posted
You can't hide behind these 'error' skirts anymore. There's not a scientific discipline on earth that doesn't make them. Yet you only hold black scholars work to be characterised as unfactual. That's racist.
We all accept your admission to be incapable of backing your mud slinging against Van Sertima, Diop, DuBois, and Rogers.
We all see you think blacks cannot be scholars unless they reguritate what white scholars' work and refrain from independent thinking.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: [qb] That said please proceed to critique the figures you castigate by citing examples that back up what your mouth so easily shoots off.
Everybody following the thread has seen you can't do it so we won't be surprised when you cop out with more debater tactics instead of research, analysis, and critique.
^heheh LOL I'm not going into it alTakruri.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: You can't hide behind these 'error' skirts anymore. There's not a scientific discipline on earth that doesn't make them. Yet you only hold black scholars work to be characterised as unfactual. That's racist.
I've disposed of this argument before, you just keep coming back with it. It doesn't matter whether or not these mistakes are common. Ya'll need to own up to these mistakes and acknowledge they're there, like all the honest scholars do, that are prominent in the other scientific disciplines you refer to. You won't hear no honest Evolutionist deny that cases like Piltdown man, Haeckel's law or Coons cranial size misrepresentations were past mistakes.
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: We all accept your admission to be incapable of backing your mud slinging against Van Sertima, Diop, DuBois, and Rogers..
That is what he says right after he admits that mistakes were made, go figure.
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: We all see you think blacks cannot be scholars unless they reguritate what white scholars' work and refrain from independent thinking
Nothing but booty chatter. So pre-eminent black scholars like Henry Louis Gates, Keita etc who are somewhat opposed to Afrocentric ideas are racists as well? Henry Louis Gates is even opposed to black Egypt, is he racist now? Were you racist before you read Asantes books? You make no sense at all, and your nonsensical strawmen are starting to piss me off. Either you are really slow, or you're just making up stuff to get even because I exposed your inconsistancies.
I was very clear in denouncing Afrocentricity as well as Eurocentrism:
quote: Originally posted by Kalonji: Scholarship that is rooted in earlier rascist/unfactual scholarship (Mathilda) = Eurocentric
Scholarship that is rooted in earlier rascist/unfactual scholarship (Mike111) = Afrocentric
They're right Some of yall really are loons man, straight up. The people who adhere to Afrocentricity of the old days are nothing more than black folks coming together to accept any flimsy bit of evidence they can get their hands on, without scrutising it, so they can feel better about themselves, and as soon as someone disagrees, he becomes anti-African, pro white or even disguised whites who act like blacks. You, Mikey and Clyde all do this.
No serious scholar would treat opposing views in that way No serious scholar would deny past mistakes like you do No serious scholar is interested in history solely because it fuctions as a pat on the back.
Unless they're any type of centric, whether it be Euro, Afro, etc. This is what makes you loons stand out.
What could be more looney than saying Europeans invented science?!?!?!
An example of the free-floating postmodern signifier that Afrocentricity has become can be seen in who is considered an "Afrocentric". Kalonji does not see Gates or SOY Keita as Afrocentric, but he sees Rogers, Diop and Van Sertima as good examples. Why?
Others like White Nord et al. see SOY Keita as Afrocentric!
While, others like Tejumola Olaniyan, see Gates as Afrocentric. So which one is right? This is more confusing than Kalonji saying Afrocentricity equals rascist/unfactual scholarship **as well as** anything anybody wants it to be! You are a confused man Kalonji. Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
While Keita is not an Afrocentric his work has been published in the Afrocentric periodical The Journal of Black Studies.
S.O.Y. Keita Early Nile Valley Farmers, From El-Badari, Aboriginals or “European” Agro-Nostratic Immigrants? Craniometric Affinities Considered With Other Data, Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 191–208 (2005)
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hah hah hah, whatsamatter you? Lost your composure? I must have hit deep deep to the nerve exposing you.
The only looney gooney I'm reading in this thread is you making wild ass claims and refusing to supply any references for them and labeling any independent minded black scholar an Afrocentric based only on something common to all humanity, making mistakes.
Your anger has you running a nervous a jag. Me, an Afrocentric? You're a drowning man grasping for straws unable to contribute to the thread's topic lashing out with ad homina against me trying to obscure that I've backed myself with references.
You being unable to add any value to the subject of this thread and only indulge in distracting debate about ES personalities render yourself irrelevant below any further notice unless you adopt a scholarly approach and cite sources to support your model.
In the meantime you remain an Afrocentric by your own definition -- riddled with mistakes, not correcting them, and proliferating them.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: You can't hide behind these 'error' skirts anymore. There's not a scientific discipline on earth that doesn't make them. Yet you only hold black scholars work to be characterised as unfactual. That's racist.
I've disposed of this argument before, you just keep coming back with it. It doesn't matter whether or not these mistakes are common. Ya'll need to own up to these mistakes and acknowledge they're there, like all the honest scholars do, that are prominent in the other scientific disciplines you refer to. You won't hear no honest Evolutionist deny that cases like Piltdown man, Haeckel's law or Coons cranial size misrepresentations were past mistakes.
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: We all accept your admission to be incapable of backing your mud slinging against Van Sertima, Diop, DuBois, and Rogers..
That is what he says right after he admits that mistakes were made, go figure.
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: We all see you think blacks cannot be scholars unless they reguritate what white scholars' work and refrain from independent thinking
Nothing but booty chatter. So pre-eminent black scholars like Henry Louis Gates, Keita etc who are somewhat opposed to Afrocentric ideas are racists as well? Henry Louis Gates is even opposed to black Egypt, is he racist now? Were you racist before you read Asantes books? You make no sense at all, and your nonsensical strawmen are starting to piss me off. Either you are really slow, or you're just making up stuff to get even because I exposed your inconsistancies.
I was very clear in denouncing Afrocentricity as well as Eurocentrism:
quote: Originally posted by Kalonji: Scholarship that is rooted in earlier rascist/unfactual scholarship (Mathilda) = Eurocentric
Scholarship that is rooted in earlier rascist/unfactual scholarship (Mike111) = Afrocentric
They're right Some of yall really are loons man, straight up. The people who adhere to Afrocentricity of the old days are nothing more than black folks coming together to accept any flimsy bit of evidence they can get their hands on, without scrutising it, so they can feel better about themselves, and as soon as someone disagrees, he becomes anti-African, pro white or even disguised whites who act like blacks. You, Mikey and Clyde all do this.
No serious scholar would treat opposing views in that way No serious scholar would deny past mistakes like you do No serious scholar is interested in history solely because it fuctions as a pat on the back.
Unless they're any type of centric, whether it be Euro, Afro, etc. This is what makes you loons stand out.
GTFOH.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're the one who derailed this thread with your accumulating ignorance and ad hominem.
You can't even point out where I'm wrong, not even ONCE, yet I have confronted you to your inaccuracies numerous times.
You label me things like racist or accuse me of choosing Eurocentrism above Afrocentrism, where do you get this from? You're just pulling it out your behind, like you manage to make appear and disappear part of Afrocentric heritage randomly.
That and the fact that you want me to cite what you already know exists makes this thread dead anyway. I'm not going to argue for the sake of arguing. My points are made, and they're there for you to refute them.
I dare you to find me one of the scholars I mentioned who didn't selfservingly appropriate extra African history to their own, solely because of them (Extra Africans) being black.
Anyone who is slightly capable of using his search engines will be able to disprove me within minutes. Considering your desire to get even with your ad hominem, you should already be motivated.
Good luck.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
You being unable to add any value to the subject of this thread -- Afrocentricity defined -- and only indulge in distracting debate about ES personalities render yourself irrelevant below any further notice unless you adopt a scholarly approach and cite sources to support your model.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: You're the one who derailed this thread with your accumulating ignorance and ad hominem.
You can't even point out where I'm wrong, not even ONCE, yet I have confronted you to your inaccuracies numerous times.
You label me things like racist or accuse me of choosing Eurocentrism above Afrocentrism, where do you get this from? You're just pulling it out your behind, like you manage to make appear and disappear part of Afrocentric heritage randomly.
That and the fact that you want me to cite what you already know exists makes this thread dead anyway. I'm not going to argue for the sake of arguing. My points are made, and they're there for you to refute them.
I dare you to find me one of the scholars I mentioned who didn't selfservingly appropriate extra African history to their own, solely because of them (Extra Africans) being black.
Anyone who is slightly capable of using his search engines will be able to disprove me within minutes. Considering your desire to get even with your ad hominem, you should already be motivated.
Good luck.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: I dare you to find me one of the scholars I mentioned who didn't selfservingly appropriate extra African history to their own, solely because of them (Extra Africans) being black.
Anyone who is slightly capable of using his search engines will be able to disprove me within minutes. Considering your desire to get even with your ad hominem, you should already be motivated.
Good luck.
To give the loons a head start
"Ethiopians, that is, Negroes, gave the world the first idea of right and wrong and thus laid the basis of religion and all true culture and civilization." --Joel Augustus Rogers
Cleopatra and the Joel A. Rogers "Tradition"
Cleopatra is another example of an "African" who, it has been argued, was a black. In total disregard of the ancient evidence John Henrik Clarke, in a chapter entitled "African Warrior Queens" in Black Women in Antiquity, leaning heavily on the J. A. Rogers'* "tradition," makes this astonishing statement: "More nonsense has been written about Cleopatra than about any other African queen, mainly because it has been the desire of many writers to paint her white. She was not a white woman, she was not a Greek…Until the emergence of the doctrine of white superiority Cleopatra was generally pictured as a distinct African woman, dark in color."
J.A. Rogers states that the Carthaginians were descendants of the Phoenicians, a Negroid people, and that in fact until the rise of the doctrine of white superiority Hannibal was traditionally known as a black man. [17] In this same tradition, Van Sertima [18] refers to Carthaginians as "a largely Africoid people", and publishes some illustrations of coins depicting Negroes and elephants in a drawing by Sylvia Bakos, which are markedly similar to coins from central Italy appearing in Blacks in Antiquity, where it is argued that the Negroes represented Hannibal's mahouts. [19] Van Sertima's describes the coins were actually Carthaginians. Coins, however, issued in Spain, with portraits of Hannibal's family, the Barcaids, depict these Carthaginians as Caucasoids, not as blacks. [20] Finally, neither Rogers nor Van Sertima cites any ancient source as a basis for the statement that the peoples who came to Carthage from Phoenicia, located in southwestern Asia at the eastern end of the Mediterranean, were Negroid or Africoid, i.e. blacks.Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Directly quote somebody from their own published work instead of relying on others' critiques.
Have to commend you for at least making a start. Keep it up, but try not to plagiarize!
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
"Ethiopians, that is, Negroes, gave the world the first idea of right and wrong and thus laid the basis of religion and all true culture and civilization." --Joel Augustus Rogers
The Ganges, the sacred river of India, is named after an Ethiopian king of that name who conquered Asia as far as this river... --Joel Augustus Rogers
The Negro was the first artist. The oldest drawings and carvings yet discovered were executed by the Negro people 15,000 years ago in Southern France, Northern Spain, Palestine, South Africa, and India. The drawings are on rocks, the carvings on bone, basalt and ivory. --Joel Augustus Rogers
Elam, a mighty Negro civilization of Persia, flourished about 2900 BC and is perhaps older than Egypt or Ethopia. --Joel Augustus Rogers
The Bible really originated in Ancient Egypt, where the population according to Herodotus and Aristotle, was black. Here the Jews recieved almost all of their early culture. --Joel Augustus Rogers
How is this not directly quoted from his writings??
quote: Originally posted by Kalonji: It's available on the web. Don't post excerpts though, quite a few wordsmiths here will not hestitate to flip things around and find a way to make it defend Afrocentricity.
posted
Calm down son and stop anachronistically conflating.
This post, though not properly citing references is unlike your earlier one which just reposted a section of something posted days ago, and is more worthy of serious response. The only sleight of hand in evidence is foisting this post as your previous one which was Snowden's critique.
If we were given the page numbers for the Rogers quotes we could examine who he cites in each instance and thus see if the idea originates with him or is that of white scholars of the time.
Rogers works Sex and Race (1941-1944) and Nature Knows No Color Line (1952) are overflowing with footnotes citing the over abundance of sources he referenced. Perhaps if you actually have the books in hand you could do the research to see who's originated the propositions you cite. Then too, it will take further contemporaneous research to see if they were downlevel when Rogers was published. For instance H.H. Johnston and A.C. Haddon said that Elam was negroid.
For sure, no one who wants to be taken seriously nowadays champions the ideas of extreme diffusion, fanciful etymology, or Mesopotamia predating the Nile Valley although the disciplines of history, archaeology, and anthropology didn't begin to jettison them until quite recently and as far as Mesopotamia predating the Nile Valley still has not relinquished that idea.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Are you blind?
"Ethiopians, that is, Negroes, gave the world the first idea of right and wrong and thus laid the basis of religion and all true culture and civilization." --Joel Augustus Rogers
The Ganges, the sacred river of India, is named after an Ethiopian king of that name who conquered Asia as far as this river... --Joel Augustus Rogers
The Negro was the first artist. The oldest drawings and carvings yet discovered were executed by the Negro people 15,000 years ago in Southern France, Northern Spain, Palestine, South Africa, and India. The drawings are on rocks, the carvings on bone, basalt and ivory. --Joel Augustus Rogers
Elam, a mighty Negro civilization of Persia, flourished about 2900 BC and is perhaps older than Egypt or Ethopia. --Joel Augustus Rogers
The Bible really originated in Ancient Egypt, where the population according to Herodotus and Aristotle, was black. Here the Jews recieved almost all of their early culture. --Joel Augustus Rogers
How is this not directly quoted from his writings??
quote: Originally posted by Kalonji: It's available on the web. Don't post excerpts though, quite a few wordsmiths here will not hestitate to flip things around and find a way to make it defend Afrocentricity.
Let the sleight of mouth antics begin..
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, this is not a race. There are other things to do than stay glued to the PC. It's no point in your favor for me or anyone else to take the time to research and analyze rather than make a hasty antic post as you prefer to do, rather it shows you as the loon, cartoon paste and all.
Debate tactics are futile. I only indulge rational discussion.
Quick now, you go ahead and rush down the hill to tup one of them heifers. Me? I'll take my time and tup them all.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: We all accept your admission to be incapable of backing your mud slinging
Why the delay in response?
SILENCE OF THE LOONS
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Snowden is a modern scholar. Do you not find him, in the very same article that you quote from below, proliferating downlevel ideas and information just as you accuse Afrocentrics of doing?
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: I dare you to find me one of the scholars I mentioned who didn't selfservingly appropriate extra African history to their own, solely because of them (Extra Africans) being black.
Anyone who is slightly capable of using his search engines will be able to disprove me within minutes. Considering your desire to get even with your ad hominem, you should already be motivated.
Good luck.
To give the loons a head start
"Ethiopians, that is, Negroes, gave the world the first idea of right and wrong and thus laid the basis of religion and all true culture and civilization." --Joel Augustus Rogers
Cleopatra and the Joel A. Rogers "Tradition"
Cleopatra is another example of an "African" who, it has been argued, was a black. In total disregard of the ancient evidence John Henrik Clarke, in a chapter entitled "African Warrior Queens" in Black Women in Antiquity, leaning heavily on the J. A. Rogers'* "tradition," makes this astonishing statement: "More nonsense has been written about Cleopatra than about any other African queen, mainly because it has been the desire of many writers to paint her white. She was not a white woman, she was not a Greek…Until the emergence of the doctrine of white superiority Cleopatra was generally pictured as a distinct African woman, dark in color."
J.A. Rogers states that the Carthaginians were descendants of the Phoenicians, a Negroid people, and that in fact until the rise of the doctrine of white superiority Hannibal was traditionally known as a black man. [17] In this same tradition, Van Sertima [18] refers to Carthaginians as "a largely Africoid people", and publishes some illustrations of coins depicting Negroes and elephants in a drawing by Sylvia Bakos, which are markedly similar to coins from central Italy appearing in Blacks in Antiquity, where it is argued that the Negroes represented Hannibal's mahouts. [19] Van Sertima's describes the coins were actually Carthaginians. Coins, however, issued in Spain, with portraits of Hannibal's family, the Barcaids, depict these Carthaginians as Caucasoids, not as blacks. [20] Finally, neither Rogers nor Van Sertima cites any ancient source as a basis for the statement that the peoples who came to Carthage from Phoenicia, located in southwestern Asia at the eastern end of the Mediterranean, were Negroid or Africoid, i.e. blacks.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
I wonder who the great alTakruri say falls into the
Afro-Eccentric category. I wonder if it's exclusively the Melanists
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
My problem with Afrocentricity is that I can and do see things through African eyes and write about blacks as subject agents without constantly beating my audience over the head about blackness, racism, etc., and don't need a theory, political philosophy, or discipline to minutely prescribe methodology for analyzing, and writing/presenting materials on blacks, Africa, Africans,
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I think my next example will be Dr. Ben.
Directly quote somebody from their own published work instead of relying on others' critiques.
Have to commend you for at least making a start. Keep it up, but try not to plagiarize!
Actually its only an illusion of a start. A cut and paste job from a troll about a review of Rogers' work does not "prove" his point about Afrocentricity being equal to racist inaccurate scholarship. Is Rogers Afrocentric? If yes, why? And if yes, why then is Gates and Keita not Afrocentric?
A quick recap.
Kalonji lost this from page one. After exposing himself as ignorant of the origins and purpose of the term, he sought to detach it from any fixed meaning so as to compensate for his ignorance. hence his postmodern turn early on in this thread about no fixed meanings for Afrocentricity. Then his embarrassment led to a flip flip: trying to fix the meaning of the term to signify sloppy, blind ideologically driven scholarship that refuses falsification. What can you expect from someone who said Europeans invented science.
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: If we were given the page numbers for the Rogers quotes we could examine who he cites in each instance and thus see if the idea originates with him or is that of white scholars of the time.
**We** could..? LOL Thanks but no thanks. Not interested. Dropped the subject a long time ago, and I don’t have the time nor energy to get into it again. You are free to disprove me on the other scholars though, I’m all ears. And note that it doesn’t matter whether the data originated with him or not. You flat out denied the data existed and tried to distance such claims from Afro centrism per Asante. Maybe you should double check if he has been informing you honestly about said work being present, and the media being the culprit.
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: Rogers works Sex and Race (1941-1944) and Nature Knows No Color Line (1952) are overflowing with footnotes citing the over abundance of sources he referenced. Perhaps if you actually have the books in hand you could do the research to see who's originated the propositions you cite.
I don’t own his books
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: Then too, it will take further contemporaneous research to see if they were downlevel when Rogers was published. For instance H.H. Johnston and A.C. Haddon said that Elam was negroid
Good luck.
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: For sure, no one who wants to be taken seriously nowadays champions the ideas of extreme diffusion, fanciful etymology, or Mesopotamia predating the Nile Valley although the disciplines of history, archaeology, and anthropology didn't begin to jettison them until quite recently and as far as Mesopotamia predating the Nile Valley still has not relinquished that idea.
I agree. I do think though that the primacy of either civi’s hinges on what one takes as a starting point (kind of like how you take Asante as a starting point). If I’m correct, large cities arose in Mesopotamia earlier than they did in Egypt, but the former was not unified as fast as the latter. Writing predates Mesopotamia as well. It could also be argued that Mesopotamia borrowed indirectly, or partly from Africans via the African component within the Natufian population that were present during the Neolithic transition.
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: Snowden is a modern scholar. Do you not find him, in the very same article that you quote from below, proliferating downlevel ideas and information just as you accuse Afrocentrics of doing?
Like you said earlier, he is not thoroughly Eurocentric, but he does have his peculiarities. Separating Egypt from Africa by selectively looking at evidence is one of them. I don’t know why you’re bringing this up. I have already spoken out against Eurocentric tendencies, so yeah, that includes his.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I’m correct, large cities arose in Mesopotamia earlier than they did in Egypt,
LOL!!!!!
I knew your dumbass was a little undercover Eurocentric. Are we surprised that you would echo this signature Eurocentric claim (putting Mesopotamia over Egypt) after all you did say Euros invented science!!! LOL!!!
quote:It could also be argued that Mesopotamia borrowed indirectly, or partly from Africans via the African component within the Natufian population that were present during the Neolithic transition.
LOL You are very careful not to appear Afrocentric here!
quote:Thanks but no thanks. Not interested. Dropped the subject a long time ago, and I don’t have the time nor energy to get into it again.
Translation: I prefer to make the time and exert the energy making wild uniformed claims about Afrocentricity and those I see as Afrocentrics.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Afaik, Ganges simply means river in a local Indian language.
On the Rogers Ganges etymology tip: I haven't looked into it much but it seems to be a case of misquoted documentation. Purchas dates back to the days of earliest Euro exploration but I can't find the quote in Pilgrmages.
Thing is, though I can't find Afrocentricists using it Rashidi does in VanSertima's journals. I fault him with not critiquing Rogers which he should've done.
It's necessary to check the references before rehashing stuff to see if it's downlevel. This was my complaint against Chandler with relying on esotericist definition on Tamehu instead of verifying it himself via an AEL dictionary or lexicon.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Are you denying the Elamites were a type of black people more or less indigenous to the Persian Gulf? If so broach a thread on it and let's take it to the stage.
Being black does not necessarily entail recent African origin.
posted
Au contraire. I asked you to back up that the works of DuBois, Rogers, Diop, and vanSertima are characterized by racist and unfactual information or as you also said should be "held accountable for flaws and inaccuracies that are characteristic of [Afrocentricity]. They all made themselves guilty of claims that were not unlike claims made by contemporary Eurocentrics, in terms of incorporating other peoples history into their own."
So far you have yet to support all your claims. You should already have read them in their own publcations to draw those conclusions. Obviously you haven't and are merely basing yourself on others say so claims without bothering to verify them for yourself. Hence my "follow fashion set," "throwing stones to others' shouts of mad dog mad dog" and "playing Simon Says" barbs.
If you don't peruse their books in context then you can't say what their approach was.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: If we were given the page numbers for the Rogers quotes we could examine who he cites in each instance and thus see if the idea originates with him or is that of white scholars of the time.
**We** could..? LOL Thanks but no thanks. Not interested. Dropped the subject a long time ago, and I don’t have the time nor energy to get into it again. You are free to disprove me on the other scholars though, I’m all ears. And note that it doesn’t matter whether the data originated with him or not. You flat out denied the data existed and tried to distance such claims from Afro centrism per Asante. Maybe you should double check if he has been informing you honestly about said work being present, and the media being the culprit.
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: Rogers works Sex and Race (1941-1944) and Nature Knows No Color Line (1952) are overflowing with footnotes citing the over abundance of sources he referenced. Perhaps if you actually have the books in hand you could do the research to see who's originated the propositions you cite.
I don’t own his books
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: On the Ganges etymology tip.
I haven't looked into much but it seems to be a case of misplaced documentation. Purchas dates back to the days of earliest Euro exploration but I can't find the quote in Pilgrmages.
Thing is, though I can't find Afrocentricists using it but Rashidi does in VanSertima's journals. I fault him with not critiquing Rogers which he should've done.
It's necessary to check the references before rehashing stuff to see if it's downlevel. This was my complaint against Chandler with relying on esotericist definition on Tamehu instead of verifying it himself via an AEL dictionary or lexicon.
When it comes to contradicting evidence you practice what you preach. I guess I was wrong about accusing you of intending to distort excerpts earlier.
It is interesting to learn where these ideas originated and how they ended up in the books of these people who may or may not have identified as Afrocentrists, whatever one wishes to associate with it: Asantes direction, or the definition that makes it and Eurocentrism different sides of the same coin.
Obviously, I subscribe to the latter, but I don't necessarily chastise these scholars, because like I've said earlier, they could only work with what was known in that era. With that having said, I do think that there was some ego involved besides errors, and this is where it's justified to hold them accountable just like we do with Eurocentrics. Some things were verifiable in their times, yet they still chose to accept them and spread them as truths. For example, common logic suggest that it is impossible for one nation (Ethiopians per Rogers) to educate the entire world on what's right and what's wrong.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Are you denying the Elamites were a type of black people more or less indigenous to the Persian Gulf? If so broach a thread on it and let's take it to the stage.
Being black does not necessarily entail recent African origin.
The Elamites were simply blacks Asians, until it can be demonstrated that they had genetic affinity with Africans, such claims should be avoided.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri Au contraire. I asked you to back up that the works of DuBois, Rogers, Diop, and vanSertima are characterized by racist and unfactual information or as you also said should be "held accountable for flaws and inaccuracies that are characteristic of [Afrocentricity]. They all made themselves guilty of claims that were not unlike claims made by contemporary Eurocentrics, in terms of incorporating other peoples history into their own."
So far you have yet to support all your claims. You should already have read them in their own publcations to draw those conclusions. Obviously you haven't and are merely basing yourself on others say so claims without bothering to verify them for yourself. Hence my "follow fashion set," "throwing stones to others' shouts of mad dog mad dog" and "playing Simon Says" barbs.
If you don't peruse their books in context then you can't say what their approach was.
This is how this discussion started, I didn't just butt in to push my views on anyone, nor did I participate to come equipped with sources. That went out the window when Angie revealed what a little bitch he was and refused to answer my questions, and distort my positions. Then you came in and started replying with sources, thinking this was a genuine thread by Angelina.
Good for you, we enjoy reading your citations and all, but don't expect everyone is going to do the same. Especially not after you can see for yourself with your own eyes how Angelina is bitching his way out of this, and is constantly distorting my words.
Think this is a cop out? Be my guest. Clyde sure as hell doesn't think I'm wrong regarding the diffusionalist nature of some of these authors work. My challenge still stands:
Anyone who is slightly capable of using his search engines will be able to disprove me within minutes.Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: That's the operating principal so Rogers was not in error in following Johnston and Haddon was he?
Read my post regarding chastising black scholars like Rogers.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't take this quote, presumably from 100 Amazing Facts about the Negro, to mean that a nation 'Ethiopia' was responsible. The 'Negro,' if for millenia the only human on earth, must be responsible for "first idea of right and wrong" "thus laying the basis of religion and all true culture and civilization."
A tad pompous? Mayhap. But consider the opinion of the 'Negro' held as gospel in that era. I commend Rogers for dropping a weight on the other pan of the scale and so tilting toward balance.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
[i]"Ethiopians, that is, Negroes, gave the world the first idea of right and wrong and thus laid the basis of religion and all true culture and civilization." --Joel Augustus Rogers
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
You can't even see that both posts in their entirety compliment eachother
LMFAO
Stick to arguing with Mikey and your equals.
"Afrocentrism" is not the property of Asante, that he or anyone else can dictate that their interpretation should be the correct one. - Kalonji
whatever one wishes to associate with it: Asantes direction, or the definition that makes it and Eurocentrism different sides of the same coin.
In both quotes I leave open the option for multiple interpretations, you little attention whore.
And I'm waiting on your dumbass to show that large cities in Egypt predated the ones in Mesopotamia.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:In both quotes I leave open the option for multiple interpretations
So you were arguing for four pages for the definition of Afrocentricity being equal to racist nonfactual scholarship because according to you it has no definition?!
"I asked you to back up that the works of DuBois, Rogers, Diop, and vanSertima [Afrocentric to Kalonji] are **characterized** by racist and unfactual information"
Whose the focking attention whore? LOL!
Afrocentricity is characterized by X, and it is not X all at the same time!!!! LOLOLOLOLOLOL
quote:And I'm waiting on your dumbass to show that large cities in Egypt predated the ones in Mesopotamia.
Glad to. After your dumbass tells us all when did whites invent science. Lmao!
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw a thread titled Afrocentricty Defined and went on from there as I would in any thread just dropping whatever relevant info may make a good contribution to the thread. And I appreciate all pro and con on any subject because there's always something I can learn from anybody whoever they may be.
If the broacher of a thread asks me to butt out I will. I feel that's the respect that's due and what I'd like someone to do in a thread I broach if they're just about distraction.
This is how this discussion started, I didn't just butt in to push my views on anyone, nor did I participate to come equipped with sources. That went out the window when Angie revealed what a little bitch he was and refused to answer my questions, and distort my positions. Then you came in and started replying with sources, thinking this was a genuine thread by Angelina.
Good for you, we enjoy reading your citations and all, but don't expect everyone is going to do the same. Especially not after you can see for yourself with your own eyes how Angelina is bitching his way out of this, and is constantly distorting my words.
Think this is a cop out? Be my guest. Clyde sure as hell doesn't think I'm wrong regarding the diffusionalist nature of some of these authors work. My challenge still stands:
Anyone who is slightly capable of using his search engines will be able to disprove me within minutes.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by anguishofbeing: So you were arguing for four pages for the definition of Afrocentricity being equal
Your dumb ass is STILL too slow to understand that I said Multiple interpretations, hence, me not allowing Asante new direction, to interfere with the earlier work.
quote: Originally posted by anguishofbeing: because according to you it has no definition?!
Doesn't your kindergarden azz know what multiple means?
posted
Your feet is scorched from flip flopping. You argued for multiple interpretations then you argued for a fixed meaning: Afrocentricity equals racist nonfactual scholarship. You went four pages, four focking pages, trying to convince others of this view. Why if it is undefinable? LOL! Simply seeking attention, whore? Or are you a S-I-M-P-L-E-T-O-N. LOL!
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I don't take this quote, presumably from 100 Amazing Facts about the Negro, to mean that a nation 'Ethiopia' was responsible. The 'Negro,' if for millenia the only human on earth, must be responsible for "first idea of right and wrong" "thus laying the basis of religion and all true culture and civilization."
A tad pompous? Mayhap. But consider the opinion of the 'Negro' held as gospel in that era. I commend Rogers for dropping a weight on the other pan of the scale and so tilting toward balance.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
[i]"Ethiopians, that is, Negroes, gave the world the first idea of right and wrong and thus laid the basis of religion and all true culture and civilization." --Joel Augustus Rogers
Can you demonstrate that JA Rogers was aware and subscribed to the OOA model? Why would you rely on your own interpretation now, instead of researching and getting to the root of things like you did a few posts ago?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by anguishofbeing: You argued for multiple interpretations then you argued for a fixed meaning: Afrocentricity equals racist nonfactual scholarship.
Little attention whore.. Produce the exact quote of me saying
posted
What Kalonji REALLY said from his very first post in this thread
quote: Originally posted by Kalonji: Wel.. yeah "There are multiple schools of thought within Afrocentric circles, different circles accept different things.
Angies imbecile wishful rendering:
quote: So you were arguing for four pages for the definition of Afrocentricity being equal toracist nonfactual scholarship
Like I said, little Angie is nothing but a little attention whore, who likes to chase people around, and distort peoples positions.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
"they (Mike and Clyde) are about as Afrocentric as it gets" (Afrocentricity equals racist nonfactual scholarship)
Afrocentricity and Eurocentrism, two sides of the same coin (Afrocentricity equals racist nonfactual scholarship)
So again, which one do you subscribe to Kalonjiboy:
Scholarship that is rooted in earlier rascist/unfactual scholarship = Afrocentric and this is true.
or
Multiple interpretations - Afrocentricity is X and non X at the same time - postmodern relativism.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lmao @ this guys verbal gymnastics! Everyone saw your anti-Afrocentric ramblings, all four pages of it, its pathetic watching you try to squirm your way out now.
You started your routine here
There are multiple schools of thought within Afrocentric circles, different circles accept different things. (relativism)
Then flipped to here
Mike and Clyde are about as Afrocentric as it gets. (essentialism)
Then back to here
"Afrocentrism" is not the property of Asante, that he or anyone else can dictate that their interpretation should be the correct one (relativism)
Then over to here
Scholarship that is rooted in earlier rascist/unfactual scholarship = Afrocentric (essentialism)
And then here
Afrocentricity and Eurocentrism, two sides of the same coin (essentialism)
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I don't take this quote, presumably from 100 Amazing Facts about the Negro, to mean that a nation 'Ethiopia' was responsible. The 'Negro,' if for millenia the only human on earth, must be responsible for "first idea of right and wrong" "thus laying the basis of religion and all true culture and civilization."
A tad pompous? Mayhap. But consider the opinion of the 'Negro' held as gospel in that era. I commend Rogers for dropping a weight on the other pan of the scale and so tilting toward balance.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
"Ethiopians, that is, Negroes, gave the world the first idea of right and wrong and thus laid the basis of religion and all true culture and civilization." --Joel Augustus Rogers
Joel Augustus Rogers (September 6, 1880 — March 26, 1966)
[i]The hypothesis that humans have a single origin (monogenesis) was published in Charles Darwin's Descent of Man (1871). The concept was speculative until the 1980s, when it was corroborated by a study of present-day mitochondrial DNA, combined with evidence based on physical anthropology of archaic specimens.
The present Negro race of Africa perhaps did not originate there, but Asia and Oceania. J.A. Rogers
Obviously, he didn't subscribe to the OOA model. Perhaps I was too early with giving you credit for not defending his work, and taking it for what it is.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic