Talk:Afrocentrism/Archive 9

message: 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.
First of all we need to establish what you mean by "Ancient Egyptians". You could be referring to any number of peoples who have lived there from the Hyksos, Nubians, Jews, Greeks, Romans, etc. There were definetly Semitic Egyptian dynasties. Also I would like to point out that just because a couple of scholars uphold an idea, that that means its true. There are scientists who say that the true Jews originated in Scandinavia, and if you believe that well... you've got some problems. Canutethegreat 22:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient Egyptians are not Semitic but Afro-Asiatic 

message: I removed some unsourced information from this article, as per our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Futurebird has rather rudely reverted me, and without an edit summary at that. I will be removing the unsourced information again, and hope Futurebird uses the talk page to explain where, exactly, the sources for this information are. Picaroon (t) 03:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I don't think that removing entire paragraphs because of tags refering to single sentences is at all helpful. In fact the latter paragraph referred to a specific study by a named scholar, so it wasn't unsourced. It would have been more helpful to have added a relevant footnote. Paul B 07:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced information removed 

message: There are quite a few citing Edward Wilmont Blyden's African Life and Customs, but it doesn't cite which publication, as there were a couple of re-pubs since the first book. So which book do the references refer? The first pub of 1908, or later? Please use  for proper formating and clarification on what citation refers for verification. Thanks. ~Jeeny (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: The article is looking a lot better than it was before. Great job to all of you who are working on this article. Titanium Dragon 00:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vast improvement

message: ... to Wikidudeman for cleaning up the cites.  Dirty job, but somebody's gotta do it.  deeceevoice 11:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks

message: *The image of the Papuans of New Guinea if Original research because it says that they "are considered black in some cultures" and there is no reference showing this to be true. That means it is original research. 
*The image of  Alek Wek is original research because it says that "Some would classify her as Caucasoid". There is also no reference to this either. There is a reference from Diop claiming that proponents of the Dynastic race theory (a historical theory) assert that Dinkas are "Caucasoid" but it doesn't specify that Alek Wek is. The quote also needs to specify who "some" are and also specify that those who belief(ed) this were proponents of the historical Dynastic race theory which is no longer mainstream, if it ever was. 
Wikidudeman (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be good enough if we have sources that show that the Papuans of New Guinea are considered black in some cultures, and if we specify who said that those people are "Caucasoid" in the Wek photo's caption. With those things added, I think it's fine to use Alek Wek, it's much better to use a famous person who can be named than just an anonmyos picture of people in these kinds of cases. It would also be better if we had the names of the people from New Guinea.futurebird 18:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless a source is provided for the photo of the Papuans of New Guinea then it has to go. And I'll also have to change the caption from the Wek photo. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: At this point the Wek, photo is fine. But, one of the links to sources on the other photo is broken. We need to fix that. futurebird 18:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research in images 

message: First of all, I would like to encourage everyone to keep their tempers at bay and cool their exchanges. I think this talk page could use more civility right now. 
Second, here's how I see the situation: it seems some editors see Afrocentrism as merely a "social movement", a politics totally disconnected from any possible connection to academic endeavor. Other see Afrocentrism (or Afrocentricity - I'm not particular about this bit of semantics) as partly a social movement, but one whose better ideas has also permeated legitimate academia, thereby changing in some measure recent views of history, among other things (and please - I'm no expert, so I may be missing things, but I'm just trying to sum up everything to everyone's benefit). Therefore, I'm wondering if any editors (surmising my appreciation of each position isn't entirely wrong) could supply additional references to substantiate exactly their position. Otherwise, I think we're doomed to suffer quite a bit more of unnecessary POV-slinging before we can sort this out. It's also possible that both are competing views of Afrocentrism, and that both shuld be presented side by side; like I said, I'm no expert. The only thing I know is that this battle about who's right and who's wrong shouldn't be allowed to continue longer.--Ramdrake 19:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was asked by Ramdrake to look at the article as an uninvolved admin, and I'm seeing a lot of uncivil behavior. Everybody needs to calm down and not violate 3RR. I'm considering protecting the article for awhile so that all of you can cool down. I'd also like to suggest that you open a mediation regarding this article, WP:MEDCAB or WP:MEDCOM may be able to help you. Again, please don't violate 3RR, it will most likely lead to you being blocked, and please discuss the matter civilly. I'm going to keep an eye on things here for awhile, please come talk to me if you have any concerns. Regards, Neranei (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Just asking here: is it possible that Dab's vision of Afrocentrism be closer to what it might have been at its origins, and that it has evolved since? If so, could some sort of working compromise be hammered out along the lines of "Afrocentrism - then, and now"? BTW, it looks like the article's been protected for a day or two, which I don't think is too bad, considering everything.--Ramdrake 20:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly think it should be protected, as I've seen 3 reverts from 2 parties today, and another one would most likely result in a block, setting back any hopes of a discussion. It's only been protected for 1 day, by the way. Hopefully that'll give everyone a chance to cool their heels, I don't want to have to start handing out blocks unless it's absolutely necessary. Please discuss the matter civilly. Regards, Neranei (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Cases where a term is broad or vague, can be tricky of course.  There is some pseudoscholarly claptrap that falls under this term, and there's some legit stuff too.  The article should present competing views of afrocentrism (insofar as they're backed up by proper sources) without authors trying to insist that they alone have the One True Definition of the term.  Friday (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My take on the reverts 

message: :The link to Kamau Kambon is to be removed. This is blatant POV. No major Afrocentric writer has ever advocated killing any race of human beings. Nuwaubianism should also be removed. It borrows from non-african traditions. If one can explain why Nuwaubianism is Afrocentric one should put it back.  
:"Afrocentricity, or Afrocentrism, is a controversial ethnocentric approach to the study of history which stresses the distinctive identity and contributions of African cultures to world history."  (blatant POV)---change to 
:Afrocentricity, or Afrocentrism, is an approach to the study of history which stresses the distinctive identity and contributions of African cultures to world history.
:Positive developments on article. Omniposcent 06:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur fully.  Who on earth put that there?  It reads like trolling.  deeceevoice 11:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that the word "ethnocentric" should be removed. It's not accurate to call it all ethnocentric, when there are writers who stress that ethnocentrism is not their aim. Some critics have made that charge, true, but it is hardly part of the definition. futurebird 14:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added "ethnocentric" as an alternative to the characterization of Afrocentrism as an "ideology" -- which it clearly is not in its purest/truest, broadest sense.  It was a word used to characterize Eurocentrism in the lead paragraph of that article (whereas "ideology" was not), and I was using it in the sense of primary focus of concern/interest, rather than a kind of inward, self-absorption/bias projected outward.  But given the way others -- particularly given the rampant antagonism/antipathy toward such matters on this website -- are prone to interpret the term, I would agree.  Strike it.  It was an attempt at compromise, but one which ultimately does as much a disservice to the subject matter as the characterization of Afrocentrism as an "ideology".  deeceevoice 15:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, agreed too. Strike, please.--Ramdrake 15:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHY IS ? 

message: :Wikidudeman (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ramdrake 15:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: futurebird 15:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Will do

message: deeceevoice 15:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Won't do

message: Just read your edits, look good to me, but pray tell, what is the difference between African studies and Africana studies? Care to enlighten me? Thx!--Ramdrake 13:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, the words, get a little crazy, do they! Africana studies, as I understand it, relates to the African diaspora so, African Americans, Afro Cubans, etc. on the other hand 'African studies' studies are about Africa. (I think) though, the African American studies page makes it sound like Africana studies are just another name for African American studies... I think that is wrong, but I need to find some sources. futurebird 13:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Africana Studies covers the African diaspora and Africa itself. See, e.g., http://africanastudies.vassar.edu/overview.html, which says that Africana Studies "provides students with a comparative perspective in their approach to the study of the histories, politics, cultures and experiences of peoples of African origin." --Akhilleus (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I did some work trying to fix the links on those pages. -- futurebird (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question for Futurebird 

message: Where should this quote go? I don't think we need it. My reasoning is he's talking about race in biological terms and the concern of nearly every Afro centrist is cultural influence, not race. Ideas?  futurebird 14:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: sourced quote

message: :We're retreading old ground.  This is getting far too much into the argument about the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians, which is another article.  There should be some reference to this debate, but that's it. 
:But, FYI, here's the deal.  The view that, IMO, makes the most sense is that some Ethiopians and Somalis and Kenyans (because they are also diverse phenotypically) have physical characteristics that have been described as "Caucasoid."  The huge, honking problem with this is that they are indigenous to Africa.  They are called "Caucasoid" simply because it suits the agenda of those who would try to claim dynastic Egypt as a non-black civilization.  Chief among these so-called "Caucasoid" characteristics is the lack of, or lack of substantial, prognatism.  But the fact is Senegalese and other indigenous Africans also lack prognathism.  Yet, curiously, there has been no rush by these same anthropologists/Egyptologists to label the people of Senegal "Caucasoid."  Why?  Because there's nothing to be gained from doing so -- not to mention they would be, figuratively speaking, be laughed out of the room.
:The fact of the matter is the physical characteristics exhibited by the peoples of tne Nile region -- again, some Ethiopians and some Somalis and Sudanese and some Kenyans as well as some Nubians (limited prognathism; relatively straight, fine hair) that deviate from the so-called "true Negro/Negroid" or "Equatorial African" (coarse, very curly hair; wide nasal index, dolichocephalic, full lips, etc., etc.) are merely expressions of the natural biodiversity of indigenous Africans, much as the Bantu, Khoisan, pygmies differ among themselves and from very tall, gracile, Nilotic peoples, such as the Tutsi and the Dinka.  It makes no more sense to separate them out from other indigenous blacks of the African continent than it does to separate out the Khoisan because of the women's steatopygia and genitalia, or their epicanthic eyefolds, or  Nilotic (used here in the phenotypical sense, rather than the geographic sense) peoples, because of their gracile stature; or, to separate out the Sherpa from other Asian peoples because of their substantial physical and physiological adaptations to their high-altitude environment.
:DNA analysis suggests that those groups singled out by some anthropologists as "Caucasoid" are actually proto-Caucasoid.  That is, it is primarily those peoples who migrated out of the Horn into parts east and west, who gave rise eventually to that branch of humanity we call Caucasians -- hence, the phenotypical similarities.  And that is why Afrocentrists -- backed by mainstream scholarship in this matter -- argue that the tag "Caucasoid" is a deliberately misleading misnomer, one used to appropriate African culture/history by those who twist the language to suit a Eurocentric paradigm.  There is no so-called "Mediterranean race."  It is a fallacy.  The brown-skinned "Mediterranean race" is actually comprised of indigenous, black Africans.  And calling the father (proto-Caucasoid blacks) after the son (Caucasians), "Caucasoid," runs counter to all known naming conventions.  Africans should be described/classified according to their geographic origin (Africoid), just as Europeans (Caucasoid) and Asians (Mongoloid) are named after theirs.  User: deeceevoice 14:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Responding

message: In the last paragraph here and in other places, the article sets up Arnold Toynbee as a great Eurocentric person to do battle with. This weakens the article. First of all, the Wikipedia article on him shows that he wasn't that influential, and secondly, he did his major work before 1961.  He doesn't seem that significant.---- Parkwells (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Role of Ancient Egypt

message: The article would be more substantive if it dealt with sources and criticism other than Time magazine. It doesn't represent scholarly work, but rather the effort to make ideas more sensational for popular consumption.---- Parkwells (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I;m adding this back post any objections here. -- futurebird (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted this section because I found it offensive.  It is an affront to any serious student of history, let alone scholarly Afrocentrists.  If it is restored, take care to place it where it belongs -- in the section treating the lunatic fringe -- because it is to that group only that such rudimentary, commonsense/"duh" advice has any possible useful application. deeceevoice (talk) 15:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: This section starts with a lengthy quote that appears to be suggesting it's the current state of Afrocentric thinking, but the author isn't identified, nor are we told on the page (not in the reference) why we should pay attention to this person - what is his role? Why should we care?  Similarly, Kunjufu is noted later in the section, but not why we should pay attention to him.  You need to help out all readers, not just those who might already be familiar with the topic. ---- Parkwells (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, but I don't have answers to your question as I'm still looking through the sources. I put the quote there, rather than delete it (it is sourced) becuse it was from the 90s. Simple as that. If you want to write an intro, or remove it it's fine with me. -- futurebird (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I bought Williams' work when it first came out in 1971.  About the subsequent edition, I believe I recall hearing him say that edition contained more copious citations/documentation in response to reader/critic requests.  I believe another edition may have come out that is titled something like The Destruction of Black Civilization:  Great Issues of a Race, (prehistoric date) - 2000.  Williams, I think, passed in the '90s, though, so I'm not sure under what circumstances that version was reissued/re-edited or whatever.  deeceevoice (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The note in the article refers to the 1987 edition. I just added the comment because of reading more about him and noting the first edition in 1971 - which made me wonder if he should have been included with earlier scholars, as he probably represented their thinking more than that of the late 1980s.  I dont' have an opinion.--Parkwells (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I moved him back to the 70s, if he was still a big deal in the 80s and 90s we can mention him again. Let us know when you take a look at the book deecee, if it seems significantly updated, and worth mentioning. (could help to show how the focus shifted over time... or not) futurebird (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 80s and 90s

message: In noting the work of Drusilla Dunjee Houston, the section doesn't say anything about how her work has held up. Is it supposed to be substantive, as Du Bois' was, or an inspirational assessment/personal meditation on what that civilization might have been like? Scholars are always looking over and revising past opinions.  When I looked up information about Houston, this site <http://voices.cla.umn.edu/vg/Bios/entries/houston_drusilla_dunjee.html> noted that Houston didn't include any notes or bibliography with her work.  So, can it be considered a contribution to historical thinking? A contemporary scholar is trying to add those sections for republication. ---- Parkwells (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Early 19th and 20t c

message: The fact that 19th c. scholars made mistakes (as in directions of migration movements out of or into Africa) doesn't always mean that they were totally biased and always had evil intent. There were many mistakes made by 19th c. scholars.  Aren't there any critics who note that some of the proponents of Afrocentrism are sounding a lot like the original biased Europeans themselves? That point of view doesn't appear here. Surely we can do better than an attempt to get rid of "all European and Arab influences" and focus on "Africa only", whatever that is supposed to mean. If people study history, linguistics, archeology or art, or almost anything seriously, it becomes obvious that peoples were always on the move (at least traders and marauders were), trading languages, arts, foods, sex, etc. for tens of thousands of years. There weren't those simple separations. Yes , from family to tribe to clan, each group likes to claim it is the center of the universe, and we all see the world through a screen. ---- Parkwells (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps adding the text I posted in your thoughts on the criticism section will help with this. However, I have to say I don't agree that "scholars made mistakes" is the right way to frame this. There has been a lot of resistance to the idea of African agency and civilization early on. Most of it has dissipated, but it was real, it was necessary to justify the slave trade and a part of the colonial world-view. -- futurebird (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't mean to oversimplify.--Parkwells (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Eurocentrism

message: Given the conflicts here I won't make any edits to the article itself just yet.  But I do have two suggestions to make the lead paragraph more NPOV.
:(1)"Therefore, Afrocentricity is a paradigmatic shift from a European-centered history to an African-centered history." 
Before "Afrocentricity," add "they view" and change the "is" to "as" (or find some other way to make identify whose view this is.
:(2)"The ideas of some Afrocentrists have been called pseudohistorical by Western mainstream scholars, especially claims regarding Ancient Egypt.  Contemporary Afrocentrists may view the movement as multicultural rather than ethnocentric."
I think that in between these two sentences you need another sentence attributing to someone the view that Afrocentrism is ethnoicentric.  Doing this would add another (critical) view.  But unless you add something like this, the subsequent sentence is a non-sequitor.  It seems like there are two distinct criticisms of Afrocentrism:first, that it is pseudohistory, second, that it is ethnocentric.  These may be related criticisms but I think they are still distinct criticisms. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I took care of #1. I'm not knowledgable enough for the others. But, I agree with you %100 above, and especially that another sentence is needed between the two views. I just don't know what that is. BTW, good to see you Steve! Missed you. :) ~Jeeny (talk) 12:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead paragraph 

message: The quotation is potentially useful to include, say in comparison to the rather more extreme claims of Hoskins, but I suggest that it should bpart of a wider discussion of this concept of centredness and the scholarly and political claims made for it.
Okay, sounds fair.
Also, all the stuff from Hume and others is really really marginal. We all know that many Western intellectuals though Africans were inferior. We don't need great chunks of text repeating the same point.
I don't know if people know that. I think it's really important to include it because it helps people to understand why there had to be a whole movement-- It adds context. But, I'll see what the other editors think. futurebird (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the context of European racial theories should be in the history section. Hume is completely irrelevant, since he is simply expressing a suspicion that Africans may be inferior. It's easy to find much more confident and definite statements that they are inferior, belonging to the period when the precursors of Afrocentrist ideas start to emerge in reaction to such views. The 1911 EB is full of such statements. The scientific racism article has many sources. Paul B (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Martin Bernal has never, as far as I know, described himself as an Afrocentrist. Asante's book Afrocentricity is the source of the term. As so often, the problem is in part that different authors use the term in different ways.  Stephen Howe's book Afrocentrism: Mythical Pasts and Imagined Homes is probably the best known book which discusses Afrocentrism as essentially tied to disaporia African identity, as its title indicates. Paul B (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concede I may be wrong.  However, I did not mean to suggest that Bernal claims to be an Afrocentrist, only that his book has been used by Afrocentrists.  I believe (yes, I could be wrong, no I do not have any sources handy) that his book was accused of Afrocentrism.  I thought the book had entered into (i.e. has been mentioned) by people debating Euro- and Afro-centrism.  Even if Bernal himself does not claim to be an Afrocentrist, the book itself can reveal things about Afrocentrism IF it is refered to by people who self-identify as Afrocentrists or are accused of Afrocentrism. PaulB, are you satisfied that Howe's views are adequately represented in the article?  Futurebird and others - are you satisfied that Howes' views are clearly represented as his views and not as "the truth?"  If so then can both PaulB and Futurebird agree we are together moving towards full NPOV compliance?  What are other areas of concern? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh yes, the book has been called Afrocentrist, that's for sure. It's one of the targets of Lefkowitz's famous critique ("Not Out of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became an Excuse to Teach Myth As History"). There are may sources - both pro and anti which define Afrocentrism in terms of disapora identity-politics. The analogy with feminist hsitorys as liberatory/ideological scholarship is evidenced in articles such as Kershaw's Afrocentrism and the Afrocentric Method in the Journal of Black Studies, 1992, which states that "African-American studies is a necessary discipline if Afrocentric scholars are to be generated who have a commitment to being scholar activists." Paul B (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lefkowitz' book is evidence enough that Bernal has been said to be an Afrocentrist; I've read at least one article by an Afrocentrist that says that Bernal isn't one. I'll try to dig up the cite later; I think the Bernal stuff is relevant to this article, since it seems important to many Afrocentrists to claim Egypt as a "Black" civilization. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: As far as I am aware we are not working on a "competing project" to the EB. Our aim s not to provide some alternative view to the EB. There are still quite number of articles that replicate chunks of the 1911 EB, the Nutall and other encyclopedias. However, my view about the organisation is that it should start by describing the emergence of Afrocentrism as a distinct and defined concept (with Asante's Afrocentricity), looking at the immediate background to that. It should then go into the deeper history and the context of early debates from black intellectuals in Crisis,  JNH etc, as well as the more "extreme" ideas associated with Garvey and James. We can then explore how these traditions came together and eviolved into a variety of overlapping and competing views. Paul B (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: response

message: Two of the most important sections  - "Role of Ancient Egypt" and "Eurocentrism" -  come AFTER the chronological development of ideas within Afrocentrism.  When you look at the references, however, you see that many of the ideas of these two sections developed in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. This was the time of intellectual ferment also caused by revisionist historians looking at the roles of minorities, women and working class (also influenced by earlier French intellectuals); intellectual historian Edward Said's 1979 "Orientalism"; and paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man", which showed how cultural biases distorted "scientific" measurement and conclusions.  All efforts are human.
Because of this placement, though, we revisit ideas that were developed in earlier times (and only know that IF we look at every reference).  Also, the argument/discussion seems to go in circles. I think both these sections have to be moved up much earlier in the article.
Also, I still find it confusing from the article - as it stands  - to try to figure out just WHAT  people in the Afrocentric movement thought WHEN about Egypt. These ideas have really taken hold popularly, wrong or right. 
It appears that many Egyptologists don't think there is much reason to believe that Egyptians were black as we understand it, but that message isn't very clear. Other scholars have clearly shown that Afrocentric claims of "Aristotle stealing from the Alexandria Library" couldn't have happened.
I made better written comments here this morning which I lost by failing to save properly. If you want me to work at reorganizing the article, I will.--Parkwells (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization

message: I tried to reorganize this, but it needs supplementation. I think the ideas about culture have to be separated from the ideas (and evidence) about physical characteristics or "race". To me they seem to be mixed in almost every paragraph, and it's impossible to understand what people were referring or responding to. I reordered it somewhat to put earlier thinkers (as shown by references) earlier in the section. In these cases of archeology and other studies, I think it's important to show within the article when people were writing or thinking. It is still unbalanced, but this is a start. It shoudl not be ending with conclusions of an early-mid 20thc. historian set against someone writing in the 1990s. Also, the reference to "writing through the centuries" about Egypt's contribution to Mediterranean culture is pretty vague. I'm not sure what it means, although I took a stab at historiography--Parkwells (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Role of Ancient Egypt

message: The early (in chronology) Afrocentric cultural claims/beliefs about Egypt or groups of Africans such as Somalis can't be equated as equivalent and just as good to "believe" as later physical evidence derived from DNA and archeology.  The last paragraph of this section particularly goes in circles as it goes through some ideas/claims in almost chronological fashion, but then in almost the last sentence refers to a scholar writing in 1974, when more recent DNA evidence seems to have overturned his theories of anthropology.  So I ended up confused again there, just when I thought I was getting it.--Parkwells (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Views on Race

message: "Recent work on skeletons and DNA suggests that the people who settled in the Nile valley, like all of humankind, came from somewhere south of the Sahara; they were not (as some nineteenth-century scholars had supposed) invaders from the North. See Bruce G. Trigger, "The Rise of Civilization in Egypt," Cambridge History of Africa (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1982), vol I, pp 489-90; S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54."
Do we need this? Where should it go if anywhere? futurebird (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What would be the purpose?  We should not be adding material meant to support a particular view-point.  We should however provide whatever material is necessary to describe and explain a particular view-point.  Does this material help us better describe or explain the position of Afrocentrists, those they criticize, or those who criticize them?  If so, it should go in; if not, then I see no point.  (On the other hand, this material seems very relevant to an article on ancient Egypt or the history of Egypt!!!!!!) Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry i misunderstood - I was offering my opinion on general principles.  Now I understand you were asking for a specific answer from someone involved in the article ... Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understood that material (above) as supporting the Afrocentrist idea that Europeans had made errors in developing theories of history and civilzation based on their own assumptions of superiority.  Thus, 19thc. European thinkers thought "invaders from the north" had settled in the Nile Valley and were the ones who later created the magnificent Egyptian civilization.  Instead, in more ancient times tens/hundreds of thousands of years ago (before people's comprehension), peoples had migrated north (like the many streams of mankind) from south of the Sahara.  Those peoples and their descendants were settled in the Nile Valley for huge chunks of time before the Egyptian civilization arose.  That said, there are limits to Afrocentrists claiming that very ancient history means that Egypt was directly connected to African cultures as they much later developed among the peoples who lived in southern and western Africa tens/hundreds? of thousands of years later - but that's a separate issue. If timing is not used to separate/define some limits around cultures, then it is difficult to talk about them at all. --Parkwells (talk) 14:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, if that is the case, I think adding it violates NOR (unless an Afrocentrist scholar whom we can cite actually uses Trigger's work to support this Afrocentrist idea; then we can cite that Afrocentrist scholar. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree, so then we can't use it. futurebird (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: removed from the section on Eurocentrism

message: I've added to the introduction here to provide context for what was originally a Western Hemisphere argument among intellectuals and leaders - of course it also had political implications, and added some events to provide background.--Parkwells (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we need more sources for the things you added. futurebird (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Futurebird - I changed this section slightly and added a source.  See what you think. I was trying to link it to Woodson and Du Bois's positions later in the 20th c. --Parkwells (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's much better now. And the flow is starting to come together. futurebird (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: In the West and elsewhere, the European, in the midst of other peoples, has often  propounded an exclusive view of reality; the exclusivity of this view creates a  fundamental human crisis.  In some cases, it has created cultures arrayed against each  other or even against themselves.  Afrocentricity’s response certainly is not to impose its  own particularity as a universal, as Eurocentricity has often done.  But hearing the voice  of African American culture with all of its attendant parts is one way of creating a more sane society and one model for a more humane world. Asante, M. K. (1988).  Afrocentricity. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press Inc. Page 28
I'm reading this quote as "Asante thinks that the Eurcentric world view is one where there is only one world view, but the Afrocentric world view acknowledges that other views exists." Is that what he's saying? 
In theory, Asante sees Afro-centricity involving the interpretation analysis from the perspective of African people as subjects rather than objects. In practice, Afrocentric principles are used to interpret and explain issues in the search for understanding within the historical context associated with underrepresented groups overlooked for generations. On the rhetoric of Afrocentricity. Journal article by Karen Strother-Jordan; The Western Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 26, 2002
futurebird (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What is Asante saying here?

message: Likewise, religious movements such as Vodou are now less likely to be characterized as "mere superstition", but understood in terms of links to African traditions. Scholars who adopt such approaches may or may not see their work as Afrocentrist in orientation.
Could someone please list their source for that little tid-bit?? I know nothing of the topic, but, it seems plausible and in line with the other types of research I've documented, but the "citation needed" tag is bugging me. futurebird (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This bit seems to be claiming that scholars study Vodou in terms of its links to African traditions because of Afrocentrism, then says that such work is not necessarily Afrocentrist. Well, of course it's not necessarily Afrocentrist--studying the historical origins of religious phenomena is part of what responsible scholars do. But this article seems to be written in such a way that any positive treatment of anything relating to Africa, African-Americans, or the other peoples of the African diaspora is the result of Afrocentrism. Obviously things are much more complex, and this article should really pay more attention to Afrocentrism's historical origins and contextualizing it in broader cultural and academic movements. I mean, the article only uses the word "postcolonial" once! --Akhilleus (talk) 04:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is hard to find a citation that supports the quoted material because the issue is still in play in academic circles. However, anyone involved in the study of African diasporic spirituality is aware that the tide has turned and that not only Vodou, but also hoodoo, Umbanda, Candomble, Lukumi, Obeah, Palo, Santeria, and other African diasporic spiritual traditions are being trated with greater respect by academics since the coming of the Internet. Yet, truth to tell, i know of no scholarly survey that statistically evaluates that trend. It would be nice to be able to locate a survey demonstrating that highly negative adjectives such as "superstition-ridden" and "primitive" are being phased out in favour of value-neutral terms like "African diasporic" and "traditional" -- but, to my knowledge, no one has yet written that PhD. thesis. :-) cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, I've been working on this and I'd love some help. I'm a math person so I find all of these humanites things confusing. futurebird (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contemporary: Vodou

message: It's always hard to identify where intellectual movements start and end.  Some of the history shows activities/efforts in Africa, related in part to relationships to the whole colonization and Egyptologists. 
It is interesting to note that there's been a lot of scholarship on Afrocentricity coming out of America and reflecting US experience, but maybe that's also because of the US intellectual structure - universities, plus the 60s and 70s having been filled with intellectual ferment and reworking of a lot of history due to a variety of factors. And people in the US trying to solve US problems.
There were a couple of themes going on - many groups saying they hadn't been represented in American history, and all this new work by historians on the experiences of African Americans, different ethnic groups, women - their stories/history, etc. from their own points of view and experience, much new work on labor history and the working class, immigration, etc. That shifted history and cultural studies from the 1960s on, and had precedents before. 
Huge amounts of new work were done, including the beginning of more findings in African American archeology, especially in SC, which contributed to understanding the extent of African continuities in African American culture, as did the work in linguistics about Gullah. I know this wasn't defined as Afrocentricity and didn't mean the same thing - I just wanted to provide some perspective.  People began to learn and see differently.
This started before Asante at Temple. 
While Edward Said's (1978) book "Orientalism" was about a different topic,it had tremendous influence on history and cultural analysis of many sorts.
There were also changing ideas about continuity of cultures and the construction of cultures across the board.  US historians starting looking less at evidence of American exceptionalism, which had operated for a long time in early histories as part of the nation's construction of its story of Revolution and triumph, and looking at continuities.
So David Hackett Fischer had a book of synthesis (1989) "Four British Folkways in America", in which he looked at continuities of cultures as they developed (and were expressed in naming patterns, housing, family formation, education, voting patterns through the 1960s, etc.) in New England, the Chesapeake Bay Colony and South, the Mid-Atlantic and the backcountry during colonial times. This was one slant.
Other historians and a variety of scholars were looking/appreciating cultural continuities among other groups, too, including accumulating work on African Americans, which was also in the US much  influenced by the Civil Rights Movement, Black Power and other movements. There was new recognition, too, of W.E.B. Du Bois' history of "Black Reconstruction" and a reevaluation about Reconstruction and post-Civil War history.  Don't mean to bring everything into it, but many strands played into the importance and rise of Afrocentricity.--Parkwells (talk) 16:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I actually addressed some of the the broadening of historical studies you write here about, with work by, and focusing on, women, blacks, Latinos and other groups, in an earlier post in response to a query by futurebird -- and my perfectly reasonable response ended up being used as "evidence" of my purported "POV pushing" in an ANI procedure.  Just hilarious.  It helped get me banned from editing this article.  And it's potentially still in effect.  Just peachy. deeceevoice (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Broader movement

message: It's really looking good! I think the changes have added so much to readers being able to understand how Afrocentricity developed, and also how it has changed through the decades. --Parkwells (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Though the sections on "Definitions of Pan-African identity" and "Views on race" still need a lot of work and they are missing many sources. I've been thinking that maybe we should merge them? After all Pan-African identity is mean to replace race... I think. futurebird (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those two sections do need work, and I think I may try moving them forward in the article, too, as so much of what people were writing in the 40s-60s seemed to grow out of those earlier ideas. Pan-African theory in the most extreme form, to include indigenous peoples in Southeast Asia or Melanesia, who "left Africa" tens of thousands of years ago, seems so stretched in time as to lose meaning.  If pan-Africanists base their idea on "how people look" and disregard how people self-identify or what their genetic characteristics are, isn't that just going in a big circle on race - aren't they creating a situation like the objections to earlier conceptions of race which they started with?  (But I'll just focus on the article.)--Parkwells (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: What is you understanding of the "Afrocentrist" idea about Egypt and race, dab? JJJamal (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: please review, oh, let's say the past two years' worth of talk archives of the article. dab (𒁳) 23:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the problem is that you're fighting a straw-man. Well, that's what I think. Let's talk about this, dab. Can we do that? JJJamal (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am fighting to uphold WP:UNDUE, not more and not less. I have no problems with articles on Afrocentrist views, as long as they are presented for what they are. The main problem over a the "AE and race" article is that it discusses Afrocentrist ideology without stating up front that it is doing that. There are lots of options of how to solve that, such as introducing an "in Afrocentrism" section, just as long as we do solve it.  My only motivation to be involved here at all is to combat the passing off of Afrocentrist ideology as bona fide Egyptology. You want to discuss Egyptology -- you rely on academic Egyptological literature. You want to discuss Afrocentrism - you state that you are discussing Afrocentrism. That's all. I am sure that if everyone can forgo the temptation of letting the trolls shout down the debate just because they happen to share your basic ideology, we can come to a satisfactory compromise solution. The trick is to stay skeptical of all edits, those supporting the gist of your personal point of view just as much or (even more) than those contradicting it. dab (𒁳) 08:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: well, it is pertinent to this article. The point is that a lot of material from the "AE and race" article belongs merged into the "Egypt" section here. The "AE and race" article is still protected. If we can agree to move the Afrocentrist stuff from there to here, we can do it now, and take away the main burden of the "dispute" at the protected article. dab (𒁳) 08:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After looking at recent entries at the discussion page at Race of ancient Egyptians article, it doesn't look as if there will be an easy way to resolve those differences. People have entered the fray who seem way off point.--Parkwells (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Improving

message: If you need to talk about Egypt and race, please take it to that article and don't get into it here.--Parkwells (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well, it is pertinent to this article. The point is that a lot of material from the "AE and race" article belongs merged into the "Egypt" section here. The "AE and race" article is still protected. If we can agree to move the Afrocentrist stuff from there to here, we can do it now, and take away the main burden of the "dispute" at the protected article. dab (𒁳) 08:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After looking at recent entries at the discussion page at Race of ancient Egyptians article, it doesn't look as if there will be an easy way to resolve those differences. People have entered the fray who seem way off point.--Parkwells (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AE