Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For quite a while, I have been trying to expose the wider Anglophone world to recent works relating to the past of the African continent. I have focused on northern Africa (the Horn, Nile River, the Sahel, the Tell of the Maghreb & the Sahara desert as a whole) and the exciting progress Africana Studies, Egyptology, the growing field of Saharan Studies along with many other fields that have enhanced understanding and respect for the area's past cultures and civilizations.
I am well aware of colonialism and I have often remarked on its legacy which still exists among scholars and academics to this day, despite all the progress that has been made in recent decades. I am also aware that unlike the Romance speaking world (in particular the French), the Anglophone world has not expressed much interest in Africa as a whole outside of Egypt or the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Thus its easy to understand how the 2 areas of study have become confused & convoluted in the deranged minds of new black panther groupies; apostles of Diop; crack heads who believe they're nubian olmecs and various other freaks that have been spawned out of afrocentrism.
I have had to repeatedly come back to the issue of afrocentrism, so because of that I might as well make a thread dedicated to investigating the origins of afrocentrism. I don't think it is coincidental that afrocentrism, really afro-nazism, gained popularity during the 1980s-90s. This was the same time period the crack cocaine epidemic ravaged many Afro-American communities and (as I have often stated) creating and normalizing certain behaviors & value systems, thus a major cultural shift occurred.
Now I am not saying everything was idealic and edenlike before the crack cocaine epidemic, but I hold that it did produce a major cultural shift, specifically a culture that is in many ways unlike anything neither Martin nor Malik would approve of.
So therefore I don't see how one can understand afrocentrism without also looking at the issues with welfare, noted at least as early as the Moyinham Report; and the crack cocaine epidemic which I feel was a major contributor to welfare rolls and incarceration being a norm in too many communities.
Afrocentrism, also has strands of afro-nazism, which quite frankly in neo-nazism in black face.
By looking at this thread, specifically the posters who claim to be continental Africans, one can see the mentality behind some of the recent genocides that have happened on the continent & why warlordism is so prevalent. Afro-nazism, its enablers and sympathesizers (as can be seen here), can originate in any area and come in all forms.
The Anglophone world must be able to distinguish Africana & Saharan Studies, Egyptology and other reputable fields of study from afro-nazism and thus the reason for this thread. This may not be a PC topic but at least one that might pique the interest of some ambitious sociology/political science grad student out there. So stay tuned.
Afrocentrism strikes me as one of those pendulum dynamics. Black history for African Americans was indeed an ignored subject in the western world for a very long time. The Civil Rights movement of the '50's and '60's finally provided a stage for those who were interested in examining their neglected African roots, and Alex Haley gave the subject a huge boost with the popularity of "Roots" in the '70's.
So, we are speaking of a corrective process, that which had been neglected was now being studied. In corrective processes, it is typical that overcorrection takes place, the pendulum has been on one side far too long, and while the need is for getting it properly centered, the correction process first takes it too far to the other side where it lingers for a time before finally starting to swing back. In short, acheivements in African history began getting overcredited precisely because they had been under appreciated for so long.
You noted that the dynamic appeared to peak in the 1990's and that suggests that the pendulum is getting closer to settling in the middle.
It is a difficult subject to stay dispassionate about when conducting discussions, racial sensitivities tend to intrude.
I don't follow this stuff closely, but it seems that Afrocentrism is a field that lacks quality control or the ability to police itself. There appear to be no limits to it: first the Egyptians were black; then the Greeks and Romans were black; then the Olmecs were black; then every ancient civilization was black, including the Chinese:
Next, they'll probably tell us that extraterrestrials are black. Do the proponents of this nonsense actually believe it, or is it more like a form of group therapy?
Afrocentrism strikes me as one of those pendulum dynamics. Black history for African Americans was indeed an ignored subject in the western world for a very long time. The Civil Rights movement of the '50's and '60's finally provided a stage for those who were interested in examining their neglected African roots, and Alex Haley gave the subject a huge boost with the popularity of "Roots" in the '70's.
There have been African Americans interested in AfricanHistory, even before the Civil Rights Movement. Some of it centered on Egypt and yes some of it was influenced by the pseudo-scientific race theories of the time. I have a lot of ground to cover so bear with me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
So, we are speaking of a corrective process, that which had been neglected was now being studied. In corrective processes, it is typical that overcorrection takes place, the pendulum has been on one side far too long, and while the need is for getting it properly centered, the correction process first takes it too far to the other side where it lingers for a time before finally starting to swing back. In short, acheivements in African history began getting overcredited precisely because they had been under appreciated for so long.
I don't see anything corrective about calling anyone that does not make you feel good a racist or traitor to the race, nor use it as a call to incite violence.
You noted that the dynamic appeared to peak in the 1990's and that suggests that the pendulum is getting closer to settling in the middle.
Not exactly, the purpose of this thread is for people to be able to distinguish between afrocentrism and recent developments in egyptology, africana & saharan studies. The latter has gained more respect & credibility in academia. The issue is translate this information in a manner the public can understand. And it is at this point where afrocentrism complicates things, thus the reaon for the thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
It is a difficult subject to stay dispassionate about when conducting discussions, racial sensitivities tend to intrude.
Gotta start sometime, so why not now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josef K.
LOL. Interesting thesis though.
I don't follow this stuff closely, but it seems that Afrocentrism is a field that lacks quality control or the ability to police itself. There appear to be no limits to it: first the Egyptians were black; then the Greeks and Romans were black; then the Olmecs were black; then every ancient civilization was black, including the Chinese:
Next, they'll probably tell us that extraterrestrials are black. Do the proponents of this nonsense actually believe it, or is it more like a form of group therapy?
Pardon my language but a number of times it has felt like I have had to fend off hordes of berserk savages single handledly, so I'm beyond being PC with them.
As I previously stated, Egyptology, Africana Studies & now Saharan studies along with other fields of study have illuminated what was once thought to be a "Dark Continent". The problem is for one most of this is dominated by the Francophone world as opposed to the English speaking world, which generally focuses on Egypt and the transAtlantic slave trade.
When I go to bookstores and libraries, the number of books on Egypt itself is often greater than all books of other African countries combined.
So what I have been doing in a separate thread is to let the "English only" know of information that is available in English. The problem is afrocentrism often gets in the way. So this is a thread where afrocentrism can be explored and discussed. Again pardon my language.
I don't see anything corrective about calling anyone that does not make you feel good a racist or traitor to the race, nor use it as a call to incite violence.
Neither do I. That which you list above would seem the extreme end of the pendulum swing I was referencing, indictative of a portion of it but not represenative of the entire phenomena.
Neither do I. That which you list above would seem the extreme end of the pendulum swing I was referencing, indictative of a portion of it but not represenative of the entire phenomena.
Well if the other portions don't make themselves known, then yes, the lunatic fringe will be perceived to be representative of the whole.
Ok since I've made numerous posts on afrocentrism/nazism and the differences between it and reputable fields, I might as well do a repost as my prediction about Americans being unable to distinguish afro-nazism from fields such as AFRICANA STUDIES has turned out to be correct. So before continuing on we'll do a bit of a rewind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert
Its quite unfortunate, but for upwards of 95% of the American public, they are most likely are unable to distinguish afrocentrism from AFRICANA STUDIES. The former is based on feel good history and (ironically) 19th century race ideology, albeit afro-inverted and largely has its base and partisans in the United States. The latter is based on the hard work of linguists, archaeologists, physical anthropologists, historians and other academics both of European AND continental African origin.
afrocentrism literally takes in whole, the racially distorted view of history of 19th century colonial and slavery ideologists but spins it somewhat to make themselves look better. This is where you hear ridiculous terms like "sun people" vs "ice people". Much like the lunatic fringe cult of Beck, its largely irrational and has no discernible logical structure or coherence to it. Its just about making people feel good about themselves against a demonized Other, basically just self-aggrandizement. And like the beckians, they worship a prophet, except in the afro-nuts case, its the long dead Cheik Anta Diop rather than a living emo-madmad and his famous chalkboard.
As for Diop, I wouldn't necessarily put his works in the same category as the cult who worships him, as some of the English translations I've read of his were pretty interesting and given the time period was not anymore racialist than that of mainstream academia. So I wouldn't necessarily recommend Diop but I would not dissuade anyone from reading his works either. And its not his fault some fringe group has claimed him as one of their own. Basically afrocentrism is racialist pseudo-science and feel good history. I would recommend checking out Afrocentrism by Howe, its an interesting critique and read.
AFRICANA STUDIES is like many other academic disciplines. Historians, archaeologists and other scholars who are experts in their particular fields put their heads together in order to reconstruct past peoples, cultures, civilizations of the African continent. Now mind you, this discipline has been affected by the legacies of colonialism just like every other aspect of the modern world. Thankfully however due to advancements in science and technology along with new discoveries, there has been quite a shift in recent decades.
Shifts produced by the growing evidence for the unity, origin and the evolution of the human race somewhere in eastern Africa and in particular with the origin and of the Afrasian speaking peoples (Egyptian, Semitic, Amazigh and others) in the most arid and challenging environment of them all, the Sahara. Not to mention that the Sahara also played a major role in mankind's evolution and dispersal and in initiating the Neolithic Revolution.
It is incredible how much the history books will have to be rewritten to accommodate the discoveries coming out of the Sahara. Studying the Sahara is not just about studying backward desert peoples, its about the origin and development not only of civilization but of humanity itself.
One of the legacies of the 19th century colonial racialists of separating and chopping off the Sahara desert proper from the Tell of the Maghrib (the fertile area west of the Nile and north of the mountains separating the desert proper), the Nile (the racialists also falsely divided the Nile Delta from the Upper Egyptian Nile Valley which was likewise divided from the Nubian Nile Valley).
The fantastic discoveries made in the Sahara have once more made historical picture clearer and fuller by not only properly seeing the Nile Valley and Delta and the Tell as oases of the Sahara but also the Horn of Africa, along with the regions of Lake Chad, the Niger and the Senegal, even the Arabian Peninsula, the Sinai and the Levant as extensions of the Sahara.
Even when it comes down to events in the colonial period AFRICANA STUDIES has matured beyond playing the blame game and seeing good guys versus bad guys. I recommend checking out Paths of accommodation, Bridges Across the Sahara and the works of Ghislane Lydon especially.
So to sum up, DO NOT CONFUSE afrocentrism which actually has more to do with the societal problems in the United States than anything else; with AFRICANA STUDIES, which is continually advancing, growing and maturing.
Now I am well aware due to the social conditions in the US certain communities have historically been denied access to institutions in which they could be exposed to AFRICANA STUDIES and to an extent this is true to this day. Still there is a lot of info which is now freely available and accessible online and others which can be accessed via a library.
I have noticed with AFRICANA STUDIES, there is much more collaboration between European and continental African scholars. Many of the African scholars often base themselves and publish there works in Europe and in European languages.
Its a shame the vast majority of the public is unaware of AFRICANA STUDIES and would most likely be unable to distinguish it from afrocentrism but I hope my posts (especially the Libya thread recommendations) have done something to help.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert
I have already apologized before for the disagreements I engaged in earlier posts on this thread.
I believe the source of the disagreements is a generational and a knowledge gap.
Egyptology and other disciplines relating to the study of the past of non-European civilizations and cultures, particularly from the time of the early-mid 19th century up to the period around the 2 world wars did not develop in a ideological free, totally empirical vacuum.
This was the era of colonialism along with the various ideologies used to justify and rationalize colonialism. Egyptology, archaeology, the medical field, anthropology, the translations of historical texts along with many other academic fields were not insulated from the ideologies associated with maintaining colonialism.
Despite this certain finds and breakthroughs were being made, that were creating paradigm shifts, in that notions that were previously seen to be absolute and indisputable truths were being contradicted by hard evidence being found in the then most unlikely of areas.
The period between WWI & WWII was when discoveries were made in the deserts of the Egyptian and Sudanese portions of the Nile as well as further west in the Maghrib. What was particularly curious was the evidence that not only during certain time periods, what is now the most arid location on the planet once could support plant and animal life which is now only located south and north of the Sahara desert proper, but that the peoples of the Sahara also seemed to have abundant herds of domestic cattle.
The Fezzan mummy was discovered in the 1950's or 60's I believe. Thus evidence for the deliberate mummification of an individual was found in an oasis of the Saharan portion of modern Libya hundreds, if not a millennium before the practice appeared in Egypt and among semi-nomadic cattle pastoralists to boot.
The building of the Aswan dam caused a flurry of work to be done in northern Nubia during the 60's-70's, which revealed the PreDynastic kingdom of Ta Seti, which seemed surprising since previously academia regarded Nubia as the backwards region of the Nile in constant need of northern civilizing.
Then there was the discoveries made again in the deserts west of the Nubian Nile, particularly Nabta Playa from the 70's on. These finds not only revealed one of the oldest and independent development of pottery, but also of the domestication of cattle around 9000-8800 B.C.E.
Other researchers found evidence for attempts at animal and plant management usually associated with the Natufians of south west Asia, yet they appeared in the Maghrib and the southern Egyptian and Nubian Nile, thousands of years before the Natufians. Not to mention researchers that have argued that the Natufian and the earlier Mushabian cultures of south west Asia derived from the Nile area cultures.
The advancements in physical anthropology and genetics (allowing one to determine the biological relatedness of populations), linguistics (the use of language to study the past), more translations of historical texts, work that was being done on the evolution and origin of humanity in north and northeastern Africa, and improvements in technology that allowed for safe entry (and most importantly exit) to previously inhospitable and deadly areas of the Sahara. There was also a growing collaboration between continental African scholars and those of North America and Europe. The UNESCO series in particular is an excellent example of this as well the relatively new Saharan Studies Association.
These joint academic ventures are not only building relationships between scholars of different backgrounds, they are once again forcing mainstream academia to recognize the relationship between the Sahara desert proper with the fertile Tell of the Maghrib and the Nile region as being oases (albeit enormous) of the Sahara as well the connections the Sahara has had with the sub-Saharan regions of the Horn of Africa, the regions around the Senegal and Niger rivers along with lake Chad.
This growing body of evidence started to gain momentum during the 1920's, so by the time I started my research in the late 90's early 21st century it was pretty much mature and being presented in the texts of prestigious universities like Oxford, Cambridge and the like.
So that was where I was coming from when I 1st entered this thread.
It was also quite obvious that before I made my debut on the thread, more or less, based on the content of posts, most people that posted where of the school of thought that was dominant from the 19th century to world war time period.
When I began posting the posters who contested my statements were completely oblivious about the advancements and discoveries I mentioned in the paragraphs above. Some of them were even clueless that this information is likewise available, if not in full view then in preview, at google scholar, google books, archive.org or hell even Amazon.
And for others it goes even deeper than that. They seem to have been stuck in a time warp from the days of the Afrocentric/Eurocentric debates of the 90's. Debates which from my observations have more to do with societal tensions and notions of modern day times (especially those that happened in America) that individuals projected into earlier times. I also noticed that many of the individuals engaged in the debates had little or no knowledge nor desire to learn from the recent books and papers being published. It was purely about emotionalism among from 2 camps that were fundamentally anti-intellectual and had no inclination to actually learn something about the topic they got their panties up in a bunch over.
Its like walking into the office of a company's web development team and you see the supposed experts arguing over the browser wars of the 1990's as though they were happening today. Netscape is dead, and although IE is still around there are new and often better alternatives such as Opera, FF and Chrome. So imagine yourself in 2011 going on 2012 and you see "experts" whose minds seem to be frozen in time from the 90's. Or guys who in this day and age are still using MS DOS or Win 95 claiming they are in the know about the latest and greatest while there is not only XP & 7 but also Mac and various flavors of linux/unix.
The posts that I saw before I joined in the conversation and those that tried to dispute me seemed so outdated, almost archaic, not mention flat out wrong since they seemed to adhere to theories that have been long discarded, debunked and abandoned, they did not and simply could not stand the test of time.
Still what's past is past, what's done is done. I don't forget but I know how to forgive.
So from now on, I'll keep it in consideration that those who post may not have the most up to date information, but those that have not picked up a book on the subject in the last 10-20 years should likewise be mindful that time stands still for no one and new discoveries have been made and paradigms have been shifted if not destroyed.
Overall, I think this has been and can continue to be a very informative thread and I look forward to discovering new details and sharing them with the thread and I encourage others to do the same as well.
Idealistic Realist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert
I think its time for me to make an important statement here.
When you're trying to understand a different culture, whether ancient or modern, its best to have enough respect for that culture that you try to understand it on its own terms.
Trying to project your own racial ideology and phobias unto a culture that would have alien to that sort of demented thinking, is the tell tale sign of pseudo-historian and a flat out liar.
Frankly from my studies of Afro-Arabian people, the race ideology of the 18th and 19th century (whose ideological variants and descendants have manifested themselves in this very thread) would be totally incompatible with them culturally. (see p. 30)
Now I'm not saying they were color blind or anything like that, but they seemed to have placed more emphasis on what language you spoke, what religion you practiced, what clan, tribe, city or town you belong to.
Color was a describing characteristicrather than a defining characteristic.
Take note of these three example here:
a. (p. 155-156, particularly about the shilluh/shellach)
Even the Andalusian Arab aristocracy would take not only native Iberian and other Euro women as concubines but also Berber and non-Berber Africans as well.
The modern day ideological descendants of the 18 & 19th century pseudo-racialist historians and scientists are not just those of Euro descent in the West. And I don't just mean the Afrocentrics. (see p. 6 and Caleb chapter p. 77 especially)
That pseudo-race ideology of the 18th and 19th centuries is a major contributing factor to severe ethnic conflicts going on in Mauritania, Sudan, and other parts of Saharan and north African peoples.
As I posted previously there are many Western and non-Western scholars that are coming up with the latest archaeological discoveries that are not only rewriting the history books but debunking damn near all the misconceptions that have been propagated over the centuries.
I'll end with this.
Anyone that consistently insists on placing the origin of the Nile Valley civilization along with the modern populations that are closest to the ancient Egyptians in terms of ancestry and culture, outside of the Nile Valley and the Sahara, is either a flat out liar and a fraud or just a know nothing know it all (like a certain New Ager who belongs on a Stargate Atlantis forum rather than a history one ).
And here is where I take on the crack heads claiming to be Nubian Olmecs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert
As someone who has a strong interest in the cultures and civilizations of the Sahara and who is well aware of the way this region's past has been distorted and marginalized for the past few centuries I can emphasize with those that have an interest in the history of the Americas.
So although I am primarily into Saharan history I have ran across enough information to debunk the inverted pseudo-science and history the Afronuts and their sympathizers have been pushing in this thread.
To sum up, the indigenous Americans were perfectly able to develop societies, technologies and civilizations no matter how much it hurts Afronuts (and other pseudo-scientific/historical racialists) sense of self and their esteem. And even in the event of contacts with others, it appears to be the case in the Pacific and northern Europe, that the indigenous Americans might not only have been the ones to initiate contact but introduced new skills and technology.
Now one might ask what would possess a group that is constantly whining and crying about how their history has been stolen to so blatantly attempt to do the same thing to a group that quite frankly, has just a great if not greater claim to historical mistreatment over the past few centuries. So let us take a closer look to see where these clowns are coming from.
Its important to discuss Ms. Ashton at this point in time and place.
Throughout my posts and threads in this history forum I have often wrote about the legacy of colonialism and its affect on academia, particularly the way in which the Sahara and related regions have been regarded.
The knuckle head New Ager babbling about roving Russians and space men; the comments about green Indians; Alexander Hamilton; Marxists, blonds that have either magically transported themselves from northern Europe and/or somehow evolved in the UV high Sahara; and accusations about me being an evil liberal elitist all have their origin (whether those making these ridiculous claims were conscious of it or not) in that legacy.
It would be wrong to say that academia has not evolved over the last 50 years or so and I have noticed that Egyptology, Africana studies and now the growing field of human evolution and Out of Africa migrations, Saharan studies, Nubiology and articles/books being published on the Arabian peninsula have rocked most, if not all of the colonial myths to its core.
It is very important for academics like Ms. Ashton to emphasize that Kmt/Kemi/Ta Meri/Tawy (Egypt) should be placed in an African context, but they should also ensure that its placed in its proper African context, and by that I explicitly and emphatically mean the Saharan and eastern African regions.
Colonial ideology tried to separate the Nile Delta from the Nile Valley. The Upper Egyptian Nile Valley from the Nubian Nile Valley. The Nile from the deserts surrounding it and the Tell of the Maghrib from the desert proper.
Thankfully modern scholars are now realizing that the Tell and the Nile should be seen as oases of the Sahra and the Sahra should not be seen as an impassable barrier especially in relation to the regions of the Horn, lake Chad, the Niger and the Senegal.
Those that try to divorce Tawy from its Saharan and east African context and place it in Gabon are just as bad as the knuckle head marauding Russian theorists.
Ms. Ashton seemed to doing a sleight of hand by encouraging West Africans (by this I take it she means those well south of the waterways of Senegal and Niger), Jamaicans (by and large descendants of west Africans) and Black British (have no clue what she means by this, though she distinguishes this group from the previous 2) to see themselves as the heirs to Tawy,while conveniently ignoring that there are present day groups that have a much more legitimate claim.
Frankly, I don't hear (though that does not mean it doesn't happen, but if it does its not as often and as annoyingly loud) that Alaskan and other North American indigenous groups claim that the monumental civilizations in the southern Americas were the work of their ancestors and the people now there have no claims to it.
Do North American aboriginals say, look at Shakira, look at Ricky Martin, look at Ricky Ricardo, those people down there are Spainards, they speak Spanish, my ancestors were great kings and queens like the Olmecs, Mayans and Incas?
Do Alaskan Inuits claim to be descendants and cousins of Mongol warriors, Japanese shoguns and Chinese emperors?
Do North American aboriginals claim to be the heirs to the great civilizations of Asia and the southern Americas even moreso than modern day groups living in these regions who have demonstrated biological and cultural links to their respective ancient predecessors?
Possibly, but not nearly as much as the Afronuts.
Honestly, these people are not interested in history, they are not interested in social justice, they are not interested in learning about ancient civilizations, nor more recent history like the movement of MLK to have all Americans be judged by the content of their character.
These people are just lazy bastards, who reek of the stench of entitlement.
They feel that society owes them something and that they deserve the world on a silver platter, though they sure as hell don't want to work for it.
They can't read, can't think. They can only feel and G*d d@mn it, they demand that they should be able to steal from others in order to make themselves feel good. It is their right, what theirs is theirs and whats yours is theirs as well.
I feel Ms. Ashton would be doing a major disservice to academia in regards to the study of African history and the progress it has made in recent decades in moving away from baseless colonial thinking by making people feel entitled and that they can steal from other people.
Enabling Afronuts does not do anything to uplift anybody. They won't be satisfied until the whole world is as destitute and as miserable as they are.
Rewarding failure and dumbing things down does not do a thing to reverse historical inequities, it justs makes everyone a loser in the long run.
So once again as someone who has studied Saharan history, I am well aware of how certain regions have been mistreated by academia due to modern notions. I'm sure there is much more to the history of indigenous American naval and monumental construction achievements, and I hope those in the know out there can help rehabilitate this thread by elaborating on them.
Pardon my language but a number of times it has felt like I have had to fend off hordes of berserk savages single handledly, so I'm beyond being PC with them.
"single handedly" appears to be correct. You are here fighting despite the "hordes of beserk savages" failing to appear.
You certainly seem desperate for a foe, but sorry, you have misidentified me as one. I am not your devil, nor your destiny in this thread.
Perhaps you could advertise for some "hordes" with whom to exchange blows in this thread.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
).
