==After skimming, some overall comments== 

 I still haven't really read the section that treats Songhay, Mali, etc.  (I guess because it still really galls me that subject matter I studied routinely 30 years ago is still largely ignored.)  But, frankly, I don't see why it's included.  This is not, after all, an article on African history.  It seems to me, though important in an overall sense, superfluous to this discussion  at lesat in such detail.  Further, it needs to be cleaned up.  One of the first things I notice is a subject-verb disagreement. 

 Second, it seems to me the section on specific criticisms of Afrocentrism simply restates in a wordier manner the last paragraph (if I recall correectly) of the section on criticism  which it seems to me should be nenamed to reflect the fact that it presents the views of Afrocentrists and their supporters, as well as their detractors. 

 Finally (at least for purposes of this post:-p), the statement is made that "radical afrocentrists charge racism" or something of the sort.  That is funny.  Reputable historians (indeed, anyone pretty much with any common sense) of all ethnicities, across specialties widely acknowledge the role of racism in the Eurocentric skewing of history.  That's certainly not a criticism that has been levelled by only "radical afrocentrists," or afrocentrists, or blacks, or "minorities."  It's an accepted fact.  Hell, the racism is evident in the writings of historians in statements made, judgments reached, in the selectivity and veracity of information presented.  The very fact that European "scholars" looked at the black, monumental (literally) evidence of Nubia, Memphis, Karnak and then deliberately chose to portray Egyptian civilization as white or, at its darkest, some sort of Eurasian-Semitic mix is nothing but racism.  Brit Basil Davidson scoffed disdainfully at European notions that Timbuktu had been built by some "wandering tribe" of Europeans, when there was absolutely no evidence of it  merely the racist assumption that black Africans were too inherently backward and utterly incapable of doing so.  I mean these m.f.'s actually wrote that kind of crap in their treatises!  And then there's the fact that for centuries, world history courses (including the one I took when in school) began with Greece and Rome  when the Egyptian imprint on Greco-Roman history is indelible (try as racist scholars might to expunge it).  Eurocentric history is riddled with such blatant, purposeful omissions, obfuscations and outright lies. 

 And the hilarious, amazingly absurd thing is that someone in this discussion feels somehow compelled to insert some thoroughly silly comment about how they weren't "bad people"!  *chuckling*  (Only a white guy!)  WTF?  (They were nice people, and their criticis are "overwrought."  ROTFLMBAO.)    

 But, frankly, who gives a damn, anyway?  It is quite clear to any serious student of history that many of them simply  and knowingly  twisted "history" in the service of a white supremacist weltanschauung.  You cannot tell us that those Europeans who looked upon the faces of King Menes and Tutankamun and Queen Tiye (nappy afro and all), who saw the wooly, braided, afro and dreadlocked wigs of Egyptian royalty; their pronounced, forward-slanting profiles; their full lips and broad cheekbones; their BLACK countenances, saw "Eurasian Semites." 

 http://www.nbufront.org/html/FRONTalView/BookExcerpts/EAH1.html 

 But that is what they "recorded."  Gee, (*thinking hard*) I don't know if they were "bad people" or not.  And I couldn't give a flying f***.  It is of absolutely no import.  After all, they're long dead and long ago rotted to dust  and they're certainly not coming to my place for a tête-a-tête; it ain't like we're gonna have tea.  But what I do know is that they were a bunch of racist, lying bastards.  And that's the point.