Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:58, 10 February 2005

"Radical" Afrocentrism

I've NPOV'ed this section, because I have trouble with the way it is worded --in absolutes. Further, certain elements that it claims are features of so-called "radical Afrocentrism" are, indeed, grounded in historical fact. I think there needs to be some recognition of the fact that what is scholarly Afrocentrism (a label with which some "Afrocentric" historians -- such as Ivan van Sertima -- take issue; they claim simply to be historians ) and what crosses some invisible line into "radical Afrocentrism" is something that is clearly debatable. To some white folks, any kind of so-called "Afrocentrism," period, is "radical" and unacceptable. I mean there are folks who still think ancient dynastic Egyptians weren't black Africans and were, instead, Europeans, or Eurasian, or light-skinned Semites, or something -- a completely erroneous view that the wording in this section would seem to support. This needs clarification, as well as, perhaps, a point-counterpoint kind of presentation. deeceevoice 23:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

With regards to , what is the consensus within the scholarship on this? El_C 11:14, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What the hell. I've simply decided to remove the section below until certain things can be ironed out regarding the general approach to this subject matter. I've already changed the header regarding criticism of "radical" Afrocentrism to simply criticism of Afrocentrism. There is no clear distinction between what is radical (beyond the claim of black superiority) and what is not. There are some claims that this section discounts out of hand which do, indeed, have merit.

Is "radical" Afrocentrism an actual (encyclopedically notable) term? El_C 11:14, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Radical Afrocentrism

A more radical form of Afrocentrism is often associated with black supremacy, and has been sometimes been labeled pseudohistory. Radical Afrocentrism claims Africa to be the predominant source of world culture. In addition, the most radical Afrocentric histories view all African peoples as a distinct race with superior genetic features that they carry with them as they colonize other continents.

According to this radical Afrocentric view, the Ancient Egyptians are grouped with the numerous distinct sub-Saharan african peoples as a single dark-skinned race. Radical Afrocentrists often refer to Egypt as Kemet, the indigenous term for the country, which means "black land" (although traditionally this term has been understood to refer to the dark fertile soil beside the Nile, in contrast to the desert, or "red land" beyond, rather than skin color).

According to radical Afrocentrism, Africans were responsible for all the great innovations in ancient philosophy, science and technology. These were later 'stolen' by the Greeks and other European peoples. This argument is found in the book Stolen Legacy by George G. M. James, who derives many of his ideas from 18th century Masonic assumptions about Egyptian wisdom. Such views are copied in many other later books. Radical Afrocentrists have also claimed that Africans discovered America. The academic Molefi Kete Asante is the best known exponent of Radical Afrocentrism.

deeceevoice 23:28, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So are those Afrocentric scholars who claim African discovery of America distinguished notably as "radical" ? And which branch of Afrocentrism believes in 'the superiority of one culture over another' ? El_C 11:14, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I know of no widely published (by a reputable publishing house) black historian who makes such claims of black superiority. If there are such people, kindly enlighten me with proof. deeceevoice 14:10, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

npov tag

that's not really the definition of Afrocentrism. Almost every link I've read doesnt equate Eurocentrism with Afrocentrism. More generally Afrocentrism is myth taught as history, not a changing approach on Africa's "contribution to world history." This article is totally POV and factually incorrect. Somebody needs to look after it. Wareware 01:32, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When that somebody proves to be you, I will personally reinstate the tag. But we need more substantive evidence than the anectodal lmost every link I've read and the non-comittal omebody needs to look after it. El_C 01:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

here, http://skepdic.com/afrocent.html first site that comes up from google search. Good enough for you? Wareware 02:01, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) Wareware 02:01, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, it isn't, not for me. I have already read it at any rate. Again, we need more substantive evidence (I suggest scholarly sources) other than the top link on google. Have you read any of the scholarly works cited in the references or external link section? They may prove of aid to you in desmontrating the factual verifiability of your position. Otherwise, it strikes me as a rather sophomoric attempt. A little more effort is warranted on your part. El_C 02:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: To be clear, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I actually don't know that much on this topic. I may be an African historian, but Afrocentrism and its respective debats are not my field and I have very little familiarity with it as a construct and worldview. But, really, I expect you to approach this issue in a social-scientific way. You're a university student, so these sort of methodological expectations should not be surprising to you. As it stands, your side of the argument (which might be correct, I don't know), suffers because you are taking this article to task in a very superficial way, evidence-wise. El_C 02:28, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I just reread this talk page and a small correction to my comment above is due. When I said I am an African historian, I meant an historian who largely (but not only) specializes in studying African history (20th Century, Central and Southern Africa to be exact). It did not mean that I, myself, am of an African descent (nor does it mean that I am of a non-African descent). It was a grammatical error rather than a highly uncharactaristic revelation (those editors that know me, could attest as to how strictly I keep all my personal details: sex, age, ethnicity, etc., confidential). So, who aren't I remains topical! El_C 08:15, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I have reread the article and the source you provided (which, actually, I mistook for a different one – sorry about that) and I retract my comments. There are serious NPOV issue which I am in the midst of attending to. El_C 03:16, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NPOV changes

Okay, I have reviewed and made changes to the article to reflect the NPOV issues alluded to by Wareware. And this is perhaps a good a time as any for me to eat my own words by attempting to follow my own advice: reading more closely. Yikes. Wareware, if the you find the changes I made insufficient, please reinstate the tag and I will give it another shot. Thanks, and sorry. El_C 03:47, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

are the Moors and Tamils in India considered "black" in the ethnic sense, as someone similar to sub-saharan Africa? I believe Moors are from North Africa more closely associated with the Arab world. Same thing with Tamils, aren't they Dravidians from India? What do they have to do with afrocentrism? Wareware 07:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Good questions, I'm not really sure how they are classified in that sense (or, more specifically, what the classification means exactly). I would like to know the answer to these questions, too. El_C 08:15, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

more POV from Afrocentrism vs. Eurocentrism

should we include eurocentrism vs afrocentrism in the first section? I think El C's version is pretty npov and does not go into semantics and wordplay, which is very clean and helpful. In addition, quoting Ivan van Sertima seems to be pushing the Afrocentrist POV even more. If I remember correctly, this is the guy who wrote a book on the purported African visits of the Americas, way before the Vikings and Columbus. Is mentioning this guy in this section NPOV at all? I think it's okay to say that Afrocentrism is 1). worldview focusing on Africa and/or 2). pseudo-history focusing on Africa. No need to get into arguing about semantics, subjectivity objectivity schlobjectivity and more POVs. Wareware 10:06, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We can mention him, of course, but we'll need to qualify how his theories are being percieved by his peers. El_C 10:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That section is problematic, though. We should iron it here in talk. I am restoring my version, for now. El_C 10:55, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Before we do that, perhaps it would be best to go over some of the basics. I am feeling somewhat disoriented with this topic due to lack of familiarity with it. I posed a few questions in the first section of this talk page. Any help in answering these will be appreciated. El_C 11:14, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

European appropriation of black culture

Passage reads:

An obvious example of European appropriation of black African culture is the common classification of obelisks, porticoes and columns as "Greek" architecture when, they are clearly Egyptian in origin. In fact, fluted columns are key architectural elements of the Step Pyramid at Sakkara, built approximately 2,400 years before the Greek conquest of Egypt.

To my knowledge no-one has ever said that obelisks are Greek. They are Egyptian. No one claims that 'columns' are Greek either. But they aren't Egyptian either. They can be found all over the world, as can porticos. The classical orders of columns are Greek (Doric, Ionic, Corinthian) in origin, as is the classical form of the portico. Paul B 05:32, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I deleted it, but it dosen't mean it can't be included in the historical Afrocentrism section (but it is out of place in the criticism one). But I did not reinsert it there, and would like to establish consensus on how professional scholars in the field view the above. Is it accepted as an approriation of African culture? That is has African origins? I have no idea. I would like to see some references that would place the premise into 'conventional' context. I'm reinserting this. Maybe I'll tweak it a little. (I'll see once I decide where to put it.) Anyone who's studied architecture or taken a basic world history course in the West has "learned" that columns, porticos, etc., are elements of "classical Greek architecture." You want a photo of the temple? http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/dsteppyramid1.htm The temple is located in Memphis, of the old (and indisputably black African) empire. These are the earliest examples of columns in architecture. Example of other columns -- palmiform, lotus, and so-called "Corinthian" (the name given to the style is itself evidence of appropriation) columns are at Luxor in the Ramesseum, in Nubia. With regard to the dates, if memory serves Alexander the Great conquered Egypt aroud 300 BCE. Sakkarah was built beginning around 2400 BCE. deeceevoice 12:39, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Corinthian" (the name given to the style is itself evidence of appropriation)" What are you on about? Corinth is a town in Greece. This column style dis not originate in Egypt. Paul B 05:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well I haven't studied architecture nor have I ever taken a "world history course in the West," none are key to my field as a 20th Century historian anyway. But, all of that is an aside to my question about the prevailing thoughts in the critical scholarship as to whether it is widely thought to constitute such an appropriation (again, I don't know), but if it is proven to be the case, I still challenge that this should go in the historical Afrocentric section rather than the criticism one. El_C 14:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay, okay. For those in denial or otherwise challenged:

EGYPT THE BIRTHPLACE OF GREEK DECORATIVE ART.

A SCHOLAR of no less distinction than the late Sir Richard Burton wrote the other day of Egypt as "the inventor of the alphabet, the cradle of letters, the preacher of animism and metempsychosis, and, generally, the source of all human civilization." This is a broad statement; but it is literally true. Hence the irresistible fascination of Egyptology–a fascination which is quite unintelligible to those who are ignorant of the subject. I have sometimes been asked, for instance, how it happens that I–erewhile a novelist, and therefore a professed student of men and manners as they are–can take so lively an interest in the men and manners of five or six thousand years ago. But it is precisely because these men of five or six thousand years ago had manners, a written language, a literature, a school of art, and a settled government that we find them so interesting. Ourselves the creatures of a day, we delight in studies which help us to realize that we stand between the eternity of the past and the eternity of the future. Hence the charm of those sciences which unfold to us, page by page, the unwritten records of the world we live in. Hence the eagerness with which we listen to the Story of Creation as told by the geologist and the paleontologist.

From "Chapter 5: Egypt the Birthplace of Greek Decorative Art." by Amelia Ann Blanford Edwards (1831-1892). Publication: Pharaohs Fellahs and Explorers. by Amelia Edwards. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1891. (First edition.) pp. 158-192.

And from a college (Aquinas College somewhere in Michigan) course overview online on the globalization of world culture, written by a Dan Brooks, Ph.D. and head of the college's Humanities Program this bit of very, very (nowadays) well known (but, apparently not well known enough!) information:

While the art and architecture of Greece and Rome are often linked because of the deliberate imitation of Greek techniques in the Roman world, the connection of the roots of this tradition to Egypt has been established historically, but is not often emphasized. As we saw in Chapter Four, the inspiration for Greek monumental sculpture and architecture came as a direct result of Greeks living in Egypt (when Greek mercenaries were allowed to settle in the Nile Delta in the seventh century BCE)1. This kind of foreign settlement in Egypt was rarely allowed throughout much of its ancient history, and the Greeks' exposure to Egyptian culture was a revelation that they brought back with them to Greece.

Brooks now can say it's "not often emphasized," but ten, 20, 30 years ago, it was downright freakin' buried -- as evidenced by the rampant ignorance on the subject in many quarters, still, today. deeceevoice 17:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reoccuring issue

I wish to recapsulate much of what I said above eversince I've been made aware of some of the problematic components this article exhibits. One issue that I find reoccures and needs to be better addressed systemically, is that the reader is often faced with claims made by Afrocentric scholars, but these are not consistently enough offset by what a consensus of (if such exists, if not we qualify that) and how critical scholars respond to these. We already established that Afrocentric theories are, in that sense, 'disputed,' so we do need to know how each specific claim —not each-and-every one necessarily, but as a general rule— is countered (or if a claim isn't countered, we qualify it as such; again, as a rule, we can allow for exceptions), otherwise our claim for NPOV becomes tenuous. I am confident that by following these steps we can arrive at an article that is accepted by all parties as NPOV. Thanks. El_C 11:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Afrocentrism vs. Eurocentrism

The argument against presenting both sides, both views of Afrocentrism is simply bull. They are competing concepts, and each deserves to be heard. I insist on balance in this piece! The pro and con is reinstated. deeceevoice 11:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from heated exclamations that go towards hindering a collegial editorial collaboration. Are you maintaining that the manner in which the critical scholarship regards historical Afrocentrism is Eurocentrism? Because I don't think that can be passed for encyclopedic. We need to explain how Afrocentrics outline their theories, yes, but this needs to be placed within the context of how the critical scholarship views historical Afrocentrism. We need to have the current social-scientific consensus as a basis, regardless of whether we agree. We cannot, therefore, indirectly obfuscate the fact that Afrocentrism has –vastly– more critics than adherents. The article needs to reflect that more than simply in passing (as was the case prior to today's edits). El_C 12:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In some regards, yes. Funny. I don't recall anyone calling (Scandinavian) Thor Hyerdahl "afrocentric" when in the 1970s (after Kon Tiki) he sailed the Ra I and Ra II from Egypt to the New World to and wrote about it. I don't recall anyone calling (white) New Zealand archaeologist, linguist and Harvard historian Barry Fell "afrocentric" when he published Saga America in 1979. Or Dr. Andrzej Wiercinski of the University of Warsaw "afrocentrist" when his 1972 study of Olmec skeletal remains revealed distinctly Africanoid characteristics. (Wanna read it yourself? http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Bay/7051/content.html ; wanna see an Olmec head? http://www.mesoweb.com/features/jpl/01.html )

Oh, my bad! "Afrocentric" -- that title applies only to black folks with the effrontery to challenge white/Eurocentric scholarship, doesn't it?!! Ivan van Sertima's just some delusional half-wit -- never mind his many honors and his recognition by UNESCO (mentioned in the article and edited out simply because Wareware wrote of his claims that Africans actually could have sailed to the New World before Columbus). You see, only crazed, white-race-hating, revisionist black folks trying to compensate, to find a "therapeutic" remedy for feelings of inherent inferiority can be afrocentric. No credible white historian could possibly believe such claptrap! Could they? Oh, of course not! (Downright pathetic.) deeceevoice 15:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)