Talk:Afrocentrism/Archive 10

Yaacov Shavit as a radical Afrocentrist?
This makes no sense. He has been one of it's top critics.

True. Also, the quotation from "History in Black" is wrong and makes no sense: "Anthropometric"? In the original book it's (quite obviously) "Afrocentric". SaraWindermere--SaraWindermere (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Alek Wek as Caucasoid
This would appear to be an error. The Caucasoid North Africans are people who have Middle Eastern/pakistani features and dark skin. It is clear this Mc Wek is not Caucasoid at all. There is an abundant amount of evidence to show what North African caucasoids really look like. I may be putting words in people's mouths here, but it would appear, that be saying that "Eurocentrists claim that Alek Wek is a Caucasoid" it is just a way of showing how stupid "Eurocentrists" are. But the "Pahraohs were caucasoid" idea would definitely not have referred to people with racial features like those of Alek Wek. She is clearly not Caucasoid, and I don't think that anyone even claims that she is. Anyone who watched the recent(as of this time of writing) African Cup of Nations would need only to look at the Egyptian team to see what North African Caucasoids look like. Nothing like Miss Wek. I have not removed the claim that "people say she is caucasoid" yet, but this is clearly an error, and I will likely remove it soon, but would be interested what other people have to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheatum Jr (talk • contribs) 09:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Remove it. It's simply an allegation by whover put it there, as you say, an attempt to make some people look stupid. No references, quotes, etc.--Dougweller (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No its not an allegation. It needs to be put back. I don't have access to the picture. It needs to be reverted because it illustrates the inconsistencies and Eurocentric outlook of your mainstream. Alek Wek is closest phenotypically to the ancient Nubians which some of your mainstream scholars have classed as caucasoid and hamite. This article was beginning to be satisfactory. The Afrocentric Haters are beginning to show their nasty teeth. They want it to reflect their mainstream. Raimhotep (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC) Ah, you use the word 'mainstream' when convenient. Without any references for any Eurocentrists claiming Alek Wek is a 'Caucasoid' it has no place under Wikipedia standards in the article.--Dougweller (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You are beginning to sound silly. I don't have issues using the word mainstream. I have issues using the word mainstream in the context of American, British, and Western mainstream as a position to absolute truth to delete certain positions. Raimhotep (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC) Nothing to do with absolute truth or the issue of Alek Wek.--Dougweller (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Non sequitur?
The text says: "Theories of pre-Columbian American-African contact have been contested by others, with some Mesoamericanists charging Van Sertima with "doctoring" and twisting data to fit his conclusions, and with inventing evidence.[4] Subsequent mainstream archaeological evidence, however, in the form of human skeletal remains and rock art was discovered in 1999 and 2005 in Brazil, and has surfaced elsewhere in South America, which strongly suggests a pre-Columbian "Australoid" or "Negroid" presence in the New World. According to BBC News:


 * The identity of the first Americans is an emotive and controversial question. But the evidence from Brazil, and a handful of people who still live at the very tip of South America, suggests that the Americas have been home to a greater diversity of humans than previously thought - and for much longer.[15]"

The first sentence is correct, that is what has been stated. But from 'Subsequent' on, none of the text contradicts the first sentence or even suggests an African presence in South America -- the BBC News article (and I'd say news articles aren't sufficient for this sort of thing is titled 'First Americans were Australian' and doesn't mention Africa. And if you read other reports it is clear that Lucia is thought to have come over a Siberian route, whether by boat or land. Since none of it supports an African source, can I delete it?--Dougweller (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's nonsense. What Sertima is claiming is completely unrelated to the "paleoamerican" Australoid argument. That's simply the claim that very ancient paleolithic peoples migrated by normal means either through Siberia or by island-hopping, and that their phenotype resembles Australian aborigines. It has nothing to do with migration from Africa except in the trivial sense that all migration is ultimately from Africa. In that sense the Conquistadors were African. It ceratinly is not about "pre-Columbian American-African contact". Paul B (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

pure fringecruft. Pre-Columbian Africa-Americas contact theories needs to be cleaned up asap into something that makes clear this is loopy pseudohistory, not a serious hypothesis. dab (𒁳) 13:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * also, keeping a discussion of this pre-Columbian stuff in this article makes it appear even more kooky than already inherent in the topic. The long-term aim here should be to separate nonsensical "theories" from sentiment and ideology. The claims are without merit, and can be debunked, while the sentiment is of course neither "true" nor "false" on exactly the same grounds as any other racialist ideology. dab (𒁳) 15:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether it is a "kooky" theory or not, it is simply a theory advanced by some but not all Afrocentrists. There is thus nothing wrong in mentioning it, along with any critics that question it. The article is looking at the field of Afrocentrism - good and bad- not soapboxing your opinion on what is "fringe" or not. Larsposenaa (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Kooky to you. It is more kooky, comparing a continent with a subregion, just to remain significant. One man's kooky is another man's sanity. Raimhotep (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And who are you, Dbachmann? For the umpty-ump time, what you think about such theories doen't matter one whit here.  The fact is the material is adequately sourced, and those advancing the information are reputable, learned and respected in their respective fields.  It doesn't matter in the least what you think of it.  National Geographic, Scientific American and the BBC are exceedingly mainstream.  User: deeceevoice  03:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC

The BBC is in a sense mainstream, but it presents stuff like programs featuring Graham Hancock, there are some articles on its site that are just plain wrong, etc. It isn't necessarily reliable. It's just part of the media after all.--Dougweller (talk) 06:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The paragraph in question doesn't make much sense. Van Sertima is talking about African influence on the Olmecs, who according to the Wikipedia article flourished from about 1200-400 BCE; the Nat'l Geographic and BBC articles are talking about the first inhabitants of the Americas, more than 10000 years ago. I can't access the Scientific American article, but I bet it's about the same thing. These article don't have anything to do with the Afrocentrist pre-Columbian contact theories. As far as I can see, this is a non-sequitur, and we should remove the sentence "However, archaeological finds over the last two decades in South America of rock art and human skeletal remains suggest to some scholars and academicians an ancient, pre-Columbian presence of "Australoid" or "Negroid" peoples in the New World[15] which came from Asia earlier than the arrival of current Asiatic populations."


 * Are there other authors (not "scholars") who advance pre-Columbian African contact theories? Because as far as I can tell, the section is all about Van Sertima. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Clyde Winters does. I also don't see that particular sentence as having to do with van Sertimas arguments. And they certainly do not improve the level of his scholarhip.•Maunus• • ƛ • 08:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This section was recently added. This is just one of the topics of Afrocentrist, too much has been devoted to it. Clyde Winters is a scholar and an author. With your superior knowledge and learning,you should have been able to render Clyde Winters into an insignificant insect. Your trade off between Clyde Winters revealed to me that you don't have a greater truth. Thought I commend and respect what you do and in acquiring the disciplines that you have, you might be better off keeping an open mind on Van Sertima's theories rather than insulting his scholarship. Personally, I don't think you are on Van Sertima's level and have accomplished enough to criticize his scholarship. The main negation argument is the "mainstream scholarship don't support it." That is all I am hearing. Raimhotep (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

And Clyde Winters is wrong. I've argued with him directly enough to know that. But you are losing the point, which is that an article about Austroloids is not relevant to Afrocentrism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 21:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"One man's kooky is another man's sanity." -- not on Wikipedia. We have standards. See WP:ENC. It does indeed not matter one bit what I think personally. I never claimed it did. Unlike all the lobbyist accounts trolling this page. "mainstream scholarship don't support it" is the only argument that does count around here. Don't like it? Go open your own blog. dab (𒁳) 12:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Mainstream scholarship not supporting it doesn't mean it won't necessarily be included in Wikipedia (see, for instance, cold fusion or intelligent design) but it does mean it will be presented clearly as being unsupported by mainstream scholarship and will include relevant facts in regards to it, especially if the idea is contradicted by reality or unsupported by facts. It would be simply wrong of us not to point out facts which support or contradict something - it would be a violation of NPOV. That said, the purpose is not to get into some stupid battle over facts but rather to give the reader an idea of the current status of something, what support it has, and what opposition and criticsm it suffers from, as well as the degree of acceptance it has among relevant communities. Contrast evolution and intelligent design, or fusion and cold fusion. Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Let the theory be discussed and then the critics. That's the proper approach not some blowhard pontificator rendering his opinion about what "shouldn't" be mentioned.Larsposenaa (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've tried to use the BBC, National Geographic and Sci Am articles with more detail for perspective. I agree that it would be better to use peer-reviewed journals than these brief populat accounts. The long article by scholars refuting Van Sertima should probably be used in more detail, as they are specific in their complaints about his book.--Parkwells (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Tags
Any specialist subject will have a higher degree of primary sources, Afrocentrism is hardly daily news on CNN. The other tag has been removed because the article has been modified and I dont think warrants that tag. If there are specific section issues the tags should be placed where the problem is. As opposed to on the whole article which has a fair deal of quality sources and balance.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 08:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits
I've reinserted the countervailing material about the possible presence of Africans in the New World. It is disingenuous and flatout incorrect to simply write off Van Sertima's thesis as being universally rejected out of hand by mainstream scholars.

Further, Dbachmann, it is unhelpful and inflammatory to delete material referring to the findings and opinions of mainstream scholars, as presented by "National Geographic," the BBC and Scientific American -- and then describing it as "fringecruft" -- merely because it is consonant with Afrocentrist theories of a pre-Columbian African presence in the New World. Please. Exercise some restraint/self-control. Haven't you learned anything from the ArbCom matter? If you cannot, then I would hope you would stick to your earlier, stated intention of steering clear of this article and move on. Such conduct is not helpful.

I've deleted/shortened much of the criticism section -- just as the section referred to above was shortened. It is in appropriate and blatantly POV to go on and on and on about anti-Afrocentrist opinions, while systematically deleting countervailing information. But more importantly, these changes are preparatory to a rewriting of the article. As has been discussed on this page earlier, the article is far too skewed to a treatment of Afrocentrism and the practice of history. This article should treat Afrocentrism as an overarching phenomenon, with a separate article on Afrocentrism (history). Much of what has been deleted relative to this narrow aspect of Afrocentrism, both pro and con, is perfectly valid and can be reinstated there -- or in articles even more narrowly focused on more specific aspects/fields of Afrocentrism & history -- meso-American studies, Egyptology, China studies, etc. deeceevoice (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The Austroloid stuff is misleading and doesn't belong here. What mainstream archaeologists accept Van Sertima? And BBC web articles can be absolutely dreadful.--Dougweller (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Here we go with the mainstream argument. Whose mainstream? British mainstream? American mainstream? Western mainstream? or Nigerian mainstream? Ghanaian mainstream? African mainstream? The assumption of the gentleman is that his mainstream has the correct and greater truth which historical it hasn,t. Raimhotep (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not my term, it's used frequently on Wikipedia. It's used 47 times on this page before I used it just now, at least once by you. But mainstream archaeologists are the ones who publish in the various national and international archaeologists. I have no idea what your last sentence means.--Dougweller (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Originating from where? It certainly is not international. International would mean all continents and all societies. Archaeology is just one tool, not the only tool of knowing. Its absence does not negate truth. It certainly will solidify truth. Raimhotep (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see that anyone's bothering to cite any sources here. Interested editors may wish to look at Gabriel Haslip-Viera, Bernard Ortiz de Montellano, and Warren Barbour, "Robbing Native American Cultures: Van Sertima's Afrocentricity and the Olmecs," Current Anthropology 38 (1997) 419-41. This article clearly establishes that Van Sertima's ideas are not widely discussed by academic anthropologists, and that his ideas are wrong; for example, the abstract states "In 1976, Ivan Van Sertima proposed that New World civilizations were strongly influenced by diffusion from Africa. The first and most important contact, he argued, was between Nubians and Olmecs in 700 B.c., and it was followed by other contacts from Mali in A.D. 1300. This theory has spread widely in the African-American community, both lay and scholarly, but it has never been evaluated at length by Mesoamericanists. This article shows the proposal to be devoid of any foundation..."


 * Following the main article there are short responses from a number of scholars that further demonstrate the low opinion the field has of Van Sertima's work, e.g. Michael Coe says on p. 432, "The claim by Van Sertima and others that Africans created the Olmec culture of Mesoamerica belongs in the same historical dustbin as previous claims that the high cultures of the New World resulted from the migration of white peoples from Europe (i.e., the Welsh who were supposed to have left the mounds of the U.S. Middle West) or the Near East (i.e., the Mormon belief that the Maya cities were really made by white "Nephites"). Only recently have we been assured in press articles that the Olmec came from China!" That's pretty damning.


 * There's a reply in the following volume of Current Anthropology by Martin Bernal ("On 'Robbing Native Cultures'," Current Anthropology 39 (1998) 512-514). If Martin Bernal is in favor of something, that's a good sign it's a fringe theory, and indeed, he doesn't think that Van Sertima got a fair shake. But Bernal agrees that Van Sertima's theories are not part of mainstream academic discussion--but he thinks they should be.


 * It may be worth discussing Van Sertima in this article, if his theories are popular among Afrocentrists; but the article must also make it clear that these are fringe theories and not accepted by Mesoamerican archaeologists, or among scholars in general. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"If Martin Bernal is in favor of something, that's a good sign it's a fringe theory"--So the Western mainstream has disregarded Martin Bernal's work. Fringe to whom? Archaeology is not the only means of knowing. Because archaeologists have not found proof does not mean its not true. We saw this in the viking theory. We recently saw this in pacific islanders reaching America before Columbus theory, using different fields of study. Raimhotep (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Archaeology proved that Vikings visited North America. They did find proof. As for Pacific Islands, if you are talking about the chicken bone found in Chile last year, that was found by archaeologists also. I don't know exactly what your point is, but you've just given two good arguments where archaeology seems to have found vital evidence in a disputed issue. Thanks.--Dougweller (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You are silly. Let me break it down for you. Make it more simple. Before the Viking archaeological data, the Viking contact theory was based on other sources like the Sagas. The Theory was considered "fringe" and "nonsense." In fact, the Saga was used as a source to locate Viking archaeological artifacts in the new world. Before the archaeological data on Pacific contact, the theory was around because boat enthusiast of the West coast noticed that native american boats were similiar in design to those of the Pacific islanders. Van Sertima has far greater non archaeological data than Saga and boats, that is why I don't reject his theory. Because there is no archaeological data does not mean the theory is false. Raimhotep (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the Viking contact hypothesis was disputed, not considered 'fringe' and I was taught it in school as fact long before the archaeological data. But it only went beyond hypothesis when the archaeological data was found. The boat thing is irrelevant as the relationship hasn't been shown to be correct, unlike the sagas. You can be right for the wrong reasons, that doesn't make the wrong reasons right.--Dougweller (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Since I don't know what non-archaeological data you have in mind (and technically this isn't the place to discuss it), I can't comment. But if you are thinking of plant data, that's been shown to be wrong.


 * Are we not having a dispute? You and your ilk have never been right. You claim superior knowledge to the Afrocentrist, but your superiority is never seen. On one hand you say, "but you've just given two good arguments where archaeology seems to have found vital evidence in a disputed issue." Next you contradict yourself by saying, "The boat thing is irrelevant as the relationship hasn't been shown to be correct, unlike the sagas." One minute Van Sertima is a dispute. Next minute Van Sertima is not a dispute. You and your ilk must suffer from schizophrenia. After all it has been pointed out that Eurocentrism is a mental disorder. I don't know what plant data you are talking about, having witness your weak and loser pattern, your plant data arguments is most likely and everything you have ever said is wrong. Raimhotep (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, personal insults, how low can you go? Reading back, you seem to resort to these rather than try to make a rational argument or explain yourself. That's the loser pattern. I have no idea where it is been pointed out that Eurocentrims (or logically any centrism} is a mental disorder. ANd I don't claim superior knowledge to the Afrocentrist. Pointing out that one or two of them are wrong is not making a global statement. Anyway, a pox on all the centrists of any sort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 07:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am just stating a fact. You and your ilk seem to have an inability to connect things which is certainly irrational and you contradict yourself too many times, multiple personalities(schizo). You have made many claims which have certainly been proven wrong, over and over(loser). Last I checked the old data was correct on the Pacific/America contact theory, including the eyewitness accounts of chickens being in America before columbus (Pizzaro said it himself), linguistic data, and botanical data. Van Sertima uses all these areas to prove the African contact theory. Thor Heyerdahl was ahead of his time, kudos to Thor. A classical example of Eurocentrism, the Viking contact theory before the archaeological data could be "disputed" but not "fringe." When information makes one look good, one just accepts it without rigor. But if its other peoples, it is "fringe." You and your ilk were quick to reject the China/contact theory but said nothing about the Roman Amphorae or reject it. Raimhotep (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * -) Let's see -- mentally ill, loser, schizo, any other insults? Don't you know what kind of person lumps other people together the way you do and then says they are 'the other', not really human?  You don't even know me and you think I've said nothing about the Bay of Jars. Or that I'm not as rigorous with ideas I agree with as those I don't.  We all come from Africa, like it or not, so maybe everyone should be an Afrocentrist. But I think any 'centrism' is a form of nationalism and takes you on a slippery downhill slide to somewhere I certainly don't want to go. What I do notice about you is that you are all talk and no substance. Bye.--Dougweller (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's all well and good, Doug. You have your opinion, and you're welcome to it.  However, neither this article nor this talk space is about what you (or anybody else, for that matter) think about Afrocentrism.  With all due respect, the average reader -- myself included -- couldn't care less.  And it should have no bearing whatsoever on the content of the article.  deeceevoice 20:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I shouldn't have allowed myself to get sucked into this discussion, if you look at my first post, it was about the relevance of the stuff about some Native Americans coming from Australia. Raimhotep derailed the discussion and I guess I let him.--Dougweller (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all I did not derail any discussion. My comments were not directed to you in the first place. I was just replying to comments about Afrocentrism made by one of your ilk. You chose to get into the discussion instead of minding your own business. I hope it is permanent. Bye! Raimhotep (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be wrong to exclude the racist theories of Afrocentrism from an Afrocentrism article, but it should also be made clear it is not the mainstream position on the subject - namely, that it is pseudoarcheology at best. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, Dougweller, while I'm sympathetic to your evident commitment to constructive dialogue you won't achieve rapprochment with Mr. You-and-your-ilk by opposing him with substantive arguments. He's not in the market. The generalizations in which his thinking is expressed are typical of racists (you will never be more than an 'ilk' to him). Afrocentrism itself is best understood not as a competing historical or intellectual theory but as a psychological, hopefully therapeutic reaction (as is in fact suggested in the Discussion). You're surely perceptive enough to recognize that its most tenacious apologists are engaged in an analogous psychological, identity-affirming process, even when the process assumes the guise of academic debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.18 (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to update the discussion about chicken bones:

A published, apparently pre-Columbian, Chilean specimen and six pre-European Polynesian specimens also cluster with the same European/Indian subcontinental/Southeast Asian sequences, providing no support for a Polynesian introduction of chickens to South America. In contrast, sequences from two archaeological sites on Easter Island group with an uncommon haplogroup from Indonesia, Japan, and China and may represent a genetic signature of an early Polynesian dispersal. Modeling of the potential marine carbon contribution to the Chilean archaeological specimen casts further doubt on claims for pre-Columbian chickens, and definitive proof will require further analyses of ancient DNA sequences and radiocarbon and stable isotope data from archaeological excavations within both Chile and PolynesiaIndo-European and Asian origins for Chilean and Pacific chickens revealed by mtDNA. Jaime Gongora, Nicolas J. Rawlence, Victor A. Mobegi, Han Jianlin, Jose A. Alcalde, Jose T. Matus, Olivier Hanotte, Chris Moran, J. Austin, Sean Ulm, Atholl J. Anderson, Greger Larson and Alan Cooper, "Indo-European and Asian origins for Chilean and Pacific chickens revealed by mtDNA" PNAS July 29, 2008 vol. 105 no 30 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

good article
good article http://www.city-journal.org/article01.php?aid=1426 "afrocentric hustle" by Stanley Crouch —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moobes (talk • contribs) 23:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Linking an article to a right wing conservative, certainly does not make the argument for cultural unity and cohesion. Certainly people who finance Bell Curve studies and want their notion of America or their America to be paramount certainly can't make an argument for cultural cohesion.Raimhotep (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What on earth are you talking about? The article - which I don't think is good - is by Stanley Crouch, a black jazz critic. It never once mentions anything about financing "Bell Curve studies". Paul B (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * People have varying views on Stanley Crouch: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n33_v10/ai_15729692--Dougweller (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I do enjoy your ad hominem attack on him, rather than actually adressing what he raised. Who he is is irrelevant to the actual argument he makes. Generally, if you have to attack the person and can't attack the argument, its a sign you've lost. I think it is a fine article, personally. Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That was a response to Raimhotep, not me, right?--Dougweller (talk) 12:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Correct, hence the single indent. I try to keep things consistant so it isn't so confusing, but I know it can be a bit hard to follow sometimes. On the whole, though, I don't see anything wrong with the article; that said, I'm not sure how relevant it is to the discussion. There have to be better academic sources criticizing Afrocentrism in similar ways; I've read them, and I don't think some random jazz artist is a better source unless we wanted someone who was specifically black for some reason (or he is more notable than I think, which is entirely plausible - I know very little about jazz). Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Stanley Crouch is considered a cultural critic as well.--Parkwells (talk) 13:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Amusing trying to understand the nuance of culture we did not grow up in. This is the continuation of my "black friend" theme. It was originally uncle tong Dinesh, now an uncle tom. I will not assist thee in understanding the nuance of a society or culture. I will leave you to your paper. Raimhotep (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The lead
The lead is oozing lobbyist weasling once again. How can people submit such stuff to Wikipedia with a straight face? Blather about "collective struggles", "African eyes", "paradigms", "part of a broader, multicultural movement" belongs in a pamphlet, not in a neutral encyclopedia aritcle. This is so much smoke weasling around the straightforward identification of "Afrocentrism" as a racialist ideology of the US "culture wars". Until and unless these terms aren't stated up front in the lead, this article needs to remain tagged with NPOV. dab (𒁳) 12:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

More of your own personal opinion, Dab. It's really very tiresome. I have no problem leaving hte POV tag on it until the article is fleshed out further. I have time.... User: deeceevoice 22 February 2008

Furthermore, the term "culture wars" is an American/U.S. phenomenon; whereas, Afrocentrism is an international phenomenon (and has been from its earliest beginnings) -- as is the purported scope of Wikipedia. Your comments remind me of the story of the blind men groping an elephant and describing the individual body part they're experiencing. You, Dbachmann, seemingly are intent on looking at only the ass-end of Afrocentrism, the extremism and myth making, and loudly proclaiming you know the truth of the beast; everyone else is benighted. You continue to try to disparage them and their efforts with incivility and condescension. Your continued use of such inflammatory, abrasive language is evidence you've learned absolutely nothing from the recent ArbCom case involving in part your earlier disruption of this article by similar comments in this same space and your edit notes and in edit-warring/wheel-warring in the article itself. Try being more civil and constructive''. Now, there's an idea! User: deeceevoice 23 February 2008


 * In the light of how many different editors have expressed that they share dabs "personal" opinion in these very pages I think it is remarkable that you don't want the article to even mention that viewpoint.•Maunus• • ƛ • 18:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

News flash: No one's personal opinion belongs in the article. It doesn't matter how many random editors may be in agreement with one side or another. When such viewpoints are expressed as thinly veiled personal opinion, or in POV language in the article, that is inappropriate. What is, unfortunately, un-"remarkable" is that you've utterly misrepresented my approach to the article; you either simply don't have a clue what you're talking about, or the facts just don't matter to you. I've have not deleted, wholesale, appropriate language referring to sources antagonistic to, or critical of, Afrocentrism. Such information remains in the article; it belongs there. What I've objected to is insertion of such language where it is unsubstantiated POV, immaterial or irrelevant, or in detail or volume unmerited by the appropriate focus of the article -- which is Afrocentrism as an overarching paradigm. As it is -- for the umpteenth time -- the article focuses far too specifically and in depth on Afrocentrism in the study and practice of history (pro and con) -- and little else, an approach which is overly narrow and not terribly informative. Subsequent edits, hopefully, will correct this shortcoming and open the article up to include a discussion of Afrocentrism as it is conceived and commonly applied -- by, yes, even mainstream institutions -- across disciplines, with adequately sourced, balanced appraisals where appropriate.

This article should not suffer the same fate as many articles of this type (ones that deal with Black subject matter) on this white-dominated website: become little more than a magnet for a constant stream of editors antagonistic to the concept or phenomenon, who have an axe to grind, who take the opportunity to insert negative after negative, intent upon piling on disparaging opinion after disparaging opinion only, skewing the article to narrow, pop-culture, media-driven preconceptions and/or misconceptions of the subject matter -- without even caring adequately to address or explicate fully the core subject matter under discussion. Such an approach is not encyclopedic and ultimately fails adequately to inform the reader beyond what he or she may already have gleaned from 30-second sound bites on the "culture wars" on the nightly news.

These opinionated "contributors" you write of are so intent on making sure that each and every possible negative appraisal ever uttered or written is included in the article, that they've given absolutely no attention to the broader development of the subject itself, to the examination of Afrocentrism in thought and practice outside the narrow box of historical Afrocentrism. Not one word.

And that also is unencyclopedic and exceedingly POV. User: deeceevoice 23 February 2008


 * An encyclopedia is supposed to inform. If a viewpoint is shared by enough people then that alone makes it worth mentioning - and worth presenting arguments for and against this viewpoint. I am not saying that afrocentrism is necessarily a "racialist ideology" - I believe that you are probably right that some practicioners of afrocentrism have moved away from the racialist track. But I am saying, and that is what I have been saying all along, a wide public, maybe mostly composed of white people that is really beside the point, hold the notion that afrocentrism is an essentially  racialist viewpoint, this is also well documented in the writings by the critics of afrocentrism. Whether or not it is the case that afrocentrism is racialist or not I don't really care - what I do care about is that the article should reflect this by mentioning it. If it is not the case that afrocentrism is always a racialist viewpoint then the article should state that "x, x, x, and x have argued that afrocentrism is an essentially racialist ideology with the same flaws as other such idelogies, but x, x, x and x have argued against that saying that afrocentrism can be/is/should be/ .....". Untill the article begins taking a shape where it argues it points instead of just stating the afrocentrist positions arguments as fact then the article is useless as an encyclopedic source of information. Since as you have repeatedly pointed out I am no expert on afrocentrism I have not edited the article substantially except for adding material relevant to the topics on which I do have some level of expertise. I have only stated here repeatedly what I find to be the problem with this article - and many editors have expressed the same concerns. However you who supposedly know so much about this topic, and therefore have the main responsibility for the articles quality have not taken any steps to improve the article in this respect. That is why I find it hard to believe that you are really interested in a neutral and informative coverage of the topic. •Maunus• • ƛ • 11:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Your first two statements are completely consonant with what I've already written, and they are consonant with my edits to the article. So, what's your beef?


 * FYI, my raison d'etre is not to convince you of anything, so it troubles me not one whit what you "find ... hard to believe." The fact is I've done very little serious writing here or elsewhere on Wikipedia lately.  I can't stand this place, and I have a life outside it.  What I have done here is try to lay a framework for the opening up of the article so that it does, indeed, inform the reader, and try to keep the article from spiralling into simply an examination and drubbing of extremist/crackpot historical Afrocentrism -- which is what you seem to be arguing for with, "Untill the article begins taking a shape where it argues it points instead of just stating the afrocentrist positions...."  The fact is the article already addresses this concern under the "Criticism" section.  Much of the article that treats Afrocentrism and history could be drastically redacted, with a separate, main article treating the issue.  That is where the arguments, pro and con, should be presented.  Not here.


 * When I get some time and a lot more patience, I'll work at fleshing out the first objective, examining Afrocentrism as it is practiced in the practical ways in which it most impacts the majority of people's lives, in mainstream institutions -- since no one else here seems to have the slightest interest in that very important aspect of this subject. User: deeceevoice 23 February


 * I disagree with the notion that this is not the place to present pros and cons, and I also don't think that an isolated criticism section is enough to achieve compliance with WP:NPOV, but that rather the entire article should have an argumentative structure. •Maunus• • ƛ • 11:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (Sigh. This is tedious.)  Repeating myself -- again (maybe you'll read what I wrote this time around):  this article is not the place for an in-depth examination of any one, particular aspect of Afrocentrism -- history included.  Separate articles should treat more complicated aspects of Afrocentrism, with only a relatively expurgated subsection here containing some brief analysis (such as the highly redacted version presented in the "Criticism" section).  Clearly, as the article is rewritten along the more inclusive, comprehensive lines which I intend, the information which has been segregated in/relegated to the "Criticism" section (which I also do not particularly like, organizationally) will be moved and included in the relevant section -- that treating Afrocentrism and the practice of history -- just as there will be similar sections treating Afrocentrism in other fields/areas of practice.  User: Deeceevoice 23 February 2008
 * You have said before that this is yor idea of what the article should be like yes, as far as Iknow that interpretation of the articles ideal structure is not written in styone any where - it is you opinion. And my opinion is that I disagree with that structure of the article. This is the talkpage where we discuss how to improve the article you know. •Maunus• • ƛ • 07:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This article has huge issues with its lead now. First off, the first sentence is not particularly neutral. Second, though, the lead doesn't mention the controversy, which is an enormous issue - afrocentrism is incredibly controversial and problematic, as it claims to be a system of inquiry but actually is considered by many (perhaps most) observers as racist mythology. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In defining the term up front, what others (largely uneducated on the subject and exposed to only a narrow aspect of it) believe/opine shouldn't concern us one iota. The fact is most people's perception of the phenomenon has been framed by the mass media, in the context of "culture wars" -- again, an American phenomenon -- and even then treating only a narrow -- and often the most extreme/fringe portion of what comprises the Afrocentrist spectrum.  This is the same problem we dealt with in AAVE -- people insisting on inserting their narrow ideas of the subject, based largely on ignorance of the subject and focusing on culture-wars-related issues.  That is an approach that is neither scholarly nor necessarily informative.  The purpose of an encyclopedia is to treat a subject encyclopedically -- that is, in its entirety, beyond common misconceptions/preconceptions/prejudices and often just flat-out ignorance.  My approach has been (and remains) to try to define the subject in the broadest, most accurate terms, not focusing on the narrow, often hackneyed issue of Afrocentrism and history up front, but trying to begin to frame the article so that it places that aspect of Afrocentrism in context -- with (to come) an examination of other aspects of the phenomenon as it is practiced -- by the mainstream -- in today's world.  User: deeceevoice 05:20, 25 February 2008
 * The problem is that you are providing one viepoint of what Afrocentrism is and stating that as fact in the lead. As we have been trying to tell you there are several viewpoints, and they should be balanced throughout the article and particularly in the lead. •Maunus• • ƛ • 07:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As clarification: it is neither grounded nor informed, and is not grounded nor informed by anything at all, let alone the "africian peoples"; the reason for the prior (somewhat awkward) lead was to avoid the problem the current lead has. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

lol. That's kind of funny. I, frankly, don't see anything wrong with the lead. But if you prefer the earlier version, that's fine. I was trying to rewrite it in a way that readers might find more immediately meaningful/clear without having to read the remainder of the paragraph. I don't know what's wrong with the use of "African peoples," because the term is used and defined (via wiki link) -- and it was used in the earlier version. I was simply trying to get away from using "Black people twice. But if you find that more palatable, then I certainly don't have a problem with the redundancy.  Perhaps putting the term in quotes would suit you?  I mean that's the whole point -- to start from, ground oneself in an African perspective, rather than a European/Western one at the outset when considering phenomena.  And it is blatantly POV/certainly completely incorrect/misguided to claim that it is "nor not grounded nor informed by by anything at all...."  Certainly, those in social services who utilize an Afrocentric paradigm would disagree.  I'm just wonderng if you, Titanium Dragon, even have any notion of what you're disputing.  User: deeceevoice 04:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Among other things, I've been focusing on trying to get a lead that works properly to frame the term in the most general terms. I don't have a problem at all with a nod to the controversy surrounding Afrocentrism in the practice of history as a third paragraph, which has been my intent all along. I simply haven't focused on it, instead working on reworking the first two paragraphs. Is that what's sticking in everybody's craw? One of the first things I learned in writing is to state what something is - and then deal with what it is not and other ancillary issues. But if not dealing with the ancillary issue -- the controversy of Afrocentrism as it relates to a single, narrow discipline, that of history -- is what is making what I consider a fairly value-neutral description of the overall phenomenon unpalatable, then let's get on with writing the third paragraph of the introduction -- since so many of you cannot seem to get beyond that point. Who wants to take a stab it it? Or, shall I? (I'm crunching deadlines at the moment, but I'm perfectly willing to give it a try maybe Tuesday or midweek.)  User: deeceevoice 04:59, 25 February 2008


 * The objections to Afrocentrism are more extensive than a controversy "as it relates to a single, narrow discipline, that of history." If I remember right, Afrocentrism got a lot of attention in the late '80s as a result of efforts by school boards to institute Afrocentric curricula in public schools (this is in the U.S.)--that's not just the "practice of history", that's about primary and secondary schooling. At any rate, I think deeceevoice is right to point out that what's called for is a 3rd paragraph of the lead that covers criticisms of Afrocentrism (with more extensive coverage in the body of the article). --Akhilleus (talk) 05:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I was speaking in terms of the way the article is currently written. It launches into a discussion of Afrocentrism and history and ignores everything else. I haven't read the article in its entirety ever and haven't looked beyond the first paragraph in weeks. (Deadlines.) But I don't recall education or other disciplines even being mentioned beyond the second paragraph, where I introduced it. (I am fully aware of the issue of Afrocentrism in education, and there already has been some discussion in that regard in the talk page space.) Again, if it will help move the article forward, then, by all means, have at a third paragraph that refers to (but doesn't discuss in excrutiating detail) the controversies. Remember, this is an intro, and there's ample time to flesh all that out later to the extent that it is practicable in an article that treats -- or should -- a very broad subject. (But one wouldn't know it from reading this piece.) Also, keep in mind, as I've stated several times before, that it likely will be useful/practical to start separate articles to treat various disciplines in depth later on. User: deeceevoice 25 February 2008

POV AND INCORRECT INFO
"the Olmecs being an African people,"

Minor edits, Van Sertima never claimed Olmecs to be an "African people". The population had small strata of africans which is the claim. This should be deleted.

"allegations unsupported by the mainstream historical communities, as examples of Afrocentrists attempting to claim black superiority over other races and that blacks were ultimately behind Western civilization."

Minor edits, "the mainstream historical communities" should be replace with "the Western mainstream historical communities" Raimhotep (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So Japanese and Indian historians also believe that Olmecs were African do they? And Afrocentrists, who are overwhelmingly American, are "non-Western"? Paul B (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, no Japanese or Indian historian would believe that Olmecs were African because Van Sertima never claimed they were African. One is making claims and attributing it to Afrocentrist.Raimhotep (talk) 04:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You are not paying attention Paul. I said Van Sertima(afrocentrism) never claimed that the Olmecs were an African people. Van Sertima claims there was a small segment of the population that was African. The Western mainstream holds that the Egyptians were not black and there is no evidence to prove otherwise. Raimhotep (talk) 06:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the mainstream states that, not the "western" mainstream, as I said. Paul B (talk) 10:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * the mainstream doesn't say "Egyptians were not black". The mainstream rolls its eyes at the very question "were Egyptians black?" and sidles away trying to find somebody else to talk to. I have to agree with Paul that, seeing that Afrocentrism is a thoroughly western (viz., USian) pop culture phenomenon, if there was any "eastern mainsteam", it would probably never even have heard of the concept. dab (𒁳) 13:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all African Americans have their own mainstream, being that America was a segregated society. African Americans( scholars, leaders, individuals) have always had to take a position on issue about them put out by the white dominated intellectual estabishment(your "western" mainstream). The notion of a Black Egypt is widespread in the African American community. In African mainstreams, the notion is also widespread. After all Diop is African. He is not regarded lightly in Africa and by Africans. Of course, the non Black Ancient Egyptian but white Egypt(Jarred Diamond) comes from your "western" mainstream. To Dbachmann, my mainstream would be condescending towards your non black Egypt as whitewash Eurocentric trash, more on the level of feces. If Afrocentrism was a "USian" phenomena, why do we have Dbachmann, English boys, Irish boys, Danish boys, South African boys, possibly Australian/ New Zealander/ Canadian(eh!) boys on the Afrocentric hater Eurocentric tip. If these boys are not "western" mainstream, I don't know what they are. You boys make more spirited arguments than your Euro American counter parts, on a "USian" phenomena.Raimhotep (talk) 08:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"I Can" (Nas song)
I was disappointed to see that my "See also" link to I Can (Nas song) was removed. This song is the anthem of afrocentrism. The hip-hop video depicts ancient Egyptian monuments while the singer credits blacks with their construction. The lyrics chronicle the "empires" of Kush and Timbuktu, their offerings of gold to the Europeans, and eventual destruction at the hands of Persians. It asserts that the ancient Egyptian monuments had "black faces" and that Alexander the Great invaded Egypt and shot off the Sphynx's nose out of resentment, in "what basically still goes on today". References to the Europeans, the Persian military and Alexander the Great (perhaps of dubious historical accuracy) are jumbled together to give the impression that these outsiders were all one and the same from the African perspective. The (perhaps) mythological description of "black teachers" teaching "Greeks, Romans, Asians and Arabs" is classic afrocentrism. As I say, this song is the anthem of afrocentrism and the crediting of Africans for contributing to the prominence others hold in history (a subtle point brought home by the fact that this hip-hop song heavily samples Beethoven's "Fur Elise"). 74.68.123.162 (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Add the relevant content to the I Can article, then the point of the link will be clearer. As it stands the I Can article says nothing about Afrocentrism. Paul B (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree!! Raimhotep (talk) 06:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Robert Todd Carroll
His comments are not reliable, and should not be included in the article. See Reliable sources/Noticeboard.  Yahel  Guhan  06:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * He is expressing opinion not stating any con troversial facts - the quote maintains that he has said it and since he wrote the book that should be reliable enough.•Maunus• • ƛ • 07:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What makes him reliable? He certianly is no expert in the field of afrocentrism.  Yahel  Guhan  07:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * He doesn't need to be "reliable" or an expert in order to express an opinion. He just needs to be sufficiently notable to have is opinion included in the article. His person is notable enough to to have its own article and so is the book in which the statements were made.•Maunus• • ƛ • 09:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:V:

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."

His qoute is not by an established expert on the topic. Nor is his quote being presented by reliable third-party publications. Thus his comment doesn't belong in the article.  Yahel  Guhan  17:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please stop this nonsense. It is not self published, as you well know. It is published by John Wiley & Sons. Paul B (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I checked your link, Yahel Guhan, and the archives referenced in that Noticeboard, and nowhere is Robert Todd Carroll discredited. It is confirmed that he is a published academic. The only negatives on Carroll in said Noticeboard come from yourself, in an argument that you apparently lost. tharsaile (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Semantics...
(soapboxing removed --Akhilleus (talk) 04:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC))

These comments are getting way out of line and are off-topic in terms of making this article better. --Parkwells (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Parkwells, and for that reason I've removed the comments above, which had no apparent relation to improving the content of the article. Everyone, please try to limit your comments to suggestions for editing the article, rather than off-topic politicizing. Remember that this article (and its talkpage) are under ArbCom probation. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

How is it "soapboxing" to suggest that a short section detailing the misuse of the word "African" to mean exclusively "black" people, to the exclusion of Berbers, Copts, Khoikhoi, San etc. is a point of criticism? Also the suggestion that the ethnic/linguistic map of Africa(which appears on various other wikipedia articles) be added to show the vast diversity of African peoples be off-topic politicizing? It was suggested that a section in the "Afrocentrism" article detailing "Afrocentrist" position with regards to people who are African (geographically and historically) but are not "African" (meaning people of the "black race") be added. I don't see how that's off-topic politicizing, and think it is entirely relevant to the discussion of the Afrocentrism article. If you disagree then make comments here as to what you feel is wrong about such an inclusion in the article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.152.206 (talk) 07:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

East Africans
I noticed a study claiming they were a indigenous to africa was removed. Another study showing that ethiopians have a specific form of the haplotype not found in the middle east or europe was also removed. Why is this not here?YVNP (talk) 06:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course it has been removed. There is a class of people on Wikipedia that simply wants to whitewash


 * What point are you making exactly? In what way would east Africans not be "indigenous to Africa"? I assume you were trying to argue against something, (about Semitic languages, or the 'Caucasian race' maybe), but you have to specify what you think the evidence you mention is supposed to prove. Paul B (talk) 10:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am arguing that the article simply calls them caucasian and leaves it at that. I saw this article a while ago and there were criticisms of them being called cacausian.YVNP (talk) 08:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think that's quite true. There's a section ("views on race") that discusses the DNA evidence, with quotations from Cavalli-Sforza and others. The argument is that the 'Caucasian' phenotype originated in east Africa. Paul B (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * be that as it may, by "east Africans", we usually mean current inhabitants of East Africa, not groups of archaic Homo sapiens. Africa clearly has a much greater genetic, linguistic and ethnic diversity than any other continent, which makes the idea of "Pan-Africanism" in any ethnic sense pretty much pointless outside of its use in US politics. dab (𒁳) 12:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually you seem to have very little idea of what 'Pan African' is. It is not simply some discussion confined to US politics but has seen extensive use in the intellectual currents of the continent, from Ghana to South Africa, and has threads reaching back to the 1800 as anyone with an even cursory knowledge of the term notes. As for ethnicity it is quite relevant to the topic because much European scholarship historically and even at present is at pains to classify certain African peoples to some Caucasoid group, that they definitely consider as NON African. That has been one of the biggest inconsistencies in Anthropology and Egyptology and is well documented. You need to be familar with the terms and the history before pontificating again. Larsposenaa (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am aware that there is some Pan-Africanism in Africa, such as Organisation of African Unity or Pan Africanist Congress of Azania. All of this belongs to African Decolonization in the second half of the 20th century. This stuff is pretty separate from the US racial hysteria, but there is cross-pollination of course. Now would you mind elaborating on what you mean by "European scholarship ... even at present is at pains to classify certain African peoples to some Caucasoid group, that they definitely consider as NON African. That has been one of the biggest inconsistencies in Anthropology and Egyptology and is well documented." Is this just about "Egyptians are Blacks!" all over again, or what do you mean by "European scholarship"? What do you mean by "certain African peoples", what by "some Caucasoid group", and finally, what do you mean by "well documented"?  If by "well-documented" you mean Cheikh Anta Diop, we can stop this discussion right now and agree that it is "well documented" indeed. --dab (𒁳) 09:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I see now you are backing off on your 'Pan-African' comments. They were dubious to begin with. And no, I don't mean Cheikh Anta Diop. Quit using that as a diversionary tactic. It's a strawman. The article itself quotes egyptologists on the bias I refer to. Don't tell me now that your eyesight is gone.. lol... And of all persons, Mary Lefkowitz in her "Not Out of Africa" freely admits this historical bias right down to comparatively recent times, a point on which, gasp, she shares agreement with Diop. You however seem to believe that such bias doesn't exist, and that it is all in the mind of the Afrocentrist bogeymen, even when anti-afrocentric writer Lefkowitz agrees with them.Larsposenaa (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, I do not follow you at all. What "bias"? Did you even read my comments? I was saying "Pan-Africanism" is a political term. At first, I said it was a political term in the USA, and I then added it has also some currency in Africa itself. This doesn't invalidate the original point that it is a political ideology, and not based on ethnology, genetics or history. dab (𒁳) 07:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Have they ever proved any of the african civilizations were black?
I've been reading and most of the information says that niger, nigeria, mali, and the rest of the west african civilizations were caucasoid in origin. If this is true how is it so? How did white people get so far into black africa? thanksYVNP (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * care to share any of our sources that "niger, nigeria, mali, and the rest of the west african civilizations were caucasoid in origin"? This doesn't sound serious. Of course the bearers of Black African cultures would have been, well, black. The problem is that this isn't sufficient to establish any reason to group them. A reasonable grouping of African cultures is Bantu expansion, Sahelian kingdom, etc., not "black". --dab (𒁳) 10:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Are african americans descended from any of the black african civilizations?
This would be significant to afrocentrist because most are african american. Are they descended from the people who contributed to these civilizations?YVNP (talk) 06:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * most victims of the Atlantic slave trade obviously were from the Atlantic coast, and as such would have been members of those peoples or tribes who were victimised by the West African civilizations. It appears that the Aro Confederacy was a big player in selling slaves to the Europeans. Likewise, the Ashanti Empire and the Oyo Empire at least partially thrived on the business. dab (𒁳) 19:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So black americans don't have ancestors who played a role in the civilizations?YVNP (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that. It depends on whether you restrict "civilization" to "major empire". It just stands to reason that while you are top dog in a civilization, you'll sell others, not your own group. Perhaps some important Ashanti chief fell from favour and found himself sold into slavery? It also stands to reason that prisoners made in tribal wars (such as the Dahomey Wars) became slaves. Atlantic slave trade lists the top ten ethnic groups deported as Gbe, Akan, Mbundu, BaKongo, Igbo, Yoruba, Mandé, Wolof, Chamba, Makua. These very much correspond to the ethnic groups of some of the West African kingdoms of the period (Kingdom of Nri, Wolof Empire, etc.) I find it a little sad that African-Americans in search of their African roots end up with pie-in-the-sky notions of "Afrocentrism" rather than studying the actual cultures of West Africa. West Africa is a "cultural continent" of its own, and contains enough languages and cultures for several lifetimes of study. --dab (𒁳) 07:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you dab for informing me. I was wondering about this because it's very significant to the purpose of afrocentrism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YVNP (talk • contribs) 10:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversy
We all know that this article will be a sempietern source of contention. To avoid the injection of bias, we should support each and every claim with an appropriate source. By so doing, whether someone agrees with the information becomes moot, because wikipedia then shares published sources on the subject, and not the current catfight we have before us. This subject is far too dear/offensive to some people to ever reach an accord. Therefore, duke it out via the legitimate sources you can use to support the information included in the article. And please don't start parsing "legitimate" by your own standards; use wiki's.Wuapinmon (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No consensus for criticism removal
As this article is under probation, such a controversial move must be made only by consensus. As it stands, it's simply a Wikipedia:Content forking#Articles whose subject is a [WP:POV|POV fork]. Now, I acknowledge the length can be debatable, but what will never be acceptable is total content removal without even a summary of the material. Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * well, yes, but the material needs to be refactored. For example grounded in identity politics and myth rather than sound scholarship isn't "criticism" of Afrocentrism, it's just a straightforward definition. Filing this away under "criticism" evokes the impression that this is somehow disputed. It something is "sound scholarship", it   just falls under African studies, not Afrocentrism. --dab (𒁳) 06:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the criticism should be interspresed throughyout the article instead of sitting in an isolated section but we also have to be fair. For example "based in identity politics and myth" is disputed by every proponent of afrocentrism there is, we also have to provide their viewpoint and not just dismiss it by adding only the critical definitions. I'd prefer to have a definition by a proponent and one by a mainstream scholar side by side.•Maunus• ƛ • 07:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * how is this disputed? It is made perfectly clear by proponents that this is about identity politics, "uplifting" etc. They just defend it by claiming it counters "Eurocentrism". This is about being biased, but adherents argue they should be biased, because the mainstream is biased against them. In other words, politics. Afrocentrism is only "pseudohistorical" when it pretends to be about studying history. As long as it is presented as a political ideology, there is nothing "wrong" with it, its just another political ideology. The problem is that people keep trying to pass it off for something else. dab (𒁳) 08:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree of course that it is about identity and ideology. But you are not right when you say that adherents say that it is about bias and countering ethnocentrism. Futurebird and DCvoice have made it quite clear, and presented numerous sources that there are streams within modern afrocentrism that do not see themselves as biased or as politicising. NPOV is about allowing both the viewpoint of those who hold an ideology to describe what they themselves believe this viewpoint to be about and allow the academic viewpoint about what they believe to be presented. To say that "Afrocentrism is X" full knowing that there are conflicting viewpoints about what it actually is not balanced and not neutral. •Maunus• ƛ • 08:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * alright. the problem with the lead (or the article itself) is that it isn't based on literature about Afrocentrism (secondary sources). I am well aware that all sorts of people think all sorts of things, but WP:DUE says we need to present a topic according to the viewpoints in pertinent literature, weighed by notability. Our resident Afrocentrists are trying to confine the literature about Afrocentrism to a "Criticism" section, while presenting the actual Afrocentrists as "sources". That would be the "sympathetic point of view" approach, which is not Wikipedia policy. I do not agree that NPOV is about allowing both the viewpoint of those who hold an ideology to describe what they themselves believe this viewpoint to be about and allow the academic viewpoint about what they believe to be presented. This is addressed in WP:TIGERS. NPOV is about allowing the presentation of conflicting academic viewpoints, not about presenting academic and non-academic opinions on equal footing. Of course, say, Communism is about "what communists think", but we don't invite communists to come to Wikipedia and write opinion pieces in place of an article, we report the opinion of academics who have written about what communists believe. What holds for Communists, Fascists, Christian fundamentalists, Neopagans, Anarchists, Zionists, Islamists, etc. certainly will also hold for Afrocentrists.
 * WP:NOR (under WP:SECONDARY) has: Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. Citing Afrocentrist literature is relying on primary sources. Primary sources can be referred to, but only after the overall article structure has been built based on reliable secondary sources. Again quoting policy, Primary sources ...  may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.  ... Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. I maintain that any reference to Afrocentrist literature (viz. the primary sources for this topic) need to be treated in accordance with the policy I just pointed to. --dab (𒁳) 09:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that afrocentrists editors should write what they think afrocentrism is but that we should also use sources written by afrocentrists to provide what the movements own definition of itself is. While we don't want communists to write about communism on wikipedia we also don't provide the definition of anti-communists scholars and call that the whole truth - we of course also include quotes stating what Lenin and Stalin etc. stated that they believe communism was about. This is not an issue of Tigers - but an issue of of balance. It is also not true that a study written by an afrocentrist is necessarily a primary source - even self-professed afrocentrists can write secondary sources about what they believe Afrocentrism is or should be. Your interpretation of what constitutes primary sources has widespread consequences for wikipedia if it were to be adopted - since we then couldn't easily distinguish between primary and secondary sources. For example when writing about the debate benween Splitters and Lumpers in linguistics I can't use anything written by Lyle Campbell since he is himself a splitter, and hence his writings are primary sources. This is simply stupid. Whether we like it or not people like Sertima and Asante are academics and scholars although they are outside the mainstream and their writings are also valid as examples of alternative viewpoints - and their works are just as secondary sources as the writings of their more widely believed opponents. Citing WP:Primary here is to me only an attempt at dirty war. And this comes from someone who shares your viewpoint mind you.•Maunus• ƛ • 10:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * well, I see your point, and there is no need to accuse me of playing "dirty" -- I am perfectly willing to review each reference and discuss its status. Sure, there are Afrocentric academics, and I don't mean to exclude them, I mean to present them as Afrocentric academics. My main beef is with attempts to falsify ancient history. I have no problem with accepting Afrocentrism as a current in the "social sciences". I obviously also trust you as a capable editor, and I do invite you to go ahead and implement improvements. I'll also self-revert to your qualification in the lead as a show of good faith, even though I am not quite happy with the phrasing. dab (𒁳) 13:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Criticism section - I undid one editor's attempt to remove specific comments by Lefkowitz as to why she disagreed with some contentions. This is more useful to readers than generalities.--Parkwells (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Footnotes 15 and 16 are misplaced, having nothing to do with Egypt's influence on Greek culture. Nitpyck (talk) 02:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone get a copy of this?

 * In defence of materialism: a critique of Afrocentric ontology
 * Christopher J. Williams
 * Department of Sociology at York University, Toronto
 * Race & Class, Vol. 47, No. 1, 35-48 (2005)


 * Over the last twenty-five years, Afrocentric thinkers have made notable contributions to the ongoing task of challenging Eurocentrism. In the course of so doing, however, some measure of over-reach has occurred. In particular, Afrocentrists have coupled their general critiques of Eurocentrism with specific rejections of its putatively constituent elements, one of which is materialism. Among other things, this rejection of materialism has led Afrocentrists to refrain from interrogating capitalism, downplay the structural dimensions of racial oppression and elevate the ontological status of culture to the point where it is posited as the dominant source of pressing problems affecting people of African descent in the US. Such an outlook undermines the potential of Afrocentricity to be a force for radical social change.

I think that the article isn't doing a good job of covering the real controversies in Afrocentricity-- things like the questions raised in this paper. futurebird (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I would welcome improvement of the Eurocentrism article, which is still lacking any real substance. It appears that Afrocentrism needs to perpetuate claims of "Eurocentrism" in order to justify its own existence, since if Eurocentrism was to disappear, what would that make Afrocentrism look like? "Eurocentrism" was a reflection of the geopolitical status quo, not of any ideology to be accepted or rejected, in the 19th to early 20th century, when most of the world was essentially governed by European powers (notably the British Empire). After 1945, with decolonisation, Eurocentrism disappeared, and persists today in mere conventions such as the Greenwich Meridian, which reflect historical facts, such as, global exploration and intercontinental travel was developed in the European age of exploration, not in Rwanda. After 1945, especially after 1960, "Eurocentrism" has been turned upside down, into its very inverse of cultural relativism, political correctness and affirmative action, so that attacks on Eurocentrism today amount to flogging a horse that has been shot, processed into sausages, eaten and digested. --dab (𒁳) 12:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Dieter, I think your view - ""Eurocentrism" was a reflection of the geopolitical status quo, not of any ideology to be accepted or rejected, in the 19th to early 20th century, when most of the world was essentially governed by European powers (notably the British Empire)" -is shared by many, and it should not be too hard to find notable sources (per NPOV) that express this view. But it remains one POV. There are other POV's and all significant views from notable sources belong in both the Afrocentrism and Eurocentrism articles. Eurocentrism is still very powerful in the humanities, as an organized academic field in the US and Europe, for example.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually didn't the first intercontinental travel occur from East Africa to Asia circa 50,000BP and then onwards to the rest of the world. Wapondaponda (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not in the manner meant by the author supra. Wandering bands incrementally expanding on a multi-generational basis is not 'intercontinental travel' in a manner such as long distance sea voyage with the specific aim of exploration and trade. Not that either have anything to do with the subject.(collounsbury (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC))
 * Oceans had to be crossed, how did people end up in Australia, Hawaii and Madagascar. Wapondaponda (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting how they never explain and produce evidence for these assertions, isn't it? --Pstanton (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wapondaponda, are you asking about the migration of Africans to Australia and India, etc., and how that occurred? deeceevoice (talk) 02:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A few things: 1) One rarely should say "never" in discussions such as these. 2) Who is "they"?  3) And to which specific "assertions" are you referring?  deeceevoice (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually one editor was seeming to imply that intercontinental travel was only developed by Europeans during the Age of Exploration. But in actuality there was significant intercontinental travel prior to the age of exploration, and that is how people ended up in Australia, Hawaii and Madagascar. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting, because that clearly is not the case. There is significant historical data indicating trade between dynastic Egypt and India and dynastic Egypt with Rome.  And there is now evidence of Australoid/Negroid peoples in the Americans predating the arrival of Columbus, and then, of course, the long-known information regarding the existence of Asiatic peoples in the New World, and the long-held contention by Afrocentrists and other historians -- later supported by mitochondrial DNA studies by Spencer Wells -- that Africans peopled southern India and Australia.  So, whether by the metric of migration, serendipitous arrival (via shipwreck, for instance), or by deliberate means for the purpose of exploration, trade, or travel, it would seem that editor is simply misinformed.  deeceevoice (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What about the exploits of the Phoenecian and Carthagian mariners? Wdford (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The article referred to seems to be a standard Marxist critique of identity politics in favour of class politics. It can be read in full here It might be of interest, but the rest of this discussion is just the usual irrelevant ramblings about ancient migrations that mix up so many unrelated events and issues they go nowhere. Paul B (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sphinx
I'm not so sure about your choice of words here. In reality those who have commented that the Sphinx looks black are about 0.1% of the total of all commentators, and at the level of actual Egyptologists the number is about 4, i.e. 0.001%. Don't you think that your choice of words creates a misleading perception of the level of sentiment here? Wdford (talk) 09:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that Chephren is the favorite among egyptologists, and it is true that few Egyptologists regard the sphinx as black. But at the same time I don't think we have any numbers to conclusively say, almost all, or just a handful. Even those Egyptologists who don't think that the Sphinx is black, still have some explaining to do, as to why the sphinx has more projecting jaws, typical of African people. They may say that it was a construction error, but as long as they don't address the issue, the void will be filled with Afrocentric type explanations. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, but its still a concern from the perspective of attracting the POV Police. How about instead using terms like "at least three ..." or "at least six ..." as the case may be, based on our specific knowledge of those who actually took such a position and whom we can cite with references? Wdford (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Clean Up
This site has been left essentially untouched for a while, even though there were a number of challenges and citations outstanding for over a year. Per the To-Do list, I have cleaned up the bulk of the article, replacing or eliminating challenged, duplicated and unreferenced material. I have also summarised sections where comprehensive main articles already exist and material was duplicated, and I have merged two sections that overlapped. I have not added anything significant - that will be the next step. If anybody still thinks the article is POV, please join in to help fix it, so that we can remove this POV tag that has been in place for so long. PS - mass reverts on the assumption of a personal right of veto would not be considered constructive Wdford (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's it - I've cleaned up everything that looks like it needs cleaning, and I've added in what I know. This now looks like a comprehensive article, but if you have more to add then great. If the "Afrocentrism and Ancient Egypt" section is too long then it can be spun-off into a new article - perhaps in conjunction with Ancient Egyptian race controversy, if that article ever gets sorted out. If anybody still thinks the article is POV, please be specific, so that we can fix it and remove this POV tag that has been in place for so long. Wdford (talk) 11:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations and thanks for all your good work. Now others can look at it more easily.--Parkwells (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

why is this site under dispute any way?


 * I think the entire Afrocentrism and Ancient Egypt section needs to be shortened and presented as a statement on the perspective of Afrocentrists on Ancient Egypt as well as a brief comment on criticisms. The Ancient Egypt Race Issue is a controversy and there are conflicting studies on the biological affinities of the Ancient Egyptians some of which do not adhere to the race concept altogether. There is an entire article that's already on Wikipedia for that, it need not be rehashed here. The claim that Black Athena Revisited refuted Afrocentric research in general is POV. It is a critique of and rebuttal to some of Martin Bernal's claims in Black Athena for which he has presented a response. The section should not try to prove or disprove Afrocentric positions on Ancient Egypt but simply state what those positions are and acknowledge criticisms as well as support.Mentuhotep23 (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality tag
I put a neutrality tag specifically on the Radical Afrocentrism section because Molefi Kete Asante is not considered radical—he’s considered an Afrocentric classist. A radical would be someone such as Leonard Jeffries. It should also be noted that Asante successfully refuted Mary Lefkowitz’s assertions in his book The Afrocentric Ideal. Also, how come there are no mention of such people as Martin Bernal, who acknowledges the contributions that African people have made to Western and world civilization? Peace. —MuzikJunky (talk) 10:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point - where should we include Asante? Does anybody want to contribute a paragraph on Bernal? Wdford (talk) 12:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Bernal definitely belongs.  He was mentioned in an earlier iteration of the article way back when.  deeceevoice (talk) 12:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

African and African diaspora intellectuals in the late nineteenth century
The article currently states - Modern Afrocentricity has its origins in the work of African and African diaspora intellectuals in the late nineteenth... Could someone add a short list of who these people were? The DuBois page says he didn't publish before 1899 and I'd like to know who the other earlier intellectuals were. I think a short list would be a minor but good addition to the page. Nitpyck (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Africabalance (talk • contribs)


 * I think the article claims the motivation for Afrocentrism lies in late 19th century "anti-black" racism. It doesn't claim Afrocentrim began before the 20th century. --dab (𒁳) 11:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm looking at the second paragraph of the History section. DuBois and Garvey come to mind but they both worked in the 20th century. Are they the ones being referenced as 19th century because of their DOB? But I'm no expert, there could easily be earlier intellectuals and I'm just curious who they were. I repeat - this is a minor point. Nitpyck (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I wrote that a long time ago. I was probably thinking of Edward Wilmot Blyden whose ideas influenced later writers, but there were also writers who worked with Booker T. Washington. Paul B (talk) 08:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't looked at this for a while. Much of that section is now something of a mess. Some sentences seem to be confusing Afrocentricity - which is a view about the historical role of Africans - with black American self-help. The following sentence has nothing to do with Afrocentrism as far as I can see: "African Americans gathered together in communities, established their own church congregations, emphasised the importance of education and increasingly took more active public roles despite severe discrimination and segregation." It's true, but this article is about Afrocentrism, not self-help. Paul B (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

van Sertima
the proper place to elaborate on the Van Sertima theory is here. --dab (𒁳) 17:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV: Afrocentrist vs Eurocentrist
Why is it that the Afrocentrism article is far more critical of it's subject matter than the curiously less detailed Eurocentricism article? It's pretty obvious from the opening sentences of both articles. "Afrocentrism, Afrocentricity, or Africentrism[1] is a world view which aims at emphasizing the importance of African people, taken as a single group and often equated with "Black people". versus "Eurocentrism is the practice of viewing the world from a European perspective, with an implied belief, either consciously or subconsciously, in the preeminence of European (and, more generally, of Western) culture." The Eurocentrism article doesn't once use the term "Eurocentrist" or refer to a group of "Eurocentrists" while in this article uses the term "Afrocentrist" 16 times. There clearly seems to be some glaring NPOV issues here. I sometimes wonder if anyone who isn't registered at stormfront.org actually edits the article Siddhartha21 (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The words sound similar, but that's about all. Afrocentrism is a movement with adherents who describe themselves as "Afrocentrists". There is no Eurucentrist movement. The word is simply a label attached - rightly or wrongly - to authors and practices. I don't think Molefe Asante is from stormfront, but he calls himself an Afrocentrist. Paul B (talk) 08:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The bone-headed assumption that "npov" means that "all Wikipedia topics are equal and must be described in equal terms", never mind the real world, or never mind that topic A may (gasp) in fact be different from topic B, is really having a hard time dying off. --dab (𒁳) 15:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Curiousity
The statement here is taking the facts out of context: Several Afrocentrists have claimed that important cultural characteristics of ancient Egypt were indigenous to Africa and that these features were present in other early African civilizations

Ok, so the statement implies that other Afrocentricists and mainstream (non-Afrocentric) scholars disagree with this. I understand that the most widely accepted view is that Egyptian cultural characteristics came from WERE indigenous to Africa. Can we change this statement so as to not fool the reader into thinking that Egyptian cultural characteristics are a foreign invention? --Panehesy (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's badly phrased. Of course Egyptian civilisation is indigenous to Egypt, which is in Africa, so the statement as it stands is rather silly, but the point is that some Afrocentrists argue that Egyptian ciilisation refects general "African" cultural norms that are found across the continent, which is much more problemtic claim. Paul B (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course Egypt is in Africa. Only, in modern terminology, Africa is a major continent (unlike Roman Africa which was just a patch of Tunisia). The problem that it is meaningless to associate Ancient Egypt with the continent it happens to be located on. The ideology behind this is Pan-Africanism which implies that the entire continent can be understood as a cultural unity. Nothing could be further from reality, I don't think there is a culturally more diverse continent than Africa. This is like referring to the British as an "Eurasian civilization". The British are not "foreign to Eurasia", they just have nothign to do with Eurasia as a whole. You might as well call Egypt a "galactic civilization" on grounds that it is not, of course, "foreign" to our galaxy. --dab (𒁳) 14:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Again you are incorrect sir, Egypt is a product of the nile, she displays cultural traits that are unique to Africa and other African cultures. Traits one does not find in Eurasia. There is no debate by qualified academic experts. You are supposed to be fighting fringe but it is becoming clear, you don't know facts from fiction in African historiography. Africabalance (talk) 06:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Dab this is nothing like referring to the British as an "Eurasian civilization" It is more like saying England is not a part of Europe. Egypt is a part of Africa, culturally and physically. Egypt is not cut off from the rest of Africa share some of the same culture and poeple of its neighboring countries Sudan, Nubia, Ethiopia. All of those places are considered "black" nations and share some of the same culture.Similar to countries like France and Spain. --ProofMaster (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, the term Eurasia is being used frequently. It was not a term used frequently before the 90's, no Guns, Germs, and Steel. The British is tied to Eurasia, maybe not all. She is tied to Western Europe, a geographical part of Eurasia. What made her great was being a part of the intellectual, txechno-comple of western Europe(Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, Germany, etc.). She would not be great if she was not tied to that intellectual techno-complex. Thereby there is nothing "galactic" about her. All her technical and intellectual accomplishments could be replicated by other western European states. Being the center of the industrial revolution and having the largest navy at the time is what differentiated her. Africa is not Eurasia.Africabalance (talk) 07:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Re-write
African Americans gathered together in communities, established their own church congregations, emphasised the importance of education and increasingly took more active public roles despite severe discrimination and segregation. As written it says African Americans self segregated their communities and church congregations despite severe segregation. I know that is not how it is meant to be read, but I'm not sure how to make the sentence more lucid without invalidating the citations.Nitpyck (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think that is how it is meant to be read. African-Americans actually did create separate communities and schools and churchs etc, which they used to teach their people the African-American version of history and reality, so as to "protect" their people from the negative messages of inferiority etc being spread by the white teachers and preachers. They were not unique in this - many communities of "foreign-origin" people do the same when they find themselves in a strange land - witness Little Odessa and Chinatown etc etc in New York City. Wdford (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What it says is They formed segregated communities despite severe segregation. Of course they gathered together in communities, congregations, schools, and so on; but not despite segregation. Would they have done the same without discrimination and segregation probably but d&s made it more likely they would. To me breaking this into two sentences would fix my problem but I don't know if that is different then the cited source and I don't have access to the source. Break at congregations then add They before emphasized. Which makes sense to me but does it twist the meaning of the cite?Nitpyck (talk) 04:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I see the problem. The source doesn't actually mean that "they formed separate communities despite segregation", it means "they took active public roles despite severe discrimination." I would be happy to paraphrase the quote in two sections, such as: African Americans gathered together in communities, established their own church congregations, and emphasised the importance of education. They increasingly took more active public roles despite severe discrimination and segregation. I don't think that twists the sense of the original passage, and it does make things clearer. Any objections from anybody out there? Wdford (talk) 09:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"racism"
a talk section was removed under WP:TALK, with justification I suppose, as it came across a little trollish, but the point that Afrocentrism by virtue of being a worldview constructed along the lines of black vs. non-black races, is of course a "racist" ideology. That is, in the literal meaning of "racism", "a worldview based on notions of race". The problem is that "racism" today is more of a slur than a classification of worldviews. This is why racialism is sometimes picked as an alternative. The two words mean the same, but one is used as a slur while the other can be used in objective discussion of worldviews. In this sense, Afrocentrism is a prototypically "racialist" worldview. I do not think that this it is under dispute that Race is a central defining element of Afrocentric essentialism (Adeleke 2009) and there is no way of defining Afrocentrism without explaining racial essentialism. "Racial essentialism" of course means the same as "racism", but again, "racism" has now the quality of a slur, while for some reason, some people assume you can be a "racial essentialist" without deserving the epithet of "racist". That's just a semantic game. --dab (𒁳) 14:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Racial essentialist undoubtedly, and, interestingly, sexist as well, at least in some variants (or perhaps "male chauvinist" is more accurate). You get a very strong sense of that in the writing of Molefi Asante, as well as various others. This is combined (not least in Asante) with homophobia, and anti-Semitism to boot (as in his enthusiastic praise for Tony Martin's The Jewish Onslaught).


 * Reading through various Afrocentric texts of the modern era, you get a depressing sense of just how terrible they are in comparison to Diop (Martin Bernal being the exception). Diop was, of course, wrong about many things, sometimes entertainingly so, but his books are more or less written in the spirit of honest rationality. You never get the sense that you're supposed to agree with what he says just because he says so (that is, because he is black). And indeed his critiques of various past Eurocentric texts are very valuable, even if you very often get the feeling he was aiming the harpoon at long-slain whales. Plus, Diop does not seem to have been anti-Semitic, sexist, or indeed grossly racialist. Afrocentrism seems to have gone very much downhill since his day. Moreschi (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * you can of course be a "racial essentialist" (aka racist) in a spirit of completely honest rationality. Mainstream anthropology did exactly this for the best part of a century ("scientific racism"). Diop wasn't stupid, or dishonest, he was just born 50 years too late to be taken seriously. --dab (𒁳) 20:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hakim Bey
I believe the Hakim Bey of the Moorish Paradigm is a different Hakim Bey than the one linked to in the "Prominent Authors" section, who is an anarchist writer with the real name of Peter Lamborn Wilson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.239.188.241 (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

1.4 "Eurocentrism" and the "American Cultural War"
The topics in this section are strange - The Hamitic theory is Euro-centric: There are few outside of some fundamentalist christian groups who believe northeast Africa (or any other place or peoples) were settled by Noah's grandchildren. If this belongs in the article it should be with the multiple evolution theories (there are different races and they evolved separately) and such other discredited ideas. A book about how Greek and Roman history is distorted and how Lefkowitz is wrong because she ignores 19th century American literature. A book about decadence within American society is not only the consequence of modern liberalism but its actual agenda and why Southern thought is mistreated by intellectual elites. So this section should/could be cleaned up with a paragraph explaining why these are connected and relevant or the section should be renamed. Nitpyck (talk) 02:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Racialism and Anti-Afrocentric bias
Several passages in this article read like an attempt to debunk Afrocentrism rather than report on Afrocentric positions. I've detected several instances of bias in the writing of different sections and even racialist views such as the labeling of East African populations as proto-Caucasoid and other African populations as Negroid. Bias and racialism have no place in this article. Where Afrocentrists advocate racialism as a position that should be documented but editors should not attempt to add their racialist views to the article nor should they attempt to debunk Afrocentric claims. Just document the positions. That's the best way to write a fair and balanced article on this subject. Mentuhotep23 (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

um, this article is about a form of racialism? See WP:TIGERS, we can report on racialist positions, but obviously we won't endorse them in Wikipedia's voice. The purpose of this article is to report on these positions and on how they were received in literature. --dab (𒁳) 23:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is not balanced and it is clear what is going on. It is using Eurocentric argument (which we are to believe are teh norm) to attack Afrocentric arguments (which are the ad norm).very strange discussing Europe's opinion of someone else's continent as normal--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Halqh. This article seems to provide an overly negative criticism of the Afrocentric argument. It is obvious that the majority of the contributers have a Eurocentric view and want to debunk the facts that the Afrocentric argument presents. Dbachmann, the purpose of this article is to report facts not attack Afrocentrism. Your response to Halqh proves my point in that all you want to report is negative criticism and attack Afrocentrism. --ProofMaster (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

External link Policy is crystal clear DO NOT REMOVE TAGS
there is a limit and a standard for external links. I do not think there is any exception to this per the external link policy of Wikipedia. You cannot have rubbish links such as Ex Africa Lux? by T. A. Schmitz (PDF) * Fallacies of Afrocentrism by Grover Furr, for the Montclair State University Take a look at the quality of language and attitude in these links. It is basically a collection of ANTI-Afrocenctric POV. And the article is suppose to show balance. The next thing is they are suppose to be reference. They have no business here in the first place. Wiki rules avoid editor Opinions on how things should be, follow the rules. And do not remove legal tags which are inline with policy.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC) 
 * I cannot comment on the pdf because it is a dead link. The other link from Grover Furr should be removed, but not for your rationale. The link is a page of Mr. Furr's thoughts and as such can be regarded as a self-published unreliable source. I apologize for removing the tag as that was not my intention. It was however not a "legal tag", but a maintenance tag. Wlmg (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank Q. Now have a look at this one [American-Partisan] and we need to go through them all and make sure they are solid and suitable for external links. I am no fan on Afrocentricity but what is going on here is seriously biased. A heap of negative opinions pieces and then tucked away at the bottom a few messy Afrocentric sites (and they dont seem to have too many). Now the irony is Afrocentrism complains about this kind of treatment, funny even on their wiki page they will continue to be the victim of Euro-centric bias. Where is the balance? At least use good external sources.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Deleted [] "Not Out Of Africa Excerpt," by Mary Lefkowitz as she's already been referenced to death in the article space, and the external link is likely a copyright vios. I don't see where the american partisan link comes from, but it again looks like a self-published page. More work needs to be done. Wlmg (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * sorry, but if no reasonable case can be made for an ideology beyond "a few messy websites", you can hardly blame Wikipedia for it. This isn't "irony", this is simple playing of the race card: present shoddy pseudo-scholarship and then when people criticize you for presenting shoddy pseudo-scholarship, call "Eurocentric bias".
 * Afrocentrism is indeed to be discussed according to Wikipedia content policies. That puts it on exactly the same footing with Scientology, Raelism, British Israelism and Time Cube. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 20:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested Move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move Dpmuk (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Afrocentrism → Afrocentricity — Afrocentricity is the name by which adherents refer to it, not Afrocentrism, which carries a negative connotation. The term Afrocentricity is used throughout the article anyway, so the article itself might as well be labeled in the proper manner -- Chaosthird (talk) 04:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * what evidence do you have for this, and why was the move implemented without prior discussion of such evidence? --dab (𒁳) 08:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I get 20,000 google books hits for Afrocentrism, and 14,700 for Afrocentricity. Please explain how "Afrocentricity" is WP:NAME-preferable. --dab (𒁳) 08:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your google search hits are irrelevant. All it means is that more people are referring to it as Afrocentrism than Afrocentricity on the pages that Google has indexed.  Who do you figure Google represents more, Afrocentrics themselves or the wider category of people - including detractors - who are merely discussing Afrocentricity?  The real question is, since it was already moved by another administrator as "uncontroversial", why you even felt the need to move it back?  Do you have any legitimate objection to the move?  72.78.231.251 (talk) 03:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I get 20,000 google books hits for Afrocentrism, and 14,700 for Afrocentricity. Please explain how "Afrocentricity" is WP:NAME-preferable. --dab (𒁳) 08:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your google search hits are irrelevant. All it means is that more people are referring to it as Afrocentrism than Afrocentricity on the pages that Google has indexed.  Who do you figure Google represents more, Afrocentrics themselves or the wider category of people - including detractors - who are merely discussing Afrocentricity?  The real question is, since it was already moved by another administrator as "uncontroversial", why you even felt the need to move it back?  Do you have any legitimate objection to the move?  72.78.231.251 (talk) 03:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

reviewing our sources, I have the impression that "Afrocentricity" is a specific subset of Afrocentrism, advocated by Asante. Apparently, "Afrocentricity" is, in Asante's hardcore postmodernist jargon, a "cultural configuration" and "a powerful imperative from historical sources to revise the collective text of African people". In other words, it's a social philosophy aiming at boosting the self-perception of African Americans. This does not necessarily include all the crackpot revisionist claims about Ancient Egypt and Ancient Greece, etc. and should perhaps be distinguished as the "social studies" arm of Afrocentrism, not as a synonym. Or perhaps it should just be considered a term of Asante's, as Asante successfully uses pseudo-academic jargon to the effect of using words without saying anything in particular. --dab (𒁳) 09:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And your use of the term "pseduo-academic jargon" to describe Asante suggests your reasons for opposing the move, and the reasons for the move, because you are likely a Eurocentric bigot. 72.78.231.251 (talk) 03:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I challenge the validity of Dbachmann being the one to decide whether or not this page is renamed, given that he demonstrates a clear anti-Afrocentricity bias, especially given that he plainly overruled the move of another well-established administrator (User:Anthony Appleyard). I don't know enough about the minutia of Wikipedia to define the terms of my challenge, but it has to do with POV - as clearly Dbachmann is not neutral.  Furthermore, there is no legitimate reason to oppose the move.  There is, on the other hand, one blatantly racist reason to oppose it. Chaosthethird (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose per User:Dbachmann's comments above. —   AjaxSmack   03:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per User:Dbachmann's comments above. Afrocentricity anyway redirects here already, so its covered as it is. More RS will be required to support a renaming before this can be seriously considered. Wdford (talk) 07:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Afrocentrism is the standard term for this network of related beliefs. This includes Asante's arguments. BTW, "Afrocentricity" used to be a separate article. It was turned into a redirect following an earlier discussion. I always found the claim that Afriocenttricity is somehow a distinct concept unintelligible. Paul B (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - This is a simple matter, really. Afrocentricity is preferred by those who are adherents of the philosophy, as I originally stated. Afrocentricity is not a separate movement or a subset, just a different naming scheme to further distinguish it from Eurocentrism, which has negative connotations for obvious reasons.  The two are not analogous.  This is not a controversial move at all, which, I gather, is why it was done by User:Anthony Appleyard without discussion.  Chaosthethird (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is mere assertion. 'Afrocentrism' is more commonly used in academic literature, which is evidenced in the titles of several books quoted. Eurocentrism and Afrocentrism may not be analagous, but that's irrelevant. No-one said they were. We use the most widely used name. Paul B (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion shows that this move is controversial now. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Afrocentrism is the more common name; Afrocentricity would appear to be Asante's jargon. A move would appear to be groundless. Moreschi (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Distinction between history concepts and genetics
There needs to be a better distinction between the conflicting ideas of history and anthropology, and new factual evidence from genetics and DNA analysis.Parkwells (talk) 14:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is biased and violates the Neutral Point of View Policy
This will take some time to complete as virtually every sentence in this article is outrageously biased. I will return from time to time until every bias-laden word and sentence has been analyzed. The author's very first statement reveals his bias. It states that Afrocentrism (sic) is an ethnocentric ideology. 'Ethnocentric' is the adjective form of 'ethnocentrism' which means a "belief in the intrinsic superiority of the nation, culture, or group to which one belongs, often accompanied by feelings of dislike for other groups". The adjective 'ethnocentric' is presented to the uninformed reader as an objective classification when in fact it is a hostile opinion. If the reader accepts this author's characterization as an objective fact, he will conclude that Afrocentricity is racist because the word 'ethnocentric' plants a suggestion in in the mind of the uninformed reader that Afrocentricity is a belief in African superiority and that it is accompanied by dislike for other groups. Heruism (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The centrism in Afrocentricity, however, is not a belief in African superiority, nor is it a dislike of non-African groups. According to Afrocentrists, it is "groundedness in one's own historical experiences" and it takes its place "alongside other centric pluralisms without hierarchy and without seeking hegemony" The failure of the author to mention this perspective, that is, the Afrocentric perspective itself, leads the reader to believe that the author's characterization of the Afrocentric perspective (ie., a belief in racial superiority) is in fact the perspective of Afrocentrists themselves. This characterization is not only biased, it is libelous to the professors whose work he has characterized as Afrocentric. If adminstrators of colleges and universities who employ these professors accept the author's characterization, they would be forced to conclude that the professors are advocating racism. Some might not be hired and some could be fired over this misperception advanced through Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heruism (talk • contribs) 21:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Good point, and I agree with your concerns, but which "author" are you talking about? Scroll through the history and you'll see that we've had many authors on this article. And if you scroll through the talkpage discussions, you'll see how contentious this article has been as well. We welcome your expertise on the subject and want to have a more neutral tone, but please be aware that the article has been patched together piecemeal. Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I am using "author" in the generic sense. I will avoid using that term and just refer to the text if its use creates ambiguity. My challenge is to the language as it appears, not an ad hominem attack on any actual individual(s) responsible for the text. As you can see, 'ethnocentric' is a loaded term that should be confined, if used at all, to the opinion of a critic of a specific work(s), not as an umbrella classification that is given the appearance of an objective fact. The Afrocentric scholarship of distinguished Egyptologist Theophile Obenga, for instance, cannot properly be classified in the same category with some ignorant text that is accused of advancing ethnocentric or racist ideas, thereby also being labeled as 'Afrocentrism' according to this article's definition. The result is that Dr. Obenga's work is diminished and vilified, not because of anything he said or wrote, but simply by allowing an encyclopedia to turn Afrocenticity into a label for racist ideas despite what Afrocentrists say they mean by the term.Heruism (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right--the lead was strongly negative in tone. I've made some edits to give it more balance--what do you think? Aristophanes68 (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It is better, thank you, but it still needs work. Afrocentrists do assert that ancient Egypt was an African civilization. This is hardly a radical assertion since Egypt is located in Africa. It is more radical to assert that it was not African just like it would be radical to assert that ancient Rome was not a European civilization. Whether they were 'black' or not in the European sense of the term is controversial and irrelevant because (1) European creation of that racial category was pseudoscientific, mercurial and suspect to begin with; (2) how Europeans 'defined' black people is irrelevant to how Africans defined themselves. We do know that the ancient Egyptians called themselves Kmtu which literally means "Black people". So at least we know that they thought of themselves as Black people. What this identity meant to them may be subject to debate but not the translation itself.

The text also asserts that the 'radical' Afrocentric school is responsible for the claim that ancient Greece was originally a black civilization. However, the only scholar the text cites for this proposition is Martin Bernal who neither is nor claims to be Afrocentric, he also is not black nor does he claim to be. Note that while his critic, Mary Lefkowitz, is given the lofty and misleading title of Classical scholar (She is a scholar of classical european civilization, not a classical scholar), Bernal is given no title even though he is a distinguished Professor Emeritus of Government and Near Eastern Studies at Cornell University. The article begins with her critical quote before the reader even has a chance to know what exactly she is criticizing; you have to scroll down to find Bernal if you even go that far after reading her soundbyte (which is not an analysis, it's just an insult). The reader is thus given the impression that Lefkowitz is a mainstream authority and Bernal is just some wild-eyed pseudo-intellectual. Furthermore, it is interesting that the text suggests that Afrocentric scholars are Black. The racial identity of the critics of Afrocentricity, however, is never mentioned. Moreover, the suggestion that Afrocentric scholars are Black is misleading; there are Black, Asian and White Afrocentric scholars.

The idea that Africans were responsible for many developments in philosophy, technology and proto-science is not radical; the radical idea is the frankly racist assumption that African people contributed no ideas to the human edifice of knowledge. "Stolen" is a loaded term. It is more reasonable to say that many ideas were 'borrowed' by other cultures from Africans in the well-known process of cultural diffusion.Heruism (talk) 09:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Knock yourself out and WP:Be bold with your edits! Aristophanes68 (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Afrocentrism as a US phenomenon ?
I don't know anything on afrocentrism aside from this wiki article. What I get when reading it is that afrocentrism is some kind of "African-Americanism". But of course, it could be that the article is US biased, as happens a lot on wiki. As a French, I never heard of the concept (it could be because of the French Négritude, or just my ignorance). So, shouldn't the article clarify this, and maybe have a part about where the concept gains traction and where it doesn't ? I'm thinking that it must have had some influence in African countries, especially South Africa ? Aesma (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, yeah. Not entirely American-based: Cheikh Anta Diop was Senegalese and had some disciples of the same nationality. But Diop apart, African Afrocentrists are actually pretty rare, both historically and currently. For the Francophone sphere we have Négritude, of course. Moreschi (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Did Diop refer to himself as an Afrocentric? or is he labelled an Afrocentric because they source him so much?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

John Langston Gwaltney
I just created this article, and i noticed that he was mentioned in archive 10 of this talk page as an afrocentric researcher. I have no opinion on this matter, but i thought i would note the articles presence, in case someone feels a link is appropriate.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)