People from Eurasia, or descendants of Eurasians, have been the dominant worldwide culture for millenia. No one else has been. The Chinese, Japanese, middle easterners, and Europeans have long held a huge amount of power, and it was only the Europeans and middle easterners who projected their cultures to other continents - the Europeans to the Americas, and only later Africa, and the middle easterners to Africa. The southeast asians exported their culture to neighboring regions, but never managed to export their culture intercontinentally, or indeed even past India.
As for your other claims, it is evident that you are, in fact, an Afrocentrist who has throughly bought into the mythology, which is why you hate to see that which shatters your world view. The world fundamentally doesn't care about or for black people; you've gone from being discriminated against to just being ignored, at least partially because the black community in the United States has become so anti-intellectual and racist and Africa is too poor and too much of a mess to really be worth sorting out in the eyes of the international community. You've failed to export your culture, and when blacks become successful they are ostracized by members of their own race for selling out - a sure path to failure.
Egyptians weren't blacks, they were, as I said before, Egyptians. Afrocentrists try to claim them for their race, because they're racists, but they weren't black. Saying "they were descended from Africians" is to say they were human, as every single human being is descended from people from Africa, as that is where homo sapiens sapiens evolved. If you look at their own works of art and face casts, you see that they have their own distinct racial features, and they aren't really what any modern race looks like. Titanium Dragon 00:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposing to include Dinesh D'Souza's views[edit]

Who are the Afrocentrists? Many of them are American black nationalists from the 1960s who have given themselves new names and African accents in order to promulgate what they believe to be a distinctive African worldview. Molefi Asante is probably the leading Afrocentrist in America. Head of the African Studies Department at Temple University, he is also an architect of several school programs designed to transform the traditional curriculum in an Afrocentric direction. "Deify your ancestors," Asante exhorts. He adds that "a total rewrite of the major events and developments in the world is long overdue. Our facts are in our history; use them. Their facts are in their history; and they have certainly used theirs. All truth resides in our own experiences. "

Afrocentrists openly reject scholarly and scientific techniques as a form of Western "tricknology," and use "legends" and "religious cults" as evidence instead. Accuse Molefi Asante of promulgating myths and he responds, "We act mythically. . . . All people have a mythology, " and black Americans need to "reconstruct our mythology." A myth "can be considered a form of reasoning and record-keeping by providing an implicit guide for bringing about the fulfillment of the truth it proclaims," argues Wade Nobles. Myths state "truth rather than fact."

Afrocentrists claim that the Greeks stole most of their philosophy and medicine from Egypt. Wade Nobles writes in African Psychology that "Aristotle's doctrines of immortality, salvation of the soul, and the summum bonum are examples of the ancient African theory of salvation." Molefi Asante writes, "Of course Plato himself was taught in Africa by Seknoufls and Kounoufis," offering no evidence for the assertion. George James argues in his book Stolen Legacy that "all false praise of the Greeks must be removed from the textbooks of our schools and colleges," and students must undergo a "reeducation consisting of a thorough study of the ideas and arguments contained in my book. "

The "revolutionary commitment" to which Molefi Asante refers is evident in the hardened gleam in many Afrocentric eyes. Afrocentrists exhibit a virtually cultic pattern of lockstep behavior: everyone dresses alike, and when the leader laughs, everyone laughs. Gradually but unmistakably, Afrocentrists are severing the bonds of empathy and understanding that are the basis for coexistence and cooperation in a multiracial society. Meanwhile, the real needs of blacks -- and the hard work of meeting them -- are being neglected.

I propose that this content of the article written by Dinesh D'Souza is at least partially integrated to the article. Read it: www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b8370c43a70.htm MoritzB 17:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of this article is to describe what Afrocentrism is, from a neutral point of view. If you want to air your disdain for Afrocentrics, there are fora elswhere that will gladly accommodate you. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda for or against Afrocentrics or Afrocentrism. --Ezeu 17:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
NPOV means that D'Souza's views deserve to be included. He is a mainstream author and a respected journalist. MoritzB 18:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
D'Souza's views are mainstream? Get serious for a while will you. He is about as controversial and fringe as they come. Would it make sense to you if Ann Coulter's description of "liberals" was used to describe the Democratic Party in that article, with the argument that Coulter is mainstream and hence her description is NPOV? --Ezeu 18:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Dinesh D'Souza is a non-racist of Indian descent. Thus, his views in this question are mainstream.
MoritzB 18:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, he is of Indian descent. That actually has no bearing on this discussion. --Ezeu 19:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
You implied that D'Souza's views of race and history aren't mainstream. D'Souza is a conservative but his views in this question are perfectly mainstream.MoritzB 20:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The point is that you're searching high and low for similar critique to the point where you even rely on fringe sources and racist views. You are obviously pushing an agenda, which is not allowed here. As was just pointed out, maybe you should just take this kind of pov-pushing elsewhere, like maybe your home website, stormfront, no?Taharqa 18:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Your view that Dinesh D'Souza is a racist is incorrect and defamatory.
MoritzB 18:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we should probably stay away from assertions like that, but I do not see that anyone here has claimed that D'Souza is a racist, even though he, and the Dartmouth Review which he helped found has often been described as such. --Ezeu 19:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
D'Souza may have some political opinions which aren't shared by most Americans but I don't see how that would affect his academic competence.
MoritzB 20:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course, you realize that what you just said here directly translates as "his views aren't mainstream", which means you're contradicting yourself.--Ramdrake 20:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
His views about Afrocentrism are mainstream. MoritzB 20:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't want to use Dinesh's work sir. Dinesh is the right wing nutter who said that slavery was justified because the African had no civilization and had to go through the peril of slavery to experience civilization (What’s So Great About America). He also said that African Americans bought slaves implying that African Americans participated in slavery too. Of course this is not true. Africans who bought slaves were purchasing relatives(mothers, aunts, brothers, husbands, and wives). In fact, I decided to check the reference for this drivel. Dinesh referenced his own work(The End of Racism). He had no historical reference for this piece of garbage. Dinesh is a racist and hostile towards African Americans. I know what social conservatism is, in its purest form. I know what religious conservatism is,in its purest form. I can relate to those forms of conservatism. But mainstream American conservatism is white nationalist in nature and borderline racist. It is very hostile to Blacks and non-whites or what is not "all American." It is why Black folks who are very conservative, religiously and socially don't support mainstream conservatism. It is also why many of these mainstream Black conservatives don't have a major following in the Black community and are viewed as "uncle toms." Arab Americans were leaning towards mainstream conservatism but after 9/11, that all changed. This was due to the rhetoric/belief of mainstream conservatism. Dinesh is one of the reason, I started forcing myself to read conservative literature. DiamondRat 05:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Just because someone is a crazy conservative doesn't mean he can't be cited. I'd rather use a better source though; there's tons of criticism of Afrocentrism out there, though not as much as there should be because the Afrocentrists play the race card very often, ironic considering Afrocentrism has a great deal of racist mythology within in.
And yes, it DOES. This is seen as a problem by many scholars in the United States, because black kids come in with these racist myths in their head and it is difficult to disabuse them of them. Titanium Dragon 07:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The problem of the current version is the lack of substance. MoritzB 14:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
A big, fat ditto on Dinesh D'Souza's racism. D'Souza is just another example of a colonized mentality, a white wannabe. deeceevoice 19:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)