Talk:Afrocentrism/Archive 3

No intellectual rigor whatsoever
I read the lead paragraph and then dropped down to the section purporting to treat the ethnicity of Egyptians. Appaently, there was no intellectual rigor whatsoever devoted to the subject. The section does little more than conveniently perpetuate the usual lies/myths about ancient Egypt with NO effort to seriously examine the issues. Further, IMO, the selection of the first photograph was selected in an attempt to give credence to those lies. I've been (and continue to be) busy with deadlines, but will return to this subject when I have the time and the patience/inclination to do so. deeceevoice 11:58, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I see as usual you think that bluster counts as argument and that saying "it's all lies" somehow proves something. The two photographs were chosen for specific reasons. The photo of the fifth dynasty official was chosen to illustrate typical Egyptian self-depictions (it may have to go anyway because of copyright problems). The photo placed at the top of the page was chosen as a kind of emblem to illustrate the black/white opposition around which Afrocentrism functions, and to illustrate the later point that Egyptians considered themselves to be an ideal between abnormally extreme 'black' and 'white' identities. If you wish to seriously debate alterations to the text and to add material that supports some Afrocentic claims, then debate your points with other contributors. Otherwise I will simply revert your edits. Your deletion of my comments about the relationship of Afrocentrism to civil rights issues is an example of your high-handed manner. There has been much discussion here about the fact that civilisation developed independently at many points, and the 'Africa versus Europe' model is distorted from the start because of this blanking-out of the majority of the world! So it is important to mention other non-European cultures here so as to acknowledge the fact that Eurocentrism is not only about ignoring Africa. The connection of Afrocentrism to Black-American and Caribbean civil rights struggles is simply fact. Asante is explicit about it. So I can see no reason for such deletions. If you have a good one, explain it.  Paul B 01:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me. Europe might be a bit misleading even, as up until the 15th Century, the continent remains mostly limited to the Mediterranean in that sense. El_C 13:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, 'Europe' is a diffuse concept, like the 'West' (and like racial concepts). Still, I think there's a fairly common European identity from the 10th century on, following Christianisation and the circulation of intellectual culture via monasteries. I think the important thing is to draw attention to both the power and the arbitrariness of some of these categories, rather like 'periodising' categories. Paul B 11:09, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have already mentioned my intention to return to this subject. The treatment of it as is sheds no new light on the debate at all and is simply a regurgitation of the same old lies and half-truths.


 * Again you don't explain what is a 'lie' or a 'half-truth'. Anyway, I repeat what I wrote above - the point of an encyclopedia is to explain a concept and to fairly summarise the reasonable positions about it.Paul B 01:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Further, I find the apparent self-attribution of the birth of Afrocentrism to Asante as surprising and exceedingly self-serving. Among the oldest "Afrocentric" historians are classic scholars and other Europeans themselves. "Afrocentric" scholarship existed decades, centuries before the modern-day Civil Rights Movement. And I myself was familiar with "afrocentrism" long before I ever even heard of Asante.


 * I ascribe the origin of Afrocentrism to Garvey and James, not to Asante. That follows standard accounts, including Asante himself (though he also refers to DuBois and other earlier writers). I tried to show that James' views emerge from earlier radical traditions and have given way to later, updated, scholarship. So yes, I accept that it emerges from 'centuries before the modern-day Civil Rights Movement'. That's why I quoted from Blake (Preface to Milton) and why I tried to point out what was distinctive about James' contribution. Paul B 01.38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Aeschylus, Aristotle, Plato, Herodotus and others readily acknolwedged the blackness of Egypt and its contributions to Grecian and Roman science, arts, letters. If they had been inclined to deny the debt Greco-Roman civilization owed to black Africa, they could not have done so; it was the common knowledge of the era in learned circles.


 * No, that's not true. It's true that Greeks thought that Egyptians were 'black' in comparison to themselves. But such terminology is always relative. 'White' people are not actually white; 'red' Indians are not red; orientals are not 'yellow'. These are relative terms. Read the Song of Songs. Even the Greeks recognised this. Herodotus uses the term 'Ethiopian' to mean the (rough) equivalent of Negroid, and he distinguishes that from Egyptian. And as you rightly say, it was commonly believed that Greece owed ideas to Egypt. But the question is, how valid was that belief? The Greeks minimised their reliance on Mesopotamian cultures because they were impressed by the longevity and continuity of Egypt, and because Mesopotamia was supplanted by their enemy Persia. Post-Ptolomaic Egyptians later sought to claim Greek ideas for themselves by ascribing Greek culture to borrowings from their own traditions.  But the evidence says it didn't happen that way - the evidence of translations from ancient Egyptian texts. Paul B 01.50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But there was little or no reason for them to do so. "Afrocentrism" is merely a the dispassionate, scholarly approach; the original approach -- and has become a buzzword, a convenient tool among skeptics schooled in and steeped in the lies of the schlock-history of the modern day for lumping together and often dismissing out of hand historians who have come to certain conclusions at odds with this pop history.


 * I don't think the work of established scholars counts as 'pop history'. And to say that 'Afrocentrism' is merely the word for a 'dispassionate approach' is self-defeating. How can a word that means, in effect 'Africa is central' be dispassionate? The name itself already implies a bias. Paul B 01.57, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pop history is the revisionist, disingenuous, lazy, lying, version of world events in the service of racism, white supremacy and imperialism. It has been pretty much the status quo since the European/neo-European (New World) powers, hands bloodied by the trans-Atlantic slave trade and chattle slavery, felt a need to ennoble their despicable actions.


 * So Africans themselves had nothing to do with slavery and the slave trade then? Get real. Paul B 01.58, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

They had to paint Africans as subhuman or child-like. Acknowledging the blackness of Egypt would have given the lie to their claims that the West was somehow civilizing a bunch of depraved, base savages by placing them in bondage.


 * Yes, imperialist and racist ideas did say this about Africans. That is one reason why I spent so much time on James' arguments - to point out how his approach was influenced by white racist assumptions of the day. It's also one reason why it's important to point out that before the Africa/Europe divide (caused by religion, not imperialism) such racial hierarchies did not exist. If I can speak personally for a moment, I have to say that one of my reasons for feeling opposed to some Afrocentrist attitudes is that I think they perpetuate racism, by stopping us fronm seeing how arbitrary and contingent many racial categories are. That's also a very good reason why Africa's history should be studied dispassiontely and honestly. Paul B 02.07, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Historian Cheickh Anta Diop writes of this inherent contradiction between fact and fiction as experienced by French scholar Constantin François de Volney:

"An exception is the evidence of an honest savant. Volney, who travelled in Egypt between +1783 and +1785, i.e., at the peak period of negro slavery, and made the following observations on the true Egyptian race, the same which produced the Pharaohs, namely the Copts:"

All of them are puffy-faced, heavy eyed and thick-lipped, in a word, real mulatto faces. I was tempted to attribute this to the climate until, on visiting the Sphinx, the look of it    gave me the clue to the egnima. Beholding that head characteristically Negro in all its features, I recalled the well-known passage of Herodotus which reads: 'For my part I    consider the Colchoi are a colony of the Egyptians because, like them, they are black skinned and kinky-haired.' In other words the ancient Egyptians were true negroes of the same stock as all the autochthonous peoples of Africa and from that datum one sees how their race, after some centuries of mixing with the blood of Romans and Greeks, must have lost the full blackness of its original colour but retained the impress of its original mould. It is even possible to apply this observation very widely and posit in principle that physiognomy is a    kind of record usable in many cases for disputing or elucidating the evidence of history on the origins of the peoples. ..


 * Note that Diop calls this account an 'exception', yet you present it as the norm. Note also that even in this account, Egyptians are described as 'real mulatto faces'. A mulatto is a person of mixed race. The author is clearly speculating when he claims that Egyptians look as they did when he wrote because they mixed with Greeks and Romans. I suspect he wants to say they are black because he is prejudiced against them - a classic example of how some Afrocentrists use racists to justify their arguments and so become implicated in the very racism they appropriate. Paul B 02.07, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"After illustrating this proposition citing the case of the Normans, who 900 years after the conquest of Normandy still look like Danes, Volney adds:"

but reverting to Egypt, its contributions to history afford many subjects for philosophic reflection. What a    subject for meditation is the present-day barbarity and ignorance of the Copts who were considered, born of the alliance of the deep genius of the Egyptians and the brilliance of the Greeks, that THIS RACE OF BLACKS WHO NOWADAYS ARE SLAVES AND THE OBJECTS OF OUR SCORN IS THE VERY ONE TO WHICH WE OWE OUR ARTS, OUR SCIENCES, AND EVEN THE USE OF THE SPOKEN WORD [emphasis added]; and finally recollect that it is in the midst of the peoples claiming to be the greatest friends of liberty and humanity that the most barbarous of enslavements has been sanctioned and the question raised whether black men have brains of the same quality as those of white men!42


 * Yup, another example of extreme racism against black peoples being used to justify Afrocentrism. Don't you realise how self-destructive this is??? There's a weird link on this page to a webpage referring to research showing saying that Afrocentrism is bad for black-American marriages. I thought that was a rather dumb link. When I read this stuff I'm not so sure. Paul B 02.20, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In far more recent times in this nation (yet still decades ago), the most learned black scholars were well-acquainted with black, African Egypt as an incontrovertible fact. Those were the days when it was de rigueur for true sholars, "intellectuals," to read the classical works. Indeed, there is a continuum of writing and scholarship among African-Americans on the subject of, or referring to, black Egypt -- from Martin Delaney to Arna Bontemps to W.E.B. DuBois to J.A. Rogers to Carter G. Woodson to Cheickh Anta Diop to Chancellor Williams to Yusef Ben Jochannan to Ivan van Sertima and then, finally (but not, really; the tradtion will continue) to the likes of Molefi Kete Asanti and Runoko Rashidi. And then there are people like of Thor Heyerdahl (the Rah voyages) and Basil Davidson, contemporary whites whose works contributed mightily to the "afrocentrist" historical paradigm.


 * Thor Heyerdahl showed that Egyptians could have sailed to the Americas. All other evidence indicates that they did not. Hasn't it occurred to you that such views deny the independent agency of native Americans - that this kind of 'Afrocentrism' actually just recapitulates the worst aspects of the kind of Aryanism that should have died decades ago? Paul B 02.30, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is only now, with the rise this new generation of "afrocentric" scholars and the higher profile of this approach to the study and interpretation of history, that the label has become popularized and the debate has come to the fore. Ivan van Sertima, in fact, rejects the label "afrocentric," claiming he is simply a historian in search of truth. The interesting thing is that when "afrocentrists" throw the writings of white, classical "afrocentrist" writers in their faces, apologists for the schlock/pop historical approach like Lefkowitz have no credible comeback.


 * Evidence? Surely, all historians should search for the truth, though you often have to care about an aspect of the truth in order to do that. Paul B 02.40, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

While certainly not pervasive, this knowledge has been persistent; it long has been a common intellectual thread in the African-American community. Such information to a scorned and oppressed people who were constantly being taught by whites that they had contributed nothing of value to civilization, had no written language, and no culture of any merit was more precious than gold. We have protected it and passed it on -- even through the Egyptian Revial period following the discovery of King Tutankhamen's tomb, which further fueled schlock/pop culture notions of white Egyptians with Nubian slaves.

You are denying that the evidence presented here that Egyptians did not consider themselves to be white. Paul B 02.44 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

White Egyptians were all the rage -- in print, film and decorative arts. These are the images that have fed the ignorant biases of generations of people about ancient Egypt. But through the '20s, '30s, '40s and '50s, this knowledge filtered down to everyday black people, many of whom were familiar with the works of J.A. Rogers. The people who possessed this knowledge and the dignity and pride it engendered were called "race men" and "race women."


 * More assertion. Most modern images present Egyptians as 'middle eastern', for want of a better term, not as white. Even the Victorians, at the height of the British Empire, depicted them as racially mixed. See Edwin Long's painting An Egyptian Feast (http://www.the-athenaeum.org/art/display_image.php?id=13815). Paul B 02.47 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As a young child in the 1950's, I remember the broader American society of the time. Stepin Fetchit, Amos 'n' Andy, blackface, the cartoon Magpies, and a shytload of darky images were the order of the day. Bojangles took a backseat to Fred Astaire; major league sports were still segregated; Emmit Till was brutally beaten and lynched; and black folks in the South still couldn't vote, drink out of the same water fountains, stop along the highway at a restaurant and expect to be served, or to public bathroom facilities. Growing up in the Midwest, the local amusement park opened to black folks one day out of the year, the movie theater downtown refused admission to blacks, and golf courses and the doors of country clubs were closed to us -- unless we were the hired help. Black people still "wore the mask," as Franz Fanon wrote -- and white people still believed Sambo really existed.


 * Yes, that's true, and indefensible: just as indefensible as distortng history to feel better about injustice. Paul B 02.50 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We all went to school, read the same schlock historical accounts -- in separate and unequal schools, and our textbooks were often several years older than those in the white schools, but the contents were the same. World history and world literature started with Rome and Greece. No black folks ever served this nation in war -- except in the mess halls. The Paraohs were white; Nubian slaves and Jews built the pyramids. "Darkest Africa" was black and backward, had always been and probably would always be. Blacks never had a written language. And slavery wasn't that bad; lots of masters were good to their slaves.


 * What has this to do with the claim that Egyptians were black? Be fair. Anger at the evils of Jim Crow does not justify claims about the Ancient world. We have to use an Encyclopedia to inform, and to clearly explain all reasonable points of view. Paul B 02.50 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yep. We all read the same lies. The difference was white folks saw the elevator operators, the housemaids, cooks, street sweepers and bootblacks, and for many that was all they saw or knew. They went home to their segregated neighborhoods secure in the knowledge that the white man was the epitome of God's creation and the lord and master of the universe -- always was and always would be.


 * Your understandable anger does not justify the distortion of history. If you do that you lose your moral ground. Paul B 02.59 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As a young, black child, on the other hand, I went home to the people behind those masks. In my life, I never met a real Sambo or knew a Stepin Fetchit. My mother was graduated from college at 19; my dad a successful businessman. My redlined, all-black neighborhood (except for "Mrs. Zeke," an elderly Eastern European woman next door), was a rich mix of professionals and blue-collar workers -- the human face of the Great Migration settled "Up South" for greater opportunity for themselves and their children. And down the street, the letter-carrier father of my best friends was a race man. He'd named his daughter Aida and was the first person to tell us the cannibals with the cookpots and with bones in their noses and the Johnny Weismuller "Yes, bwana" Tarzan junk on the television were all lies.

I don't know how or where or when I obtained the knowledge I possessed; but I knew my fourth-grade social studies teacher was a racist. And whether he was lying or just plain ignorant when he told me the ancient Egyptians were white, I couldn't tell, but I did know he was dead wrong.

I find the abysmal and thoroughly obtuse ignorance on the part of so many whites in this regard more than a little curious. Who has not read Langston Hughes' The Negro Speaks of Rivers? The knowledge of black Egypt was such a given among blacks, that Hughes wrote while still a teenager: "I've known rivers ... older than the flow of human blood in human veins....I bathed in the Euphrates when dawns were young.  I built my hut near the Congo and it lulled me to sleep.  I looked upon the Nile and raised the pyramids above it.  I heard the singing of the Mississippi when Abe Lincoln went down to New Orleans, and I've seen its muddy bosom turn all golden in the sunset.  I've known rivers: ancient, dusky rivers.  My soul has grown deep like the rivers."


 * ("Euphrates" - Oh dear, I knew the Turks were trying to stake a claim to Sumer, and now the Afrocentrics too? --Djmit44 04:11, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC))


 * Passionate and understandable as they are, non of these paragraphs tell us anything about ancient history. They tell us about the emotional power of its appeal. Paul B 03.10 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I write these things to say there is a long tradition of "afrocentric" scholarship, and there are many decades of this information being a part of everyday life for a great many African-Americans. It is, in part, how and why we have come to this discussion on Wikipedia and how the tremendous rift in this regard between blacks and whites, exemplified in people like Lefkowitz and Bernal, came to be.


 * Bernal is not black, as it happens. Of course I accept that there is nothing wrong at all in scholarship that centres on Africa. That's not the same, I think, as the kind of thing you are speaking of here, which is really about the history of America. Paul B 03.40 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This chasm created by fundamental differences in experiences and knowledge bases of blacks and whites and vastly differing perspectives in many areas also points to an even broader problem -- the consequent raft of misconceptions, silliness and outright racist crap that makes its way into the articles treating black people on Wikipedia. No matter how jaded one is, how accustomed to such appalling ignorance, it's disconcerting and downright disgusting. Not many folks have the patience for it -- and I'm fast losing what little I possess. Most black folk I know -- myself included -- do not have as their raison d'etre correcting the various and sundry racist misconceptions, presumptions and assumptions of white folks. As a matter of fact, we prefer to avoid contact with the most backwardly ignorant of you as much as humanly possible. Just plain fact.


 * Well you can correct any errors on Wikipedia as long as you can convince the contributing community as a whole. I think they are generally willing to accept reasonable argument. I also think this black/white opposition is a little misleading. Try it with pages that relate to Indian identity - you get locked into claims by Hindtvists that Vedic culture was once universal and is eternal. Try it with the Chinese. Paul B 03.50 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is background. I wanted to write it here -- as prologue.

Now I must return to my deadlines. And, again, when I have the patience and more time, I will return to this "debate" and to the article at hand.


 * To be honest DC, there are parts of the article which I think could do with revision - espoecially the last section, which I think needs an honest account of the relationship beween 'African' and 'black' history, especially on the points about how we define 'races', and about the mapping of historical African cultures and their histories. I hope someone can help with that. Paul B 03.50 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See ya on the black side. deeceevoice 15:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, that's one long polemic without any real arguments. You quoted one big proponent of Afrocentrism, so what? And the thing with classicists having no comeback. When Leftkowitz asked Asante why the hell would he say that Aristotle studied at the Library of Alexnandria when it was built after his death, he called her a racist. Really, tell me, who doesnt have a comeback? Who's the one talking out of the other end?   Wareware 19:44, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've read Lefkowitz and the afrocentrist historians. Can you say the same? Nope. And I've reinstated the POV. The article presents arguments against Afrocentrism, but does not present their counter. And as to Bernal and Lefkowitz, Aristotle and Alexandria -- how should I know? Alexandria was built upon a more ancient city after the conquest and renamed. Could Aristotle have studied there before the name change? Perhaps. Perhaps Bernal misspoke and was either too proud, or too angry, or occupied with other things to address the matter. Perhaps you didn't hear him correctly. Beats the hell outta me. Whatever the case, a single, off-the-cuff statement by one writer is hardly a reasonable test of the credibility of the afrocentrist paradigm.deeceevoice 20:09, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but unlikely. Anyway, it was Asante not Bernal. I must say, you are not showing great 'intellectual rigor' here. There is no evidence of a library at Alexandria before Aristotle. One good reason for this is that Alexandria did not exist before Aristotle. It was founded, as its name suggests, by Alexander, who was a pupil of Aristotle. Making up another earlier library in an earlier city there on no evidence whatever is resort to fantasy. O tempora... Paul B 02.30, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've done a little to the section on the ethnic identity of ancient Egypt. I'd like to include a pic of the mural itself to replace the image of the artifact that purports to depict "typical" Egyptians. I don't necessarily disagree with the premise; certainly, taken as a whole, ancient dynastic Egypt was peopled by brown-skinned black people and certainly not all black-skinned Nubians. But I think as an explication of how the Egyptians regarded themselves in relation to other groups of the region and time in their own words and art, the mural is far superior and enlightening than that single, unsubstantiated image. I haven't read the entire article, but that's the section that first attracted my attention. Deadlines. But I will return and deal with the rest. I promise. deeceevoice 16:44, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why do people label the Egyptian people mixed, out of convienence. Virtually Every Black in America is mixed, but no one dares call us that? By america's own standard, they are black. --Vehgah 08:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Deecee's new stuff
I know of no evidence of any "prominent Wolof and Hamitic influences" on Egyptian. Wolof is part of a very different language group - and has been associated with Egyptian by a Ghanaian writer who has a particular agenda. Can you tell me of a linguist who identifies this Wolof influence? There is no such thing as 'Hamitic' influence on Egyptian. That is meaningless. Egyptian is part of the Afro-Asiatic language group, which used to be called Semito-Hamitic. Hamitic is just an old-fashioned term for the non-Semitic component of the group, now no longer considered to be a linguistically coherent classification. Egyptian is now normally isolated within the Afro-Asiatic group, which covers north Africa and Israel/Arabia. It has also fairly obviously overlaid earlier groups in its southern expansions. In other words, Egyptian can't be influenced by 'Hamitic', Hamitic is just an old fashioned term for the group to which it belongs. Paul B 04.39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * If you disagree with my use of "influenced," then you're free to change it. In doing online research, I came across (for the first time) references to Wolof and its similarities with the ancient Egyptian language.  The tomb of Tutankhamun contained a box on which the king was depicted riding a chariot over black-skinned people, presumably representing Nubia. There were also walking sticks the handles of which depicted both black skinned and pale skinned prisoners, representing defeated Nubian and Asiatic enemies (see image at top).  If the connection is tenuous or debated, then it certainly should be stated.


 * I do have a photo of the mural I've referred to that I think should be added to the article. I think it is a far better indicator of how the Egyptians thought of ethnicity (clearly, that was its purpose) than the photo of a single artifact, the color of which -- as well as the speculations surrounding it -- is purely circumstantial. deeceevoice 16:33, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Your comments seem to include a quotation from my additions. I don't follow that. You know perfectly well that the Egyptians depicted themselves over and over again as red-brown, not normally as black - though of course some Egyptians would have been darker, and some paler than the norm. You are simply choosing an image to push a point of view, not to be fair. BTW, I made a mistake in the above comments. It's Diop who tries to connect Egyptian with Wolof. The Ghanaian writer, whose name I can't recall at the moment, connects it to Akan. Paul B 05.12, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * On Diop's methodology, this is from Howe's book: "The basic flaw is that in order to trace the history of languages, to identify shared roots, patterns of evolution, and divergence, it is entirely inadequate to simply list similiar-sounding or possibly related terms in different languages...they can provide little more than a priori case for investigating the possibility of common origins...He makes no aparent attempt to formulate a systematic 'core' vocabulary, or to distinguish bewteen the words with strong cultural, religious or ideological overtones and those without" and "two languages can...also have words in comon because in one of them they are 'loanwords'. There are techniques for trying to decide whether a given word is a loanword, but Diop, once again, does not use them."   Wareware 20:19, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What I know is this is a perfectly legitimate Egyptian artifact which itself depicts the ethnographic "universe" as the Egyptians of Rameses' time knew it -- and their place it it, as well. As such, it is a far more pertinent, far more graphic and clearer illustration of who the Egyptians represented themselves to be than the photo of a fairly generic artifact with dubious ethnographic significance that presently accompanies the relevant text and that is accompanied by a caption that is mere conjecture on the part of others as to who and what the Egyptians were. And, please, do not tell me what I "know perfectly well." You do not know at all what I know -- which is the whole point of this debate. You asked me to provide support, and here it is. I didn't manufacture this item. Some advice: do not ask for that which you are unwilling or unprepared to accept. deeceevoice 19:09, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, all I can say is that if you do not know perfectly well that Egyptians normally depicted themselves as red-brown, then you should see more Egyptian art before writing in an encyclopedia about how they depicted themselves. I could easily have chosen a depiction of a lighter skinned Egyptian, such as the famous bust of Nefertiti, if I'd wanted to show that Egyptians were pale-skinned people. I don't, because the evidence is that most of them weren't. I chose an image that seemed to be representative of the norm, not one to push a racial agenda. Now, the picture you refer to is very well known from numerous Afrocentric writings and websites that reproduce an old copy of it. They do not reproduce the many other tomb images illustrating the same sacred text (which lists peoples of the known world) in which Egyptians depict themselves as red-brown in contrast to darker and lighter peoples. This is a unique exception, the reasons for which we don't know. It is very misleading to take a unique, completely exceptional image and present it as how the Egyptians normally saw themselves. I think we should debate this here before changes are made, but I wont have time to do much till the weekend.


 * p.s. Diop is also responsible for the 'melanin tests', conducted and assessed by him. Having seen an account of his 'scientific' methods, I don't think this can be considered legitimate evidence. Paul B 12.35, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My, my. You've really got a bug up your butt, don't you? LOL Listen, the artifact is what it is. It's the only one I have access to, though I understand there have been similar/fairly identical ones found by others elsewhere. The ancient Egyptians, as indigenous Africans, were black people. "Black" does not mean literally black -- any more than "white" means literally white. Just as there is really no such thing as black hair, virtually all black folks are actually varying shades of brown -- from the "blackest Nubian/Dravidian/Tamil to "yella." (Do we really have to go through this rather fundamental aspect of "racial identification"?) Obviously, the Egyptians saw themselves as fundamentally "black" folks in relation to the other ethnic groups with whom they came into contact.

What's amusing is how white folks will call black folks with varying skin tones (which happens naturally, even without any "mixing") "Negroes" and "black people," but when it comes to Egypt, they take great pains to point to the fact that Egyptians sometimes depicted themselves using rich, dark brown skin tones as evidence that they aren't somehow "Negroid." WTF? The ethnographic mural is very straightforward, very, very clear -- as was their terminology for themselves. They referred to themselves as "blacks" as the most defining, striking characteristic that set them apart from all other ethnic groups with whom they came into contact (except other indigenous Africans) and -- in much the same way other peoples have referred to black people over the ages, regardless whether they were blue-black, mahogany, dark chocolate, milk chocolate, tan or cafe-au-lait.

Further, the use of the term "Semitic" to describe other people of the region itself testifies to the presence of African blood in their veins. After all, Semites are none other than Eurasians, or (Europeans or Asians) with black African blood. (Where the hell do you think Hasidim got their nappy hair from? Why do you think they've been so despised throughout the ages?) The black blood in them is so strong, that even the Ashkenazi, who've been in Europe for centuries, still often turn up with nappy/frizzy hair. They got that hair from black folks. There are no people indigenous to Africa other than black Africans. The Semites are a product of the confluence of peoples in that region -- of Europeans and Asians interacting with the indigenous blacks of Africa (and that includes Egypt). In fact, "Semitic" properly refers to a language group; it is not a racial or ethnic group. From a strictly scientific standpoint, consider the proposition that segments of humankind, as they migrated from warmer climates to cooler ones, gradually lost much of the pigmentation in their skin. Why the hell would white people, or even relatively fair-skinned Semites (and here we're not talking about the obvious black African and Afro-Semitic peoples of Egypt who remain the predominant population in Egypt to this day), develop in Africa/Egypt, where it's hot as blazes -- and right alongside blue-black Nubians? It didn't happen.

All that notwithstanding, and your silly and thoroughly presumptuous comments (lecturing me on "moral ground" and some ascribed "anger" that I do not have) in response to my earlier post assuming some sort of manufactured history in order to compensate for our subjugated state (notice I mentioned the knowledge passed on was based in part on historical accounts provided by classical historians, as well as archaeological evidence) as well, the fact of the ethnographic mural is incontrovertible; it is a matter of archaeological and historic record. And whether you wish to accept it or not, the ancient Egyptians were BLACK. How do we know? Because they themselves SAID so. deeceevoice 13:25, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The fact that in the West we call people with any visible sub-Saharan African ancestry 'black' is evidence of the incoherence of these racial categories when used as a social label, it's not evidence of anything else, certainly not of anything about Egypt. We have to be clear what we mean when we say "the Egyptians were/weren't black". Now, I'm pretty sure there can't be a definitive answer, because race-categories are themselves constructs, and often inconsistent. That's why we have to lay out the arguments clearly and fairly.


 * There are indeed many other examples of the so-called catalogue of races. So far as I know, all of the other ones portray the Egyptians as red-brown in contrast to black and to yellow ('white') peoples. This is in line with the constantly repeated depiction of Egyptians in statues and wall-paintings. I'd say that 'obviously' Egyptians identified themselves as 'fundamentally' a happy-medium or norm between extremes of colour. However, I am perfectly happy to include a discussion of the range of reasonable interpretations of Egyptian identity. As I'm sure you are aware there are white-supremacist websites out there that 'prove' Egyptians to have been a white race by highly selective use of evidence. Do you want to give that viewpoint equal weight? I don't.


 * It's true that Egyptians used the term 'Kemet' (KMT) to label their nation, and that it means 'black' or 'dark'. You know what the standard explanation of that is, and that it is not usually thought to refer to skin-pigmentation. So I can't really accept as likely the claim that Egyptians referred "to themselves as 'blacks' as the most defining, striking characteristic that set them apart from all other ethnic groups." In fact the great majority of evidence points the other way. They distinguish thmselves from both black and yellow/white peoples.


 * Your account of the origin of Semitic peoples reads as though it comes straight out of Gobineau, inventor of the theory of the Aryan master-race. He came up the with idea that 'Semites' are a blurring of racial identies, or, as you put it, "Euro Eurasians, or (Europeans or Asians) with black African blood." This whole idea depends on the notion that there were distinct 'black', 'white' and 'asian' races that just got all mixed up in the middle-east. I accept that we have a long way to go before we sort out the genetic histories of peoples of the world, but that notion of a mingling of three distinct identities surely can't hold water any more, and what's worse, it justifies the notion that there are essential racial identities that are either 'pure' or 'mixed'. The notion that only Africans have curly hair is not exactly borne out by the evidence of curly haired people elsewhere in the world. Yes, Semitic is a language-group, but it languages are spoken by peoples who migrate and take their language with them, so it is one (far from infallible) way to identify population movements and ethnic links between peoples. I don't really know what you mean when you ask 'why the hell would white people, or even relatively fair-skinned Semites...develop in Africa'. Yes, it's hot in Egypt, but it's hot in Israel too, which is a skip and a jump away. Why would they 'develop' there? It's hot in the rest of north Africa too. But the whole population of the area is not black-skinned is it? As for the evidence of classical authors, most of them say that Egyptians were a middle tone, lighter than some peoples, darker than others. If you want me to post the evidence I can, but it will have to wait a few days.


 * It was you who spent most of your last post complaining about the history of America, not me. You clearly indicated where your passion came from, not ancient history, but modern history. The ancient Egyptians, so far as I know did not 'say' they were black in the sense you mean. That is, I know of no text in which they say 'we are black-skinned peoples.' Akhenaton's "Hymn to the Sun" refers to to the different colours of humanity, but does not specify to which colour Egyptians belong. Obviously the fascination with colour is most obvious at this time - in the New Kingdom, when the empire encompasses Nubia and the Middle-East, and when there are diplomatic relations with Hittites and Mitanni. That's when you get the catalogue of races, in almost all of which - with one exception you mention - Egyptians are portrayed red-brown. That's why, I think, the fairest thing to say is that Egyptians can't really be fitted neatly into modern (socially constructed) race categories. Paul B 17.20, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Before you go on a jag about Jews and other Semites in the Middle East, perhaps you should take a good look at what ethnologists say the original Jews looked like, what Jesus, himself, in fact, looked like. They were clearly Afro-Semitic, with an emphasis on the "Afro."

And what? "As far as [you] know," the other ethnographic murals are different? Well, I don't know what you've seen; I can only refer to and describe the photographs of the mural I've been looking at. When you can produce a similar mural that depicts the different ethnicities in the region substantially differently, I'll be more than willing to take a look. But even if they do use mud-brown pigment, that's STILL black folks. Until then, "as far as I know" just doesn't cut it. Further, there are numerous images of Egyptians as, literally, black. And I'm sure you've seen those, too. If you haven't, I'd be more than happy to direct you to some interesting images. But you're a smart boy. I'm sure you can find them (and already have) on your own.

Furthermore, the trend in history is toward Afrocentrism. What? No comments about forensic reconstruction? About why, inexplicably, this mural shows black Africans and Egyptians as identicial in physical appearance? Gee, how did that happen? Do you somehow think to contradict the clear archaeological evidence? Didja see what forensic scientists did with the royal mummy believed to be that of Nefertari? Or of King Tut (whose cane shows a Nubian "under his thumb")? The brother was blacker than I am! LMAO. And if you tried to tell someone I wasn't black, they'd laugh in your face. deeceevoice 20:36, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Can you tell me who these ethnologists are who say that the 'original Jews' looked 'Afro' (whatever that may mean)? You tell me to look at these scholarly works, but give no references at all. What ethnologists? None that I know of, for sure. I don't know how 'mud-brown' can 'still be black'. Of course I accept that mixed-race (usually sub-saharan/european mix) people are considered to be 'black' these days in the US and Europe. But this categorisation is totally irrational. Anyway, it does not apply to Egyptians, who are not a 'mixture' in this sense. They are a distinctive people with an identity dating back for many thousands of years. We still don't know how to categorise this identity, because we have not mapped the genetic histories of populations. What we can say is that they are fairly typically North African, in the way they look and in the language they speak. Racial categories, even as used today, are not just about levels of melanin. Many Europeans are darker than Colin Powell, for example. What we see are complex transitions between different 'categories' of peoples. I think what you are doing, in conflict with the evidence of genetics and of history, is to create a series of idealised 'races' and then to claim that peoples who fail to fit them are 'mixed'. That's why Walker was so right to say that Afrocentrism is "racist, reactionary, and essentially therapeutic."


 * Anyway, what is obvious is that you know nothing about illustrations to the Book of Gates and don't care to find out. Given this, I think your accusations of lack of 'scholarly rigor' simply rebound on yourself when they are directed at contributors who do care to look at the evidence. As for your comments about the mummy of 'Nefertari', again you display basic ignorance. I assume you mean the reconstruction of a mummy supposed to be that of Nefertiti (not Nefertari). We know perefectly well what Nefertiti looked like, because of the famous surviving bust of her (Nefertiti) to which I have already referred. The reconstruction of the mummy was not based on science, but on the decision of a graphic designer. Most Egyptologists do not even believe the thing to be Nefertiti's mummy. As for Tut, I've seen several reconstructiond (http://www.mirror.co.uk/printable_version.cfm?objectid=12240935&siteid=50143 ; http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/archives/archive33/newposts/188/topic188687.shtm). I don't think they can be neatly placed in modern/popular categories of race. I have not seen numerous images of Egyptians as 'literally black', unless you mean sculptures that happen to be made from black stone, in which case you can also find numerous images that are 'literally white'.


 * I have commented extensively on the R3 mural. I note that you have nothing to say about all the other illustrations of the Book of Gates. Paul B 00.35, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)]]

And let me make one observation. We are not here to debate the pros and cons of anything. We are here to equitably present the pro and con. That Afrocentrism is incorrect is not a foregone conclusion as contributors to this piece would like to present -- something which I am here to prevent. So, sue me. :-p deeceevoice 20:44, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Civility
I think we should all avoid making personal remarks about other contributors:


 * your silly comments
 * got a bug up your butt
 * you do not know
 * You know perfectly well
 * your conduct on that front –that you don't see it defeats your own points– never ceases to baffle me

If you need help, please ask a Mediator (like me for instance). -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:52, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * Dear Uncle Ed, if we do need a mediator, we will need someone who is impartial -- not someone who apparently sees fit to criticize the contributions of a single member. Perhaps your services can be utilized elsewhere on Wikipedia.  *x* deeceevoice 20:16, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Civility has nothing to do with contributions, and deeceevoice does seem to be the only one here to consistently be directing such uncivil, emotional exclamations towards other editors. It is my opinion that Ed is correct and has every right to insist on civility, as I and other here also have. El_C 03:54, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not from this world
1) To categorize humans by race/color (You are/I am .. "black".. "white".. "yellow".. "red") is a fairly new concept and was unknown to ancient Egyptians.

2) To the ancient Egyptians, color was an essential part of symbolism. Black symbolized death, resurrection and the underworld. (Osiris, for instance, was referred to as "the black one" because he was the king of the afterlife) The picture deeceevoice refers to is a rendition of a painting of the Book of Gates, a text that appears on several tombs of ancient pharaohs and basically provided a guide for what to expect in the world of the afterlife (netherworld/underworld) and was NOT a description of the world of the living.


 * The symbolism of colors and their meaning already has been addressed in the article. (See my additions.)  No-name contributor, your contentions are not borne out by what I have read.  Regardless of the context in which this mural appears, the fact that it is a realistic rendering of the various groups illustrated and their differences has never been questioned by anyone of note -- not even Amelianeau, who identifies this as part of a religious "book."  The argument that this is some symbolic rendering with no similarity to the real world is absurd on its face.  Even the dress of the individual groups, style of hair and existence (or nonexistence) of facial hair is accurate to the groups portrayed. The fact that Egyptians represented other Africans as looking exactly like themselves and even wearing the same dress says it all.  And, yes, Egyptians varied in skin tone and even hair texture -- the way other indigenous black Africans do, the way my people in my own immediate family do.  That means absolutely nothing; we are all black.  One would think if there were any meaningful difference whatsoever between the two groups phenotypically, the Egyptians would have made note of it, given that they were predisposed to set themselves apart from all other groups.  Further, the renderings are highly detailed, right down to the forward-slanting profiles of the Africans -- which is a common (though not universal) "racial" characteristic still readily apparent in even most African-Americans today -- despite our "mongrelization." deeceevoice 23:32, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The last edit looks like it's quoting stuff from whitehistory.com, except that it's black. Like P.Barlow said, I don't see what's the point of only presenting selective evidence.   Wareware 23:52, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Some additional info re the "mural of nations":

First of all, the renderings of the peoples of the sun the Egyptians believed Osiris would resurrect in death are accurate. The mural represents deals with the sun's journey after it sets in the West and the afterlife (known similarly in the Kongo and as illustrated in African-American quilts as "the moments of the sun") 1. Kemetu, the Egyptians (Ret) humanity perfected 2. the Namu, to their east: sunrise 3. Black Afica/the Nile Valley to their south: noon 4. the Tamu to the west: sunset

deeceevoice 00:09, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Further, with regard to "selective evidence," one cannot get more selective than choosing a figural image of a single, relatively obscure 5th dynasty Egyptian offical and characterizing it as "typical." At least the presentation of the mural is an attempt to provide an example of a comparative rendering that explicitly illustrates broad, but specific, groups and clearly labels them by ethnic/national grouping. There are far more numerous statuary images -- royal and otherwise -- that show clear black African phenotypical characteristics. With the one provided, the facial characteristics are not even evident. deeceevoice 00:16, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I read the part about Egyptian color symbolism in the article, and it's not accurate. White was not associated with death, it was the color of sacred things and purity (e.g. Memphis meant "White Walls", priest were dressed in long white robes, the crown of Upper Egypt was white) Yellow was seen as being the equivalent to gold and was symbolic of all that is eternal, indestructible and imperishable. Black, as I already mentioned, symbolized death, resurrection and the underworld (e.g. Osiris, the king of the afterlife was called "the black one." Ahmose-Nefertari, the patroness of the necropolis was portrayed with black skin. Anubis, the Guardian of the Dead was shown as a black man with the head of a black jackal or dog).


 * Actually, I also read the information I inserted about color elsewhere, too. If the information is disputed or inaccurate, then it should be contested and/or corrected.  I think it's important to mention, though, that color in Egyptian art is sometimes symbolic, rather than literal.  deeceevoice 09:49, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Egyptians did NOT protrait themselves "looking exactly like other Africans". They distinguished themselves from non-Egyptians with distinctive clothing and hair-styles and red-brown skin. http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/colors1.jpg

The ethnographic example to which I refer is a very specific mural which very graphically and in great detail depicts the facial characteristics, dress and skin tones of four separate groups of people. The artifact is absolutely authentic, and the characterization of the information it provides is irrefutable. deeceevoice 18:57, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) - by unnamed: To understand what's on the tomb wall of Ramses III one needs to examine the full paintings and the complete text of the Book of Gates. http://www.thebanmappingproject.com/images/large/16608.jpg

Nubian: http://www.thebanmappingproject.com/images/large/15652.jpg

Syrian and Nubian: http://www.thebanmappingproject.com/images/large/15447.jpg

Egyptian: http://www.thebanmappingproject.com/images/large/15162.jpg

Asiatics: http://www.thebanmappingproject.com/images/large/16230.jpg

Libyan: http://www.thebanmappingproject.com/images/large/18236.jpg -- Hello unammed, you might want to create an account and sign your name so it's easier to read. You can also contribute to the article too, the pictures look nice. As for you deeceevoice, what's your preoccupation with portraying mainstream scholarly works as Eurocentric? Mainstream is not Eurocentric; it's a label applied to Afrocentrists to give themselves more legitimacy, to propagate unfounded "research" some sort of "paradigm shift." The readers need to know that Afrocentrism is fringe theory at best, instead of some legitimate counterargument to historic research   Wareware 00:49, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

___

Hello Wareware, thanks for the welcome. I finally signed up. I hope that my comments are more convenient to read now :-). (Pharlap 15:12, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC))

_____


 * With regard to the use of "eurocentric," I use the word and "mainstream" interchangeably, because that's been my experience with mainstream historical texts (note the examples I've mentioned before). Eurocentrism has been more or less a given in traditional historical text -- as has sexism, the omission of contributions by women.  I didn't/don't see anything wrong with it; it's simply a truth for me.  If, however, others are uncomfortable with the term and insist on the use of "mainstream," I won't argue the point.  It's not that important to me.
 * It's really not that hard to differentiate between sexism and afrocentrism. While there have been many women scholars, Frocentrists the usually lacks scientific merit and work on an agenda. Grouping afrocentrism with sexism to attack mainstream academia is really not the place here   Wareware 19:40, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the fact that Afrocentrism generally is outside mainstream historical thought is made amply clear in the article. What people also must understand, however, is that it is up to us to accurately set down the Afrocentrist viewpoint and then present prevailing counterarguments -- not for us to debate here whether or not we agree with either side.  If historical scholars haven't settled the argument, we certainly cannot expect to do so among ourselves.
 * Not really, it presents afrocentrist fringe theories as equal and valid counterarguments or viewpoints. That'd be like inserting holocaust revisionism in the holocaust article and let the readers debate whether or not they agree with either side. It shouldn't be like that.   Wareware 19:40, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * With regard to many of your earlier changes, Wareware, I've reverted a lot of them -- again. I wrote much of the original text you've been tampering with, and I've made certain changes for a reason, as I've already stated in the text accompanying my reversions.  Unless you have a good reason for reverting the edits and state them, let them stand.  You seem hell-bent on reverting anything and everything I contribute.  You even reverted a typo I'd corrected.  Exercise some critical thinking and stop acting like an automaton.  If you continue in this manner, I will report you for violating the 3-reverts rule. deeceevoice 09:49, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I find it amusing that the unnamed contributor argues in one post that the images are "not of this world" and so therefore are somehow not meant to be literal depictions of the groups represented and clearly labeled.


 * Ok, the images are stylised and are also in part symbolic. In other words the red-brown colour is the standard convention for depicting Egyptians. No-one is suggesting that it is 'scientifically' accuate, but that it provides a reasonable guide to how the Egyptians understood their ethnicity in relation to other peoples. So this aspect of the debate is about how the Egyptians saw themselves in the ethnic universe around them. Another, partly separate, question is how we would characterise Egyptians in the racial categories familiar to us today. That need not correspond to Egyptian's own self-definition, but it will obviously have to draw on the evidence they have left us, along with the evidence of non-Egyptian authors and of the physical evidence provided by mummies, genetic studies of modern populations etc. Paul B 12:49, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

__________

If you want to show how ancient Egyptians typically portrayed people in the Egyptian mythology, then use the images of the book of gates. If you want to show a vivid portrait of Egyptian features you should use portraits of real people. (Pharlap 15:12, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC))
 * I think one of the Book of Gates pics would be useful here. BTW, I think the explanation that the RIII tomb is garbled is far more likely than the one I added at the end of this section, but I was trying to end on a 'balanced' note. If you want to change this section of the text, please do. I was trying to remove some of the more egregious errors, but have probably still left it is a lass than ideal state. (Paul B 17:27, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC))

__________

When this assertion is debunked, the unnamed contributor returns with other images, apparently asserting that they do, in fact, represent various ethnic groups. Which is it? Are the images nebulous and symbolic? Or are they accurate, detailed renderings? One can't have it both ways. It is clear that the images -- detailed in dress, hairstyles, skin pigmentation -- are meant to be taken as accurate depictions of variouis peoples; the earlier assertion is but a weak attempt to explain away the black pigmentation used by the Egyptians to depict themselves as identical to other Africans.

____________

I posted the pictures as evidence that Egyptians did NOT portrait themselves identical to other Africans, in fact they portrayed themselves completely different. (Pharlap 15:12, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC))

__________ Further, with regard to the links contributed, here is another -- of images presented specifically in the context of the mural -- that fully examines the images presented in the mural and varying versions (with links) of it: http://manuampim.com/ramesesIII.htm. Note that while the above links contributed by no-name present images, they do so completely out of context and do not appear to be accompanied by identifying hieroglyphs. Such was not their purpose. On the other hand, the condensed images presented in the "mural of the nations" are idealized, elemental images (with the identifying hieroglyphs that accompany them) in much the way Plato spoke of a generic image of a tree representing all trees. With regard to physical appearance and dress, clearly, the elemental "facts" of Egyptians and other Africans were similar enough that both groups were portrayed identically. The elemental "facts" of Semites and Europeans were substantially different -- enough for them to be portrayed completely differently -- as they were specifically identified by ethnic group.deeceevoice 10:34, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

__________

Interesting that Mr. Ampim states that the "Sethe/Lepsius reproduction version of the "Table of Nations" is ACCURATE in both the representation of the images and the positioning of the texts". Maybe that's the reason why Mr. Ampim, after claiming that "writers and Egyptologists use the cut-&-paste photo distortion technique to make sure that the images and texts cannot be seen in their entire context" he didn't care to show the whole 1913 Sethe/Lepsius version either but left out the Egyptian portraits? http://edoc3.bibliothek.uni-halle.de/lepsius/page/egb1-4/image/09130480.jpg Also, Mr. Ampim doesn't care to put the images and text in their entire context either. Lepsius text reads as follows (starting with "Die ersten sind hier die Asiaten ..." (I translate for you): "The first ones are the Asiatics, with flesh colored skin, blue eyes, black pointed beard and black hair, which comes out of a blue hood with ribbons, they are wrapped in long blue robes, and erroneously labeld as Libyan. The next figures are 4 negroes, without beards, with red woolen hair, dressed in colorful robes. The next 4 are Libyan, again flesh colored with pointed beards in long yellow open robes, and erroneously labeld as Asiatics.  The next are again 4 negroes, looking exactly like the first 4 negroes, although once erroneously labeled with Egyptian and written with 3 spelling errors. The errors and misconceptions in the images and text leads to the conclusion that this is an insufficient piece of work and mirrors the bad general state of the whole tomb."

http://edoc3.bibliothek.uni-halle.de/lepsius/page/tb3/image/00003208.jpg

http://edoc3.bibliothek.uni-halle.de/lepsius/page/tb3/image/00003209.jpg (Pharlap 15:12, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC))

A question Re "Black-centered history and Africa"
I've deleted this text, pending an explanation:

"The relationship between racial, cultural and continental identities is one of the more difficult problems in Afrocentic thought. Despite the problems with a Eurocentric approach to history, there has been a common European cultural identity for many centuries. It is more difficult to make the same claim for Africa, in which widely separated cultures were unaware of each-other's existence. For this reason, some Afrocentrists have been accused of manufacturing 'African' cultural values by cherry-picking from wholly different peoples."

Aside from concerns about the accuracy of the "common European cultural identity for many centuries," I'm not quite certain of the relevance to the "cherry picking" of "cultural values" to the Afrocentrist historical paradigm. Would someone care to explain/rework the paragraph to make this more clearly relevant? deeceevoice 12:14, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Afrocentrist approach typically attempts to present african peoples as a homogenous stock, myths like the cultural and spiritual unity of Africans derived from Egyptian sources and extends undiluted to disaporic Africans.   Wareware 19:14, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wareware, thanks for the clarification of your intent. Presumably, the following passage is meant to explain the later reference to "cherry picking":

"One thing to point out is that Afrocentrists usually try to make the connections between Egypt and their own ethnic background. For example, Diop was a native Wolof, while Obenga came from a Mbochi-speaking background."

One problem is it is far too general. "Afrocentrists usually...." I realize you haven't read much Afrocentrist history, but I have. And I only just became aware of the purported linkages between Wolof and Mbochi and ancient Egyptian. Your addition makes it seem as though this is widespread. Is it? If not, then you should make only specific assertions with regard to the two historians you mention and leave it at that. Further, how much of the association of language is simply due to the fact that the historian's familiarity with Wolof or Mbochi language equips him with the knowledge to even explore the possibility of a connection and has nothing to do with the fact that it may be his native tongue? You should be careful not to assume too much or to paint Afrocentrist historians with too broad a brush.

Now, with regard to:

"The relationship between racial, cultural and continental identities is one of the more difficult problems in Afrocentic thought. Despite the problems with a Eurocentric approach to history, there has been a common European cultural identity for many centuries. It is more difficult to make the same claim for Africa, in which widely separated cultures were unaware of each-other's existence. For this reason some Afrocentrists have been accused of manufacturing 'African' cultural values by cherry-picking from wholly different peoples."

I'll leave aside strictly editorial stuff for the moment. But the idea of a common European cultural identity is simply a myth. Goths, Visigoths, Angles, Saxons, Albanians, Basques, Latvians, Lithuanians, Slovaks, Slavs, Armenians, Magyars, Serbs, Albanians, Huns, Kossaks (Kazaks), Tartars, the rising of the clans in Scotland, the upheavals in Bosnia, Northern Ireland, etc., etc., all bear witness to the fact that the "homogeneity" of Europe is a myth. The armed conflict that has accompanied such historical, political, religious and other cultural differences would be called "tribal warfare" in Africa. It's all a matter of perspective. If you mean something different and I have misunderstood, then by all means tell me; but as it stands, this statement is simply false. With this in mind, the assertions about disparate cultures in Africa are seemingly rendered irrelevant. If you wish to refer to the language thing here, then it's certainly relevant. But it is merely one example involving only two historians. Are there others? Your assertion of "cherry picking" is a broad with regard to assuming shared values and other cultural affectations, so I would expect there to be other examples offered to back up such claims. deeceevoice 20:50, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I think selective is a more appropriate word. Notwithstanding, the particularities of and conflict among ethnic groups in Europe, if the evidence suggess that European historians approached European accomplishments with affinity as such (which it largely does), if only due to prximity, commonalities of phsyical, language, etc., features, then the basis for that needs to be established. It is contradictory to say that Eurocentrism exists but the European affinity for it didn't. We accept ethnicism in Europe as a given, as we do elsewhere, but that still dosen't take away from the greater mobility Europeans enjoyed (continentally and beyond) viz. Africans which the aforementioned comment attempts to highlight. At this point, however, I am refraining from making any edits since DC's changes were split through such a great number of successive edits (tens), it makes following the changes a rather prohibitive task. El_C 02:30, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Selective" is more appropriate than what? Notice I haven't dismissed Wareware's train of thought out of hand -- just the overly general manner in which he is attempting to express it. But "greater mobility"? In what sense? And how are you suggesting "mobility" relates to the matter at hand? I'm afraid you haven't at all helped to clarify the point Wareware seems to be trying to make. deeceevoice 03:34, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Selective is more appropriate than 'cherry-pick' which is somewhat idiomatic, but that is a minor point. Greater physical mobility for Europe in the sense of facilitating cultural, scientific, etc. transmissions within and beyond the European continent; more fragmanted a phenomenon in the African continent (as the aforementioned passage suggests). El_C 03:48, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Look, I didn't write the paragraph, Paul Barlow did. It is pretty clear that the message is that Frocentrists like to create unity among AFrican peoples when there isn't one. What's so hard to understand? Asante said "to see different parts of Africa as having different cultural traits is to commit a major intellectual crime." Of course Asante didnt originate these ideas himself, but he is the most vocal about it. I think El C is saying that because there is a greater degree of mobility and exchange of ideas in Europe make them more homogenous, compared to African peoples who are relatively isolated from each other. El C, you can pick whichever version histories to view, they don't have to be right next to each other, and then click compare selected versions. This would get by deeceevoice's successive edit problem.   Wareware 06:01, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Heh, I know I can, I'm not that new. :) But even that involves quite a bit of effort as there are a lot of variables (tens of edit changes) to compare. It also gives me an excuse to be lazy and to complain, which I am rather fond of. El_C 07:21, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My apologies for the multiple, successive edits; but after Wareware's mindless and repeated reverts -- done completely without any justification being offered for most of them -- I felt compelled to make fewer changes at a time and (again) specifically state my reasons (perhaps more clearly) for making each one in the hope of stopping this stupid back and forth. For a time, he was reverting my edits of my own material -- edits I made to either correct or refine information that I had presented, in one instance, even reverting a typo. He couldn't possibly have known what he was doing or why -- just simply slavishly reacting to anything he saw that I had done. Let's keep in mind, people, the objective is the accuracy and journalistic integrity of this piece. deeceevoice 09:18, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

About "cherry picking" or "selecting" values and culture -- it's not that I don't understand the sentence. In an editorial sense, what I am trying to get someone to do here is to be more clear in the article just precisely how widespread the manifestation of such a perspective is in Afrocentrist historical analysis. A fairly sweeping generalization has been made. There should be concrete examples provided to back it up that don't read like "they all do it" (because they don't), but that a significant portion of, or principal contentions within, the body of work of Afrocentrists, evidence such a perpsective. Again, how does this perspective broadly manifest itself within the Afrocentrist paradigm? deeceevoice 09:18, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The point of that passage is to explain that for many centuries there has been a common cultural currency around Europe. The fact that Europeans have fought eachother is as irrelevant as the fact that Indians have fought eachother. That does not alter the fact that there been a common set of cultural ideas across India for many centuries. In Europe, Protestants and Catholics, for example, may have burned eachother to death, but they did so because they had a common intellectual and spiritual heritage about which they disagreed. There were many specific differences between peoples, and of course some peoples were more isolated that others, but this network of common heritage was a fact. The question is, can we say the same for the much larger space of Africa, in most of which there was no written culture and in which peoples did not have a sense of the continent as a whole, as Europeans did for many centuries before the present?


 * I don't know how you can say that the passage implies that 'they all do it' (generalise about African culture). It says "some Afrocentrists have been accused of manufacturing "African" cultural values by cherry-picking from wholly different peoples." Bear in mind that this is an encyclopdia article, not a dissertation. We need to be concise. However Asante is the most prominent writer who claims that there is a unity to 'African' culture. Diop's work is characterised by simliar claims. The reference to cherry-picking refers to a common tendency to pluck out some cultural trait of some specific African people, and then to connect it to Egypt (as you did in one of your earlier comments) or to another separate African people. Think this differs very much from the more careful analysis of the relations between language-groups, the history of population movements (e.g. the great Bantu migration) or reconstructions of lost cultures (e.g. Zimbabwe). I would not call that 'Afrocentrism', because it really uses the methods of mainstream archaeology and history. But I think we could argue that the Afrocentric ideas have been a spur to this development and have motivated responses that have led to the shake-up of engrained assumptions and prejudices. Paul B 13:05, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

DuBois
Shouldn't the article also mention W.E.B. DuBois activism for the recognition of African culture and the "Encyclopedia Africana" as one important afrocentric work? (Pharlap 06:36, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC))


 * Yes, I think that DuBois should be in there, but it is hard to know where to put him. He's a very subtle thinker, and difficult to summarise. Also, his views changed quite a bit. Much of his early work draws on philosophical models and assumptions that are rather alien today and difficult to summarise. I think part of the problem arises from the difficulty of delimiting the concept of Afrocentrism itself. It's the 'mythic' aspect that has the "pulling-power", as it were. I think it would be wise to extend the history bit to look at the early attempts to create alternative histories of what were termed 'colored peoples', 'negroes' or Africans. Du Bois should be placed there, I still think there should be stress on the more mythic version initiated by James. (Paul B 19:20, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC))

Structure
I think the article comprises most/all important informations concerning afrocentrism, but it doesn't show clearly the shift from the basic idea - a progressive corrective historiography without demeaning other people and their historical contributions to world civilization, and its focus on West African cultures

to


 * replacing Eurocentrism with an equally racist &#8220;centrism&#8221; based on mythologies, e.g. Egyptocentrism, the black "Ancient Model" used by black racists, as opposed to the white "Aryan Model" used by white racists - both models, ironically, based on the same ancient "table of nations".


 * the rejection of liberalism, racial integration and Afrocentric integrationists like W.E.B. DuBois in favor of Black separatism/nationalism and the idea of a black nation-state, "the nation in a nation"-concept (e.g. David Walker, Henry Garnett, Louis Farrakhan) and/or the back to africa (black zionism) concept (e.g. Paul Cuffe, Henry McNeil Turner, Marcus Garvey).

What do you think about structuring the informations in Afrocentric sub-categories, e.g. merging "Egypt and Black Identity" and "Ethnographic murals of the New Kingdom" in one category called "Egyptocentrism", and creating a "Black separatism/nationalism" chapter? (Pharlap 07:21, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC))


 * I think it's mentioned in the history section that afrocentrism supplants one racist system with another by making the greeks look like savages and the opposite for egyptians. The two sections can be merged since they support each other, perhaps one can be a sub-section or the other because they're both pretty long. I think we definitely can write about black separatism, like how they like to link black diaspora to mono-culture egypt, as a kind of "cultural nationalism" and I think this should go with the history section pretty well.   Wareware 10:36, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Before deeceevoice came along, this page was divided into two categories - which were labelled 'Historical Afrocentrism' and 'Radical Afrocentrism'. Deecee attempted to delete the whole of the Radical Afrocentrism section (see the top of this Talk page) and rewrite much of the rest. What you are proposing seems to be a kind-of return to that earlier set-up. I think there are problems with how we delimit the central concept of 'Afrocentrism' itself, a term coined by Asante. It's true, of course, that there was a lot of earlier black-American scholarship, dating back to early twentieth century, that explored African achievements, and which placed emphasis on Egypt. There's even an interesting article in the Journal of Negro History from 1917 on "the influence of Africa on Grecian civilisation". But is this 'Afrocentrism'? Du Bois, does concentrate on West Africa, but also seems to make claims about 'Africa' as a whole, so his position is rather ambiguous. His notion of the double-coding of 'black' identity is worth adding, though I think.


 * I do think the article is now rather unbalanced, with a rump-like final section and a lot of argy-bargy over Egypt. The problem is that it's difficult to avoid finding ourselves caught in detailed arguments over specific bits of evidence added by deecee, which then just stretch out into long sections. At the moment I think the stuff on the 'Semitic' race is deeply unsatisfactory because of the essentialist model of separate races on which it is based. I'd far rather see an brief, clear acount of how peoples developed distincive characteristics in various places rather than this notion that 'Africans' 'mingled' with 'Euro-Asians', as if these races evolved separately and then bumped into eachother. The material on language is now OK.


 * I do think there is too much on Egypt, but then Afrocentrists are typically preoccupied with Egypt, so I suppose it reflects the reality of things. Paul B 11.47, 4 Mar, 2005

Duplicated block of text
Hi, all, this edit to this page duplicated a large block of text (about 70% of the page). I have removed this duplicated block, and carefully checked it to see if anyone had added anything while it was here; I found one thing, which I have transplanted back into the page.

Please, all, be careful in doing edits - we have seen this problem on a number of pages recently. It's always wise (even on talk pages!) to do a diff on you edit, after it's done, to make sure that what actually happened was what you thought you did. Use of the "section edit" feature also help (and makes editing faster, to boot :-). Noel (talk) 15:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. Don't know how it happened. Paul B 17:49, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)