Talk:Afrocentrism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles related to topics concerning persons of African descent and their cultures. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora for more information. (See: Category:WikiProject African diaspora for more pages in this project.)

Talk:Afrocentrism Archive1

Talk:Afrocentrism Archive2
Talk:Afrocentrism Archive3
Talk:Afrocentrism Archive4

Contents 1 Afrocentrict Historians 2 Cleanup 3 Inconsistent and possibly racist capitalization 4 Keep the article tagged for eternity 5 P.E.A.C.E. 6 Ancient Egyptians are not Semitic bu Afro-Asiatic 7 Ancient Egyptian was not Semitic with citation 8 capitalization 9 Lefkowitz quote 10 The Tao of Afrocentricity and Eurocentricity 11 An ambiguity 12 Hoaxing? 13 Related (?) article up for deletion 14 "Semitic" 15 A different worldview 16 The debate over Afrocentrism 17 Restructure 18 External links 19 Concern over language 20 Removal of Racial Projection 20.1 Racial projection 21 Recent merge 22 Removed wrong information on Brazilian Census 23 Egypt Section extremely onesided

[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)

[edit] The debate over Afrocentrism

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

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

^Makes sense to me

[edit] Restructure

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

[edit] External links

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

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

[edit] Concern over language

The neutrality or factuality of this article or section may be compromised by weasel words. You can help Wikipedia by improving weasel-worded statements.

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)

[edit] Removal of Racial Projection

[edit] Racial projection

weasel

Afrocentricity tends to emphasize the racial and cultural unity of Africa as a whole as the home of black, or "Africoid," peoples. However, mainstream scholars assert that Afrocentricity relies on a projection of modern racial and geographical categories onto ancient cultures in which they simply did not exist. It is argued that in ancient Western culture, the distinction between Europe and Africa was not as important as the notion that civilized peoples encircled the Mediterranean sea. The farther from the Mediterranean they were, the more alien they were considered to be. This applied to all peoples. The equation of "African" with black identity has also been criticized, partly because movement of populations around the Mediterranean in ancient times makes any rigid distinctions among North African, Asian, and European peoples of the area problematic; and partly because the notion of a unified "black" or Negroid race is itself considered to be unsustainable by many modern geneticists. Further, Diop's claim to have discovered a pan-African proto-language is rejected by some linguists.^{[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.

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.

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.

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 nosense 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?

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. Diamong 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?

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!!

[edit] Recent merge

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

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

[edit] Removed wrong information on Brazilian Census

I removed part of a paragraph that said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

You illustrate the need for Afrocentrism. You seem to be offended that I would imply a large country like Brazil, half of its population has African blood. Your objective was to remove that high a number. I am not saying that half of Brazil is black(by North American standards of race that would be true). I said near half has African blood. You say a lot of whites have Amerindian blood, but can't prove it.

[edit] Egypt Section extremely onesided

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