Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:37, 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)

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.

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. El_C 10:52, 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)