Talk:Black people/Archive 14

message: There are numerous citations in this article that completely lack content. My guess is that these were once second or later invocations of citations given in full earlier in the article, but someone removed the first citation and didn't move the content to the second one. Someone who is working on this article should sort through the history and restore these. The citations in question are the ones with the following names: DSouza, Boulaga, Risch, serre, Shahadah. - Jmabel | Talk 01:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've browsed back in the edit history and found those references and readded them. --Ezeu 19:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation apparatus 

message: I removed latinos as brown latino doesn't mean nothing racially it only means someone from a coutry where a latin laguage is spoken!!. If you meant race mixed Mexicans, write the correct word "mestizos" or mixed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.232.226.252 (talk • contribs).
u r correct Tony Braxton is latino and she is African-Caribbean--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 19:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove latino

message: Replace the Historical section with a couple of links. That would leave an article focused on modern definitions, and other modern viewpoints. All of the historical stuff exists in Race (historical definitions) and Hamitic myth. As written, what might be marginally useful background information dominates. Jd2718 18:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for reorganization 

message: Munto doesn’t mean black peole, it means people just like in Arabic zanj doesn’t mean black, this is a Eurocentric superimposition.  i.e. European world view is imposed on African linguistics thus our word for normal people (as we see ourselves, everyone is different from us hence we are normal and they are white) however Europeans have imposed one standard on the world where their world view & perception is suppose to be everyone else’s. Hence people is African languages means "black people" as they see us. All of this is discussed in the linguistics article referenced on this site.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 19:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My brief review says that Bantu is the plural of Muntu (person or man/ people), though if it is not needed for the article, it doesn't need research. Jd2718 19:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Halaquh seems to be referring to this edit, which seems to turn a sensible statement into nonsense. The original point was well expressed. Now we have the tautological assertion that the majority population of Sub-Saharan Africa is "African". The point of the sentence is to say that the word for person implicitly means what in in English would be called a black person, since there isa a separate term for a whitey. I don't know how true this is, but the point is clear and it has nothing to do with "Eurocentric superimposition". Paul B 23:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You merely demonstrsate that you did not even understand the original paragraph, and insist on the unhelpful and unsupported claims about "europeans". The original para very clearly stated that the word meant simply person, but pointed out that it was used implicitly to mean a black person because a different term is used for whites - in other words the normative model of a person is black. If you want to argue against that you will have to show that this is not true of actual usage. Paul B 00:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It still looks like original research to me (the part about "muntu" = implicitly "black person"). If it is true then there must be regional differences in the usage of the term "muntu". A reference would be nice. --Ezeu 23:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Superimposition of Eurocentric linguistics

message: I think my link should be included on the Black People page of wiki because the website has over 250,000 pages of information 100% of the content is about black people and by black people. The website has been on the internet over 10years.  100% relative to the wiki page content. Same content. 
link below. Thank You —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.81.140.185 (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links (add link to Black Peoople) 

message: The article currently says that "Statistics Canada uses the term Black as a synonym for African", and uses this webpage as its source for that assertion. Looks like nonsense to me--Ezeu 22:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics Canada 

message: The rule on British spellings vs. American spellings is, if I remember correctly, that whichever way an article starts it should remain that way. Recently someone changed a spelling in another article, apparently just thinking that the American spelling was wrong. In that case I had no trouble being sure of which side of the pond the article had started on since I had created that article some time ago.  
It would save me a lot of trouble if every article had a note (in "comment" format) at the top stating whether the spelling standard was to be American or British. 
If we don't keep to this standard, then people will start changing things back and forth. P0M 04:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency of spelling 

message: Ideally any images we add should name the person in the photograph. Is it dehumanizing to simply present a series of random nameless people? What do you think? futurebird 12:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures and names

message: What do others here think about adding this image?
(with a caption, of course.)futurebird 06:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding an image?

message: The images are looking more international, but there are far too many men!
futurebird 14:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many men

message: I am sorry to see that this page has languished and settled into a torpor of sorts. It could be far more interesting, but the vested interests have driven off all others. It makes me sick to see all the valuable content that has been placed here, then deleted, over and over for months and years. But oh well. I do not think much can be done about it since fevers run so high and each group is so convinced they are correct and no one else should have any input.--Filll 21:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whenever I tried to simplify the English, I was attacked. This is not rocket science. It is not that complicated. But people want to make it complicated. And certain people have decided they own the term. Unfortunately all the people that feel they own the term "black people" disagree with each other. So, it just devolves into a nightmare. And droves of editors leave. And huge amounts of great material get thrown away. Because who wants to waste time fighting about nonsense when it is of no consequence anyway? It is unappreciated. There are better ways to spend one's time. Too many people with agendas who are too angry. So...I just have given up. Too bad, because this could be a fascinating subject.--Filll 01:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Current state

message: I am not sure why the gallery even exists. But the current version is awfully large and awfully homogenous. It looks like every person in it is of at least partially Bantu origin. The heading "famous people" is hopelessly POV. Is there a reason to keep it? And if there is, could we get a few (not 16) photos of people from the different groups that this article is claiming may be called Black? Jd2718 00:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A picture is worth a thousand words- 
This article is about black people, not just about Africans or African-Americans that have their own seperate articles. I felt reinstating the gallery would be a good idea particulary if it showed notable people considered Black from each continent or sub-region of the world.Apparently President Bush once asked Brazilian President Cardoso "Do you have blacks too". Muntuwandi 00:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the current gallery does not show anything close to that variety. Fewer, but more diverse, that would be better. Jd2718 01:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That was attempted earlier on but we had some controversies regarding using fair use images. My efforts to find free images of black people from the Australia and Oceania region have been thwarted by complicated image laws and policies that only a supreme court judge could understand.Muntuwandi 01:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I recall back a few months, there was also a lot of hostility to various images. After a while, it becomes too tedious to fight any more about just nothing. I start to understand why so many have suggested to just AfD this article. It just makes too many people too angry about almost nothing. And it is tiring.--Filll 01:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Muntuwandi, if I had only understood your intention in adding that image I might not have given you such a hard time. I thought you were a white supremacist who was trying to make it seem like black people never bother to shave! I rushed to judgment, but in the end, we don't have the copyright for that image. So, let's move on and find one that we do have the copyright for. Maybe we could inquire at some international message boards. I bet someone would want to offer up their picture. But, they have to be photogenic!! :P futurebird 20:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also understand more and more why someone wanted an article called Bleople. I could imagine an article or two about bLack pEople or Black folks or Blax or whatever. But the political correctness police will attack any of those.--Filll 01:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I like it, but I think it should be a diverse as possible. So, find some uh-- non-bantu photos! The word "famous" should go.futurebird 20:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery 

message: To me what makes the article fascinating is the diversity in view points.  I think it's interesting that some people define black people as anyone descended from an equatorial region of the world, others are a little more narrow and limit black people to those from Africa, and some are more narrow still and limit black people to only those from sub-Saharan Africa.  But then regardless of which of these 3 camps you fall into, another debate runs parallel.  How much black ancestry does one need to be black?  Is any known black ancestry enough as the one drop rule suggests?  Do MOST of your ancestors have to be black as Rushton suggests?  Or is do almost ALL of your ancestors have to be black as Michael levin and Brazilian culture suggests. These types of disagreements are what makes the article fascinating so I don't understant the resistance to including this diverse range of opinion.  Gottoupload
Is that title Franish? Spench? Its vive la diference in French or viva la diferencia in Spanish, SqueakBox 20:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Viva la difference

message: When I edit capitalization I get gallery etc, something is wrong with the formatting and needs to be fixed. ic ant figure out how to myself, SqueakBox 20:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up

message: After some digging, I found that all three supposed experts in the Biological section - Michael Levin,  J. Phillipe Rushton, and Sally Satel - are not biologists (Levin's a philosopher, Rushton is a psychologist and Satel is a psychiatrist), and all three have blatant right wing political agendas. Levin is anti-gay, has written for right wing libertarian publications, and has spoken at events for the white separatist American Renaissance (magazine). Rushton is the head of the anti-immigrant and racist Pioneer Fund. Satel wrote a book against political correctness and doesn't think social justice should be a part of the medical field. Considering all three support only one side of the issue, and none of them have the academic credentials to speak on biological topics, I suggest deleting all three - at least until credible sources (i.e. actual biologists) are introduced into the section. Spylab 22:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And don't get me started on the likes of Dinesh D'Souza -- a self-loathing, true-believing, far-right right-wing brown-skinned East Indian.  deeceevoice 04:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This is an example of why this article is a sad parody of itself. And why so many other editors have given up on it. Aggressive attacks between the 5 or 6 major viewpoints has just discouraged anyone with anything constructive to add. And in fact there is aggressive disinterest in having a suite of articles to explore this area fully. It just makes me amazed.--Filll 17:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is indeed amazing.  I'm with you, Fill. All major viewpoints MUST be represented including the view point that Blacks are a biologically meaningful race defined exclusively by being mostly of sub-Saharan African descent.  Wobble wants this view censored because he's pushing the POV that race is a meaningless concept and he pushes this POV in several articles. Deeceevoice is trying to censor this view because it conflicts with her agenda that ancient Egyptians were black or that the great civilizations of South Asia were black. Again we have a bunch of editors who are more concerned with protecting their respective agendas than writing a thorough balanced article. It's a horrible abuse of wikipedia.    Kobrakid
*I'm not sure who you're calling aggressive, or which side of the argument you are taking, but having the entire biological section made up of views by white right-wing racist (or borderline racist) political activists, who aren't even biologists or geneticists, doesn't seem to be fulfilling the goal of having diversity of views. As for Kobrakid's rant, obviously he has an specific political agenda that he wants to promote in the article and on the talk page, and he doesn't seem interested in providing neutral facts backed up by reliable sources (nor in discussing these matters in a civil or intelligent manner). Spylab 17:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I absolutely agree with Spylab. But I would go a step further. I would maintain that it is impossible to have a "biological" section and would remove it all together. This article is not about a "race", it is not about any single biological population, it is not about any population from a single part of the world. This article is about "Black people", people in North America may have a parochial view of what it means to be Black, that is that one needs to have a recent African ancestry, but this does not apply universally to all Black people. Just because a definition is true for North America does not make it true for any other part of the world. It is therefore impossible to biologically define Black people. Black people are Black because of the colour of their skin, some people who are Black come from Africa, some come from Australia or other parts of the world, these groups of people do not represent closely related populations. What they do have in common is social, in that they are discriminated against because of their skin colour. I would support the inclusion of a section that discusses the historical exploitation of various groups of Black people by White people all over the world, I think this would make for a much better section than a pseudo-scientific section about "biology". This has got bugger all to do with biology. The only important thing we can say about biology is that all humans are biologically very similar and are all part of the same subspecies. Anything else is parochial, and this is not US or North American Wikipedia. I would also point out that the sock/meat puppets User:Timelist, User:Editingoprah, User:Gottoupload and User:Kobrakid seem to want to push a far right racist point of view against the consensus on this page. At the least they are editing against consensus, at the most they are a group of meatpuppets (or a sockpuppet) who are trying to make an artificial consensus for a racist point of view to be included on this page. Either of these is a clear breach of wikipedia policy. This sock/meat puppet group disappeared from wikipedia mysteriously a little while ago when I told them that I planned to report them for this exact same behaviour. Well I'm going to check their user histories and file a complaint at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. I'm sad because I've never done anything like this before in nearly two years, and I've met some pretty obnoxious people in that time, and I had hopped never to have to get any other editor blocked, but it is impossible with people who seem to be just so intransigent. Alun 17:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No there aren't. These sources are certainly not reliable, they are neo-nazi racist scum. No respectable encyclopaedia would include their spurious nazi claims in an article about Black people. Youl be damanding that we cite Mein Kampf next or March of the Titans as Dark Tea has on White people. Alun 16:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This is nonsense, I have read a number of serious scientific papers about race recently.      The thing is that Rushton is not interested in "race", his fantasies revolve arround trying to show that there are real and measurable differences in the intellects of different human groups. He is actually interested in Eugenics and not "race", in this he is frighteningly similar to the nazis. Indeed much as Rushton thinks that some races are superior to others, the nazis believed that Germans were superior to Russians, and actually believed that science proved it. Well we all know what the "inferior" Russians did to Paulus's Sixth Army at thr Battle of Stalingrad and later did to Berlin. Indeed Rushton's his "definition" of Black is extremelly odd. For example In both everyday life and evolutionary biology, a 'Black' is anyone most of whose ancestors were born in sub-Saharan Africa, well it may be news to Rushton, but all of us have ancestors exclusively born in sub-Saharan Africa. Or this a Negroid is someone whose ancestors, between 4,000 and (to accommodate recent migrations) 20 generations ago, were born in sub-Saharan Africa, well I am British, the southern part of Great Britain was part of the Roman Empire for over 300 years, the first African people to come to Britain came at this time, no one in Britain can claim absolutelly that they do not have an African ancestor from between 4,000 and 20 generations ago because if they did they would be lying, the truth is we no one really knows. On a related note, in his book "Blood of the Isles" the geneticist Bryan Sykes claims to have encountered a Scottish woman who had mitochondrial DNA of recent sub-Saharan African origin. This woman was not aware of any African ancestry in her family. Sykes postulates that she may be the descendant of an African woman who came to Britain at the time of the Romans. According to Rushton, this woman is "a Negroid". And anyway this article is not about what Rushton calls "Negroid" people, it is about Black people. Rushton's definitions are not only not biological, they make no sense. Alun 17:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Firstly it's an opinion. I'm entitled to an opinion, ppinions are not libelous. You are a hypocrite, you claim that you support "freedom of speech", but apparently this only applies to your opinions, and not to the oppinions of those who disagree with you. Alun 06:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I never even mentioned the Holocaust. You are putting words into my mouth now. The fact is that Rushton seems to hold the same opinions as the nazis, that certain people are "inferior" to other people. it's not rocket science, work it out for yourself. If it looks like a dog and barks like a dog, chances are it's a dog. Alun 06:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Eh? Where do I say this? This is your fantasy not mine. Again you are claiming I have said something I have not. What is your problem, you caim tha I am "libeling" someone, then you state that I have made statements that I clearly have not. If you want to criticise what I say, that is fair enough, but you are not, you are attacking me for things I certainly haven't said. This is just daft. I'm not offended by what Rushton says, I just think it's crap. It's not scientific and it has no basis in reality, just like the "science" of the nazis had no basis in reality. Alun 06:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Eh? Piffle, I am entitled to thnk this is not a reliable source. I am entitled dispute this gibberish masquerading as research. What is below the standards of any reliable dictionary is the inclusion of pseudo-scientific racist claptrap. Go and use it fr a cite on the racism article where it belongs. But it doesn't belong here. Alun 06:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No I'm not, I'm showing categorically that Rushton's definitions don't make any sense. He defines "Negroid" in one way and he defines a Black person in another. Neither of these definitions is actually very good, a Black person, he claims only needs a majority African ancestry, so that would be every human then. A "Negroid" he claims needs to have ancestry from sub-Saharan Africa from 4,000 to 20 generations ago, actually this means from 100,000-500 years ago given a 25 year generation span, well there must be millions of indigenous Europeans who have an African ancestry from this time (it's a massive time scale), but who just are not aware of it, gene flow between populations has been extensive, like it or not. Many of the proper scientific papers that I show above indicate the massive amount of gene flow between so called "races", we are not, and have never been, discrete non-interbreeding populations.  Humanity, by it's nature, is promiscuous. These definitions seem to be the ones he uses in his book, all well and good, his book may display internal consistency in that he always uses Black person to mean someone with majority recent African ancestry, this does not necessarily make it a suitable definition for this article because whereas he seems to be only interested in Black people from North America, and so takes a parochial point of view, this article is not about Black people in North America, that article would be African American. I suggest you go there to spout your racism. His definition of "Negroid" is irrelevant as this article is not about "Negroid" Alun 06:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No he doesn't, at least not for the definition of Black person given in the article. Alun 06:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Then why do we have 'very different definitions for them. This is just plain wrong, academics do not give different definitions for concepts if they intend to use them interchangeably. Alun 06:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually he is not. If you actually knew anything about this subject at all, you would know three important and fundamental facts, all of which are covered extensively in the papers I link to above. Firstly there is no generally accepted definition of race (or subspecies), or of what constitutes a race (or subspecies) in the field of biology, let alone any defined races. Secondly most definitions of race are ultimately social and not biological. Thirdly  there are many biological definitions of subspecies (that is race), the human species does not display any of the necessary biological diversity to be taxonomically categorised on the subspecific level. Hence we are all Homo sapiens sapiens, the third designation would be different if we were biologically recognised as "races" or subspecies. Given that we are not, there is in actual fact no general recognition in the science of biology of any human racial groups. There are however social races. Rushton's definitions do not even constitute biological definitions. His definitions are based on ancestry and not biology (and none of us knows our ancestry, even if some people think that they do). A biological definition would be based either on physical appearance (Phenotype, the traditional method for taxonomy) or on genetic differences (Genotype a more modern method for taxonomy). Neither of Rushton's definitions fit these criteria. And to repeat because you seem to be unable to understand this very simple point this article is about the term Black people, it is not only about people of African descent. Alun 06:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You forgot irrelevant, vague, not biological and wrong. Alun 06:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not against a section about how Black peoples from all over the world have been discriminated against by White people, or have suffered racism from apparently biased and very stupid "academics" (sic). Alun 06:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources in biological section

message: What does what white peoples called others to do with black people article? White's called allmost everyone black or dark even their own (SouthernEuropeans).****Asian2duracell 21:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  what does.. 

message: This person is giving a scientific definition:
also feels that the standard conceptions of black people fall short, stating: "There are two well-defined Black races: one has a black skin and woolly hair; the other also has black skin, often exceptionally black, with straight hair, aquiline nose, thin lips, an acute cheekbone angle. We find a prototype of this race in India: the Dravidian. It is also known that certain Nubians likewise belong to the same Negro type...Thus, it is inexact, anti-scientific, to do anthropological research, encounter a Dravidian type, and then conclude that the Negro type is absent."
Well my version; "There are two well-defined European races: one has a white skin and straight hair; the other has brown skin, often exceptionally brown, with straight hair, aquiline nose, thin lips, an acute cheekbone angle. We find a prototype of this race in India: the Dravidians.
You wanna say that this Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop's deifinition is scientific? Seriously, he is very Afrocentric probably even a Black supremacist. An his definition is outdated. Asian2duracell 22:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Diop is hardly an authority on scientific definitions. Indeed, the quoted words above seems to have little relation to science at all. But it doesn't matter in the slightest how you, mr Duracell, want to be described. You know very well that other Indians think differently (especially as you're currently arguing with one over on the Talk:Australoid page)). The article should incude and discusses all notable points of view. Paul B 23:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Paul.  All notable points of view should be expressed, and that's why I'm disgusted by the bullies who censored the definitions by Rushton, Levin, and Satel from the article.  Perhaps putting them in the biological definitions category gave them a bit too much credibility, but they should return to the article, perhaps under racialist definitions.  Diop should stay in the article too but he and others should be moved to a section called Afrocentric definitions or perhaps he should be in the racialist definition section since he seems to be advocating that races are real. Iseebias
First of all. Oh my f****ng god. I cant bellieve that some people think that my first comment on scientific definition was seriously. It just should show that hes comparison of Blacks and Dravdians is absolutly loosly. Like one has bright nose the other hasnt. One has curly hairs the other has straight hairs. And one has fat ass the other hasnt any at all... and so on. And saying that both have dark skin, thats why they have to be from the same "race". My statement is more BS than his was. Hell no I'm not European, and I dont want to be. I could have used EastAsians as an example that those Afrocentrists dont go fury. 
I googled that Mr. Diop and what do we see.... Dalit: The Black untouchables of India,The African origin of Civilization , and so on. Im not sure if everything what they show was written by him. But thats a sign of Afrocentrism for me. Why dont we go back in history and mention those racist white "scientists" who thought Blacks are in between Monkeys and Whites. Or those who thaught everyone with darker skinclouor is inferior. That Mr. Diops "scientifical" cognitions are outdated some generations ago. They aint as much absurd and inacceptable as that of those white racists but still not authentic.
Come back to u Mr Paul B, u seem to be interested in any article about race. Ur everywhere, Australoid, Dravidians, Black people, and so on. As an expert u are. Why dont u make a contrubution to the Black people article. Btw I'm not arguing with an Indian on the Ausrtaloid page, hell he asked me how many Hindu-speaking Indians there are in Bollwood. Then he said that why are there no real Indians in Bollywood. I replied that they are real just fairer than average. And that guy still dont understand. Do u think that he is Indian?.....The article should incude and discusses all notable points of view.  Well who is going to decide what is notable and what is just someones fu**in POV. In this sense ****Asian2duracell 19:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If the person has a wikipedia article, he or she qualifies as notable. Iseebias
Everyone can make articles about anything and anyone. U can make one about urself. But I dont think ur that stupid to tell the world who the f*** u are. Asian2duracell 23:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: S/he's lots of people. I'm who I say I am. Mr anonymous on the Australoid page claims to be a Dravidian who was present at the time of the Killevanamani massacre (which was in Tamil Nadu, 1969). I don't thnk he currently lives in India. Writing 'Hindu' instead of 'Hindi' is not so surprisng if he is not a native I-A speaker (after all, Hindi is aso called Hindustani). I agree however, that you are rational in comparison to him, which is not saying much. Paul B 23:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well if you can write "hole" for "whole", perhaps Mr Anonymous can be forgiven for mistyping Hindi as Hindu. At least the U is next to the I on a keyboard. Paul B 10:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  scientific definition 

message: I dont like how this word Afrocentric is used, let me exaplain "Egypt is African"--Afrocentric, "Africans are noble civilized people" Afrocentric. U c the pattern, when non-Africans see any empowering statemnts bout Africans it becomes Afrocentric. So why in the def we dont have Eurocentric, or in the slavery we dont have Eurocentric opinions of slavery? or In WHITE PEOPLE have an Afrocentric section there? I call this thinking a product of being in a racist controlled society, we actually dont even realize what we are saying is so corrupted. So i am just laying out. Just because someone says something good about Africa doesnt mean they need a special label like "Psudo-historian". --HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 10:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point.  Virtually anyone who believes that any early civilation in the world was black gets labled as Afrocentric.  It's used as a way of marginalizing them.  But it might not be that these people are Afrocentric, it could be that mainstream history is Eurocentric, so relative to the majority of scholars, these people are Afrocentric. We probably should make clear that these opinions are not considered mainstream, but calling them Afrocentric implies that black scholars who believe blacks played a role in world history are somehow biased because of their race.  Seldom is the term Eurocentric so used to marginalize white scholars documenting the contributions of whites. Iseebias
Its Afrocentric when Africans claim others history. But it isnt if they praise their own. Every civilisation had his contribution to the human evolution. Some Afrocentricts dont realise that some cultures increased independent. Asian2duracell 19:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Afrocentric or just valid