Talk:Afrocentrism/Archive 8

message: "A better way to approach Afrocentrism than to comdemn it as false scholarship is to understand Afrocentrism as a political, social, and cultural movement which has nothing to do with academic history. Afrocentrism is no history – it represents a partisan ideology and like any partisan ideology it simply wants to exploit the history in order to justify its own cause."
http://www.cairn.info/article.php?ID_REVUE=AFHI&ID_NUMPUBLIE=AFHI_001&ID_ARTICLE=AFHI_001_0169#fp_no69
MoritzB 02:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revolution has no use for savants: A Fenno-Egyptian view of Afrocentrism

message: ::I think TD is missing my point, but then again TD has always missed the point. Your statement implied that you bought into the mythology of the white cowboy. If only Hollywood could reflect the ethnic diversity of true cowboys instead of creating mythologies for whites that appeals to the Eurocentric tendency to be in the center of everything. But mainstream Hollywood has fed quite a bit of Eurocentric mythologies like Cleopatra being a lilly white German woman. The fact that the Blues was influenced by white hymns and Blues influenced Country, illustrates that your European assimilation was certainly not perfect. It was a two way street. You can't mess with Africa and Africans and don't get tainted. Once you go Black you don't go back African popular music was certainly not influence by Islam or Christian music, maybe music only found in the church or the mosque. The thought of Soukous, Mbalax, and Mbaqanga being influence by Christian and Islamic music is hillarious (This might be a sacrilegious statement to African Christians and Muslims). It wouldn't surprise me if I found this in Wikipedia, these Eurocentrist try to claim all African achievement for themselves or try to deny African achievements.
::You miss my point here again. Eurasia is a geographic designation. TD uses Eurasia in a cultural context. Eurocentrist have always separated Europe from Asia, geographically and culturally. Recently Eurocentrist like Diamond have reconnected Europe with Asia in a cultural context. But why? The reconnection is due to Asia’s ascendency. Europe is getting significant competition from that region of the world, a non white  region. Europe was once the hedgemonic center of all modern human development and achievements. Eurocentrist are aware of  Asia’s ascendancy and also the biological component, the fact that Asian IQ’s are higher than whites, conceptualize by Jensen’s concept of g. Ultimately, if IQ is the determinant of biological superiority then Asians, particularly East Asians are the superior race.  This reconnection is an attempt to remain significant and relevant. By reconnecting Europe to Asia, Eurocentrist are engaging in theft. They are trying to steal Asian culture, engage in cultural appropriation. The invention of paper by the Chinese is now connected to Europeans, under the banner Eurasians. Christianity, Islam,  Hinduism, and Budhism can now be affiliated to Europeans, and Europeans are part of its creation.
::To say that “the world fundamentally doesn't care about or for black people” is Eurocentric thinking, natural hostility intrinsic in their society. First of all this can be said about other races including the white race. It has zero significance. TD assumes universality. TD speaks for the world. Typical Eurocentrist, his opinions and views are everyone’s. White people are not the world . It is for the African to fix his own problem not the world.(a good percentage of it cause by European  imperialist).
::Again TD remains ignorant to the facts. The whole world wants a piece of  Africa, with “the malaria-ridden countries.” The whole world acknowledges Africa’s importance to their economic growth and well being.  I call this the second scramble for Africa. America has removed Africa from the European Command and placed her under her own command, the Africa Command.  There have been quite a few summits with Africa, the Africa /South American summit , Africa/China summit,  and soon to be the Africa/ EU summit. The  world only cares about African resources not Blacks. From this, we can infer the world fundamentally doesn't care about or for white  people. The world only care about white people’s money(Euros, Dollars, and maybe Pounds). I can reach other inflammatory conclusions (Wikipedia would have to ban me. I had to hold myself back), but Afrocentrists are not racists. Afrocentrism does not engage in inflammatory racist ideology. It is obvious who the racists are, Titanium Dragon, the AHs, and the Eurocentrist.
::African Americans are receiving more attention today than anytime in their history. Their cultural forms are emulated on all continents. People are rapping in almost 300+ languages.  Their stars are global icons. I don’t know where TD gets the notion that African Americans are being ignored and being disregarded as racist. Some of the most powerful figures in the world politics are African Americans.
::The countries that TD mentioned are all rich. That is about it. Unlike these countries America is rich and iconic. She has lots of  “soft power.” People want to be a part of her. She exports her culture. Her culture is willingly accepted not imposed. Sure Europe imposed her culture (not exported, there was no willing buyers/takers) on the New World. That is old news. TD dwells  on past glories, ancient history. America is not a carbon copy of Europe. American culture has been tainted by Africa. That taint of Africa contributes to her iconic status. America has cultivated African talent that has garnered her a vault full of Olympic victories and medals, the envy of the world. It seems now America is about to benefit from Africa’s brain drain. The “willing Africans” have provided a pool of highly skilled information workers to solidify  America’s hegemonic status. If Brazil can fixed her economic situation, she is the only country with the potential to rival America. Brazil is not a  carbon copy of Portugal. Brazil is not even in the same class as Portugal, just like America is not even in the same class as her founder nation.  The USA and Brazil both have surpass their lessor origins, both tainted by Africa. 
::The most successful Asian countries did not assimilate European culture, they merely replicated European institutions, the institutions of capitalism and institutions of technology/science, the source  of western hegemony.  One can say they started dressing western, but that was the whole world. The Japanese certainly did not start eating fish ‘n’ chips or dance waltzes or speak any European language or write in any European script. 
::If we follow TD’s logic, the ancient Romans and ancient Greeks were not white, they were just Romans and Greeks. They later became mixed with whites. Eurocentrist try to claim them for their race, because they're racists, but they weren't white. The Egyptians certainly were not white as some Eurocentrist claim. 
::Saying Egyptians were descended from Africans is to say they are biologically Africans, genetically related to other Africans and evolved in Africa. Their lines are connected to East Africans and East Africans are genetically connected to West Africans and all other Africans. Physical appearances are adaptation to environment. Egyptians have no genetic relations to Southwest Asians or Greeks.  In that sense they are certainly black.  DiamondRat 04:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DR, this rambling screed adds nothing but personal opinion. A lot of it downright bizarre (when did anyone portray Cleopatra as "German"?), and only the last paragraph is all relevant, though its arguments are very confused. Of course Egyptians are related to other African populations. But they are related to non-African populations too. The statement "Egyptians have no genetic relations to Southwest Asians or Greeks...in that sense they are certainly black" is both false and a non sequitor. All populations in the world are related to varying degrees.Paul B 08:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TO THE AH'S, EUROCENTRIST 

message: "Egypt" is mentioned 70(!) times throughout this article (yet not a single time in the lead). Is it accurate to state that Afrocentrism is essentially obsession over "Black identity of Ancient Egypt", or was this article just written by people who like Egypt, a lot? dab (𒁳) 10:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More the latter, I think. The 'Race of Egyptians' article (or whatever it's called now) started as a section of this article, but got so unwieldly and absurdly contentious that it was siphoned off to become its own article. Almost none of the contributors have ever shown any sign of interest in non-Egyptian African cultures, beyond a bizarre obsession with proving that all Africans constitute a single 'Black race' (or did until some Evil Invasion at some point). Very few have ever shown any interest in what Asante actually says in his book Afrocentricity, which is about claiming some sort of "centring" in African identity for African-Americans and seeking to reclaim or assert a distinctively 'African' set of values. Paul B 15:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There needs to probably be an article called "Afrocentric views of Ancient Egyptians" or something like that, however I think that the Race and ancient Egypt article needs to be merged with the Ancient Egypt article, since the Race and ancient Egypt article seems to be almost 100% Afrocentric pseudoscientific views of Ancient Egyptians. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Egypt

message: I came to this article looking for a general explanation of what Afrocentrism is. Instead, I got a very muddled and contradictory set of arguments for and against it. I'm still not sure exactly what it is. After attempting to plough through some of the disputes here on the talk page, I can see it's obviously a hotly-debated field. Still, that doesn't really help me, or anyone else who wants to learn what it IS. A section dedicated to outlining the general beliefs of Afrocentrists would be great. Not having to read the entire article to have to piece together a simple definition would be similarly great.
I suppose it could be argued that the lead-in does this, but it seemed confusing to me: "Afrocentrism is an approach to the study of world history which stresses the distinctive identity and contributions of African cultures." Well, who would disagree with that? Obviously each world culture has its own identity. "Therefore, Afrocentrism aims to shift the focus from a European-centered history to an African-centered history." So, does that mean it's just as biased as Eurocentrism, simply in a different direction? Or does it aim to include African history in broader studies of history? "More broadly, Afrocentrism is concerned with distinguishing the influence of European peoples from African achievements." This seems clear at first, but is less so after reading the article. At first, I thought, "Well, duh. Obviously people know the difference between Africans and non-Africans." Apparently not.
What further confuses me is the debate about race taking place within the article and the talk page. Is Afrocentrism about AFRICA, or about being black? As for the race section, it's as ridiculous to claim that "African" is one race as to claim "European" is one race, especially as Africa is a much larger continent. This seemed especially unclear: "Afrocentrists hold that Africans exhibit a range of types and physical characteristics..." So, there are many different African races? But then, "They condemn attempts to split African peoples into racial clusters..." So, all Africans are the same race? The succeeding quote does nothing to explain this; it simply argues that Africans are not Caucasoid. If we consider that there are only three races, I suppose this makes sense, but if we consider larger ethnic groups as races, it doesn't. What's unclear is the Afrocentrist idea of race--Africans are Negroid, or Africans are A, B, and C? (The way we might say, Europeans are Caucasoid. Europeans are Germanic, Celtic, and Slavic, etc.)
Sorry for the long complaints. I just thought it might be worthwhile to remind the contributors to this article that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia--a resource for people who don't know much about a topic to look it up and learn about it--to do research. I wish I could be a little more constructive and help clear up this problem, but if I knew anything about the topic, I probably wouldn't have come in the first place. I just hope everyone can get back to making the article clear and concise for readers who are unfamiliar with the topic. I'd still really like to find out what Afrocentrism actually is. IrisWings 07:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing Content 

message: I take issue with the whole page but in particular this section it was clearly written from an afrocentric point of view a notes some dubious sources for the dna evidence,like s keita,and plays sleight of hand with the fact of studies and cherry picks things just as many afrocentrics distort things and mold things to see whats not really there to make up for there lack of own self confidence and there own low self esteem by making up fantasies of great ancient civilization that just was not theres like ancient egypt and ancient greece,for one instance the person put in this section brings up the fact that loring brace study backed by the michigan university,pointed out  that somaliis are a closer kinship to caucasoids than sub saharan africans, and is pretty much saying but look at them,once again an afrocentric looking at modern times and making assumptions,but when he edited the page he failed to point out that the  ancient egyptians are many many many more genetic connections or links to southern europe and the middle east than to even somalis are to caucasoid in the study even germans have more of a link to ancient egyptians than black africans in the study and mean they are even further apart meaning sub sahran africans,so just stop .mr.clarke who had a major axe to grind a celebrated afrocentrist one of the reasons he became an afrocentrist because he was inflicted by terrible racism of jim crow in alabama also seeing how moses was portrayed as white but he was born in africa this came out of ingnorance of not only white america but black america to that africa means black that is not true tell that to most of the berbers in habiting north africa as we type,north africa was not a black africa science has proven this,afoecentric science works something like this a statue in south america looks like it has some negroid features so this must mean there must have been black africans from west africa in the americas and explains the mayans and incas advanced civilizations,but yet when you point out the fact that many ancient egyptians had natural blonde or red hair and it like ramesses the great,than afrocentrics say no no no this is just a genetic fart,even dr.hawass came out and said to his theory and scentiffic evidence and what he has seen that egypt was not a black civilization or an arab one and he is far from an eurocentrist.word for the wise stop trying to steal what it not yours because of past wrongs that were done to black people.black people were not the only ones in history to be chained up and forced into slavery .the bottom is the egyptians would not fit into our modern day neat little suitcase of black and white but they were a meditrranean people not a sub saharan african one and as many have said and as a person who loves all history afrocentrist they ignore clear proven black great civilization and telling the world about they concentrate on trying to prove the disproven by trying to do what they claim the world has done to them.--Mikmik2953 20:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Case in point, the only one obsessing is those who are saying "Egyptians are not Black." They are obviously trying to claim Egyptians for Europeans.DiamondRat 02:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More likely they are claiming Egyptians for Egypt, not some mythical unified "African race". Paul B 06:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: 'Caucasoid' is an anthropometric category. And yes, Egypt - surprisingly - is on the mediterranean! Paul B 23:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Africa as a race