Talk:Afrocentrism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Talk:Afrocentrism Archive1
Talk:Afrocentrism Archive2
Talk:Afrocentrism Archive3
Talk:Afrocentrism Archive4
[edit] Afrocentrict Historians
Many of the historians cited as afro-centrict have never claimed they were. Writing a book about ancient African cultures does not make someone an afrocentrist.
[edit] Cleanup
This page needs some TLC to become readable. As it stands, it flows poorly, and is hard to follow. Shall we try to improve it by consolidating thoughts, at least within sections? Godfrey Daniel 07:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Inconsistent and possibly racist capitalization
In the first paragraph, "black" always has a capital letter (ie, "Black") and "white" always has a small letter (ie, "white"). I don't know whether there is a reason for this, but it could be construed as racist. Furthermore, this capitalization is not consistently enforced throughout the article. For example, "white" is sometimes given a capital letter. I don't care about this enough to change it, but those who recurrently edit the article may want to decide on a capitalization scheme and adhere to it in their future edits. 160.39.236.134 03:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
We had covered this before. Apparently black and white should be all lowercase, because they do not describe specific ethnic groups or nationalities...whatever. As far as I am concerned Black people are a distinct named group, but fine, it's so nebulous, we can't agree on it at this point. --Zaphnathpaaneah 08:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Stylistically, "black" and "white" generally are both lower-cased. deeceevoice 12:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Keep the article tagged for eternity
Are we going to move the article up or not? It's got enough citations already. --Zaphnathpaaneah 08:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Hey, Zaph. I've gone over the text up to the "Debate" subhead. There are one or two of places that could use some citation, so please check my edit notes. I think I've preserved the original intent of the text with some tweaking to restore NPOV or to clarify, or just general nit-picking clean-up. deeceevoice 12:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Hey Zaph -- still pretty slim on citations. Check out the first few paragraphs. -71.112.11.220 06:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] P.E.A.C.E.
Why is there so much discussion on this concept of Afrocentrism?
It is because people think that having strong convictions is a virtue.
Be an Oak. Big and solid, right? Swing the axe enough and the oak will come crashing down.
Be a reed. Humble and flexible. Swinging an axe will be useless. The reed just sways with the wind.
Convictions...traditions...racism...all of this is a waste of time.
Stop that.
you can burn reeds but big trees benefit from forest fires since the ashes are fertilizing.
Are you talking about martyrdom?
[edit] Ancient Egyptians are not Semitic bu Afro-Asiatic
I would like to know what mainstream scholar sees ancient Egypt as more related to Semitic than the rest of Africa. Ancient Egyptian civlization definately had more in common culturally with Africans because of the notion of divine kingship,circumcision at puberty,and the rainmaker king. The late Egyptologist Frank Joseph Yurco upheld that ancient Egypt was not Semitic but African! Linguist Arnold Lorpenio place the modern Beja language as most related to ancient Egyptian.
The old view that some dyanstic race came from Western Asian and civilzed the ancient Egyptians is called the dyanstic race theory that has been discared.
I am editing in these facts.
Plus the early languages of the Fertile Crescent were not Semitic but a non-Semitic language know extinct.
[edit] Ancient Egyptian was not Semitic with citation
Sorry in my last post I did not leave a citation. Here is the citation from the late Egyptologist Frank J Yurco. Yurco is by no means a Afrocentrist:
Frank Joseph Yurco
Jul 10 1996, 2:00 am show options
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology From: fjyu...@midway.uchicago.edu (Frank Joseph Yurco) - Find messages by this author Date: 1996/07/10 Subject: Re: The Semites Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
This topic has been the subject of much hot air and little real knowledge. There are no Semites. What there are, are Semitic languages, and speakers of those languages are Semitic speaking peoples. That would include all the speakers of the languages in the Semitic subfamily that forms part of the Afro-Asiatic language super family. Thus, all Middle Eastern peoples of Arabia, Iraq, and Syria can be classified as Semitic speakers, and so also the ancient Israelites, and any diaspora Jews who can trace back to antiquity. Of course, there have been converts to Judaism and Islam all throughout history, and those converts were not necessarily Semitic language speakers originally. So, the Iranians are not Semitic speakers and are unrealted to them, but rather are Indo-Europeans originally, and the North Africans, like Egyptians, Libyans and others farther west, are originally speakers of languages of the other sub-branch of Afroasiatic, the North African branch. Yes, those speakers extend down into Ethiopia and Somalia as well. Finally, Hamito-Semitic as a description of the languages or peoples of these areas is now discredited and no longer used academically. Partly this is due to the racial overtones that this term acquired in past writings. If you go back in prehistory, linguists think that the Afroasiatic language family originated in north Africa, either in the Ethiopian-Sudan region, or else around Lake Chad. The original speakers of these languages spread all over the Sahara during the Neolithic wet period, but as that wet period declined, they headed for neighboring river valleys, and some continued clear across the Red Sea into Arabia, where they settled and developed into the Semitic languages and their speakers. Two crossing areas from Africa to Arabia are the Somalia-Yemen area, and secondly, Sinai, from Egypt. Neither requires extensive navigation. Scholars think that the Semitic languages branched off from the North African sub-family around 7000 B.C.
Sincerely, Frank J. Yurco University of Chicago
-- Frank Joseph Yurco fjyu...@midway.uchicago.edu
- Afro-Asiatic is the language family: it is considered to have the Berber, Egyptic (formerly known as Chamitic), Semitic (which is sometimes divided into subgroups such as Canaanite and Arabic), Chadic and Cushitic; the Omotic group is sometimes treated as part of it. On the Other hand, Africa is home to the totality of three language families (Nilotic, Khoi-San and Niger-Congo); 4 if Bantu is considered as a distinct language family. If you treat Madagascar as part of Africa, that makes a sixth language family native to the area: Austronesian. As an AFRO-ASIATIC language, the only languages to which it is closely related in Africa are spoken in the Horn, or in the strip between Sahel and the Mediterranean.
- Divine Kingship is VERY FAR from being a purely African concept: it is found in societies from Classical Mesoamerica to Medieval Far Eastern Asia passing through Egypt and Ireland.
- Finally, I hardly see how Beja would be the closest language to Egyptian when Coptic is still extant. Snapdragonfly 05:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually Afro-Asiatic most linguist like Joseph Greenberg and Christopher Ehret point to the original origin of Afro-Asiatic to the Horn of Africa,and during pre-history it spread to Yemen and not the reverse. Semitic is the only Afro-asiatic language spoken outside Africa and its origin is also in the Horn of Africa. Berber[Amazigh] is also a native Afro-Asiatic language that is spoken only on the continent of Africa! Coptic is the last phase of the ancient Egyptian language that is spoken primarily in church liturgy. My reference for Beja being the closest to ancient Egyptian is Loprieno, Antonio. (1995) Ancient Egyptian: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge University Press. Arnold Loprieno is the leading linguist on the extinct ancient Egyptian languages.
Also I am aware that divine Kingship is found in other regions of the world but the particular divine kingship in ancient Egypt was associated with the rainmaker king concept which is only found in African cultures. Early Egyptologist like Henri Frankfort pointed this out.
There is no such language family as Nilotic but I think you mean Nilo-Saharan.
[edit] capitalization
are Afrocentrism and Eurocentrism capitalized that way?--Urthogie 14:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC) PS: someone please archive the first 30/40/50 discussions in this talk page.--Urthogie
[edit] Lefkowitz quote
- "One of Afrocentrism's most prominent critics, Mary Lefkowitz, has characterised Afrocentrism as 'a mythology that is racist, reactionary, and essentially therapeutic.'"
Lefkowitz didn't say this. African-American History professor Clarence E. Walker did [1] [2]. I'll change the quote to "an excuse to teach myth as history". --Jugbo
[edit] The Tao of Afrocentricity and Eurocentricity
It seems to me that Afrocentrism is a concious way to homogenize an African perspective and scholarship and counterbalance the primarily European dominated institution of "Modern Research and Scholarship." Because "Modern" Scholars and Academics often unconciously reinforce the institutionalized standards and conlusions of their forefathers, perhaps the idea of Afrocentrism and the efforts made on the Wikipedia page regarding Afrocentrism should be pursued in order to reinforce new concepts and innovations that come forth from those who are in support and exposed to the "Afrocentric" idea. Ratehr than debunking the scholarship behind it, i.e. Diop, DuBois, Asante, Henrick-Clarke, Karenga, etc. the discussion perhaps better look at reinforcing the validity of the ideas, with a breif section on the historical/ political contovercies surroundign the concept.
It seems that "Race," a European originated scietific established and term, has already polarized human segments and thus has given people a reson to conflict over "what comes from where and who?" Seeing that Race Theory has established Caucasian, Mongoloid, Negroid, etc. perhaps research and ideas on "centrisms" should be approached from such a perspective. Now that Afrocentric has been identified, there should correspondingly be made a page for Eurocentric, Asiacentric, etc.
The article in my eyes only needs to discuss: the social-political context of afrocentrism. the scholars of Afrocentrism Principles of Afrocentrism Applications & Interpretations of Arocentrism
Aside from that, everything else is extra and needs to go into Race Theory, Racism, Egyptology, etc.
- I don't really follow your arguments here. There is already a Eurocentrism page. There is no Asiacentrism page, because there really is no such concept. Asian cultures do not on the whole obsess about "Eurocentrism", and are perfectly willing to accept that cultural and scientific modernity originated in Western europe without feeling that this somehow denigrates their own cultures or racial identity. The possible exception is India, in which the Hindutva movement is associated with an Indocentric model of history, a model that some editors on Wikipedia promote on relevant pages devoted to Indian history. But that arises from a very distinctive Hindu conception of history, which claims an "eternal" India-based civilisation. Paul B 11:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- It is obvious that the Eurocentrism page exists, I was enumerating examples of centered thought. The point is that as a result of history, Afrocentrism has risen and the ripple from its presence aparently means that corresponding studies based in other cultural blocks are also valid. There is certaintly a sort of "Asiacentrism" that exists in the world, especially the United States in which Asians economically and politically band together. The question that arises has to be in regard to who that scholarship is.
The main point--besides pointing out the relativity of "centrisms"-- was that the criticisms of the article are rather deconstructive of the idea and movement Afrocentrism rather than explorative of it. Apparently if there is scholarship and sources cited, it is a real world living concept. Wikipedians would have more a productive time finding applications and innovations that have arisen and cite Afrocentrism that discussing wether it should exist or not. The fact that the page is on Wikipedia confirms that it has some degree of validity in the world.Aminatam 11:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- The fact is that this article is a dreadful mess, the result of edit wars for the destructive attitudes of some editors are responsible. This mess is their legacy. It needs a proper cleanup. However, I think there is a distinction between Afrocentrism and what you call the "studies based in other cultural blocks". As we know, Western academia has always - at least since the nineteenth century - had departments devoted to the study of "other areas". Modern academic studies of, say, Chinese culture and history, grew out of that. Attitudes have changed over the years, and increasingly people of Chinese descent are working in those areas, rather than Westerners who have studied the culture from the outside. This is a fairly organic and continuous growth from the 19th century on. Afrocentrism is something rather different. It emerged as a political/cultural ideology and is still strongly defined by that notion. The study of African cultures continues just as the study of other cultures has, and in the same way it has increasingly shed "Victorian" attitudes. In America it has also expanded to encompass the study of links between African-American experience and native African cultures. The same is true of Asian-American explorations of, say, the Yellow Peril and other cultural attitudes that affected East Asian peoples. This is rather different from the kinds of claims made by Afrocentrists. Again, I think the only close comparison is the promotion by US-based Hindus of "saffronization" in historical studies. Paul B 13:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I am very offended at the content of this article. I am not black and can still see the plain bigotry portrayed in the argument that eurocentrism is more valid that afrocentrism. For as many examples that you found to prove that Afrocentrisim is false there are just as many to prove that it is true. Afrocentrisim has its faults just like euro centrism but I dont see wikipedia taking out as much time and effort to point those out on the eurocentrism page. I am very dissapointed.
[edit] An ambiguity
The following sentence reads (to me, at least) ambiguously:
- Studies show that some members of these darker-skinned ethnic groups— with the exception, of course, of the Olmecs— and "Mongoloid" East Asians are genetically closer to one another than they are to indigenous Africans.
Does the 'exception' noted here for the Olmec refer to the first part of the sentence (ie the Olmec were not dark-skinned) or the second (implying Olmec are not genetically closer to one another)? I rather suspect the former meaning is what was intended, but it would seem to need rephrasing.--cjllw | TALK 00:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hoaxing?
Yeah, ok, I think massive elements of Afrocentrism are just silly (Cleopatra VII was Macedonian, not black), but should this really be tagged as a hoax? Wilybadger 02:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Most definitely. Afrocentrism is also pseudohistory, since what it teaches is obviously false. How can anyone really believe in the falsehood that Socrates, Plato, and just about every notable figure in antiquity, is black? The people who teach that also believe that history can be fictionalized according to the sensibilities of each ethnic group. 69.118.97.26 01:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Related (?) article up for deletion
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-African scholarship. Postdlf 22:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Semitic"
This: "The conventional belief in a Semitic Egypt has been challenged by scholars who believe the cultural similarities between Egypt and the Levant are due to the exportation of cultural elements from the Nilotic civilizations, rather than the reverse. " Is meaningless. No one claims the ancient Egyptians were Semitic speakers, and as "Semite" isn't an anthropological term either, the reason why the term is used here seems non-existent.
North African Berbers aren't Semitic speakers either, and if anyone, the ancient Egyptians would be related to them. That's the conventional belief, not that they were "Semites".
[edit] A different worldview
Some corrections. Firstly, it's misleading to call Toynbee "respected"; he was a very controversial figure and his history of civilisations (from where the quote is taken) was heavily criticised at time of publication.
Secondly, Burgess was very much a nineteenth century figure (he fought in the American Civil War, after all). He did live until 1930, but his professional career and the main body of his work was within the nineteenth century.
In fact, the whole section "A Different Worldview" is heavily biased nonsense, but I'll leave it for someone else to sort out. 62.25.106.209 12:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree, the whole section under "A different worldview" is wholly unnecessary, since it basically reiterates the definition of Afrocentrism but with a biased tone. I'm going to take the plunge and delete it since it seems to be redundant. Ob5idian 00:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
