posted
Yes "classical" Afrocentrism emanates from certain scholars, but as many "isms" also Afrocentrism has been taken up and been converted into all sorts of claims, many times promoted by non experts in any relevant field of study.
For some people Afrocentrism has become a political ideology estranged from serious scholarly endeavours.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2687 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, the "classical" Afrocentrism is the only thing that counts. All these other fringe individuals are not the representatives of true African scholarship. The point is that the only time these other folks get brought up, such as by yourself, is to diminish and distort the true scholarship because it is a threat to the European historical status quo which itself is full of 'official' pseudo-science.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The backside of the fringe Afrocentrism is that many laymen and historically ignorant people buy into it and even spread it to their children. Fringe books for both grown ups and children are sold and fringe videos and sites are all over internet. A lot of desinformation which make people confused. ------- Otherwise in todays academic world Europeans are not alone anymore. Historical and archaeological research are also produced in many non European and non western countries. So the playfield are slowly evening out.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2687 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Again, the "classical" Afrocentrism is the only thing that counts. All these other fringe individuals are not the representatives of true African scholarship. The point is that the only time these other folks get brought up, such as by yourself, is to diminish and distort the true scholarship because it is a threat to the European historical status quo which itself is full of 'official' pseudo-science.
Exactly this is nothing more than the "If one black person is bad then all blacks are bad" argument.
Notice a European can come on Youtube and say the most outlandish claims. The majority of people will not castigate the entirety of Eurocentric or European thought as ridiculous. However when a black person does the same then all of sudden ALL blacks and all Afrocentric ideology is to be dismissed.
As you pointed out the only reason why so many people have an issue with Afrocentricity is because it challenges the status quo. It's the same reason why people have an issue with China.
Posts: 58 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Mar 2023
| IP: Logged |
posted
Afrocentric perspectives are now also promoted in the UK. Here is an interesting discussion about how "black" peoples history is taught in TV series and in school in the UK. According to the debaters in the video, Africans are placed in historical contexts where they in reality where not present or at least present to a lesser degree.
posted
The ancient population of Britain was almost completely replaced by newcomers about 4,500 years ago, a study shows.
The findings mean modern Britons trace just a small fraction of their ancestry to the people who built Stonehenge.
The astonishing result comes from analysis of DNA extracted from 400 ancient remains across Europe.
The mammoth study, published in Nature, suggests the newcomers, known as Beaker people, replaced 90% of the British gene pool in a few hundred years.
Lead author Prof David Reich, from Harvard Medical School in Cambridge, US, said: "The magnitude and suddenness of the population replacement is highly unexpected."
The reasons remain unclear, but climate change, disease and ecological disaster could all have played a role.
People in Britain lived by hunting and gathering until agriculture was introduced from continental Europe about 6,000 years ago. These Neolithic farmers, who traced their origins to Anatolia (modern Turkey) built giant stone (or "megalithic") structures such as Stonehenge in Wiltshire, huge Earth mounds and sophisticated settlements such as Skara Brae in the Orkneys.
But towards the end of the Neolithic, about 4,450 years ago, a new way of life spread to Britain from Europe. People began burying their dead with stylised bell-shaped pots, copper daggers, arrowheads, stone wrist guards and distinctive perforated buttons.
Co-author Dr Carles Lalueza-Fox, from the Institute of Evolutionary Biology (IBE) in Barcelona, Spain, said the Beaker traditions probably started "as a kind of fashion" in Iberia after 5,000 years ago.
From here, the culture spread very fast by word of mouth to Central Europe. After it was adopted by people in Central Europe, it exploded in every direction - but through the movement of people.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2707 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Keep in mind it is various Europeans who have made the claim that ancient Britain was populated by Black skinned people. Works like 'Ancient and Modern Britons' is an example and then you have the more recent Cheddar Man reconstruction. And we know the word Moor and Moors heads and sculptures depicting Africans his a historic European tradition. Now I wouldn't say that this means stonehenge was built by black people, but there are plenty of lines of evidence that Europe in ancient times had darker skin tones. The question is more when did light skin become dominant in Europe and when did black/dark skin disappear. But the problem with these books is they literally are not based on any serious scholarship and technically aren't Afrocentric. But a large population of diasporan Africans live in Britain and some sectors of the media is heavily into promoting such fantasies of black elites in Regency Era Britain via shows like Brigerton or black dwarves and Elves in Tolkien. And along with this some people from this diaspora have tried to make historical claims about a black presence which ranges from legitimate scholarship to fringe and feel good history. What takes this away from being truly Afrocentric is the fact that these people are focusing on European culture and putting black faces into European history but they aren't talking about African history and the impact of the diasporan migrants to Europe.
And by and large the bigger issue with Afrocentrism or African centered and African led archaeological and anthropological research is that there haven't been enough new scholars getting degrees and going on to become Archaeologists and Anthropologists working in Africa and elsewhere. And that leaves these random people on social media and other voices to fill the vacuum of the notable African centered scholars of the past. There are multiple reasons for this, including stem education being difficult for some diasporan African children especially given substandard educational resources, the high cost of Archaeology and Anthropology degrees and the difficulty getting funding to do research in Africa or elsewhere to promote an African focused historical perspective.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Afrocentrism shines throughout the world with everyone that counters the lies and twists of Modern europeans who seem to think they have better eyes then the ancient europeans who stated that Africans were Black and lived all across the earth.
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Keep in mind it is various Europeans who have made the claim that ancient Britain was populated by Black skinned people. Works like 'Ancient and Modern Britons' is an example and then you have the more recent Cheddar Man reconstruction.
Ancient And Modern Britons: A Retrospect (Volume 1) by David MacRitchie, 1884
"We know that the first inhabitants of Britain and more especially those of the northern parts, were craniologically of a type approaching to the Negro or the Australian race" Page 7-8
"So that the Picts Proper and the Black Danes, being both Moors and both being "black strangers" or dubh galls, in the sight of the white races of Britain..." page 201
"Accepting this conclusion, then as, in the main, correct, we have before us undeniable evidence - historical and ethnological - of the immemorial presence of the blacks in this country [Great Britain] page 157-158
"The black herds of Scots and Picts' were all alike to British Gildas Page 216 "Therefore, it becomes evident that some race of Scandinavians must have been Black Huns also, with physical characteristics approaching those of the Pictish Moors... Page 110
"...yet there is word-evidence in our Islands [Great Britain], as elsewhere, of a time when a conquered race was of black colour." Page 37
"That the wild tribes of Ireland were black men is hinted by the fact that "a wild Irishmen" is in Gaelic "a black Irishman" (Dubh Eireannach). And that some of the natives of Scotland, as well as of England, were of this race also is evident when one remembers that, according to Skene, the powerful tribe of the Damnonii, which was the chief of the Maeatae, or marsh-dwellers, who were a part of the Picti or Caledonii, were probably relations of their namesakes of South-Western Britain; which indeed is almost a certainty, if nomenclature goes for anything" Page 45
Now, although in the Gaelic of Scotland a negro is known as duine dubh, a black man, he is known in the Gaelic of Ireland as duine gorm, a blue, green, or woad-stained man. And while in the Scottish Highlands, the adjective glas is used to signify both “swarthy” and “green,” in Wales it has the meaning of “ green ” or “ blue ” ; and in the latter country the Gaelic gorm, here spelled gwrm, is equivalent to “ brown.” What possible explanation for all this apparent confusion of terms can there be, except the patent one that a brown¬ skinned man and a woad-coloured man were one and the same ?* Page 59
Cheddar Man reconstruction by Kennis & Kennis for the Natural History Museum in London
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Britain has been subject to rather many immigrations, two for about 10 000 years ago belonging to different branches of the western hunter gatherers. Seems at this stage there were no Eastern hunter gatherers as it was in Scandinavia. Next major immigration was the Anatolian farmers and after them the steppe herders with their roots in todays Ukraine. About 800 or 900 BC a Celtic influence came to dominate parts of Britain. After that followed Romans, Angles and Saxons, Vikings and Normanns, so Britain has gone through several demographic shifts.
When it concerns skin color light skin can have come later to the British isles than to Scandinavia (here we find such individuals already 8000 years ago among Scandinavian hunter gatherers). In Britain it can have come with the Anatolian farmers and even more surely with the steppe herders nearly 5000 years ago.
During the early iron age we find well preserved bog bodies with blonde or reddish hair.
When it comes to Cheddar man it seems that some doubt that he was really that dark as in the reconstruction. Maybe he looked more like Tom Björklunds interpretation of the "Danish" girl Lola who also was a Western Hunter gatherer but who lived much later.
It can be worth mentioning that some people have complained that the picture of Lola is too dark, while others have complained that it is too light.
When it comes to skeletons the Western hunter gatherers seems to have been rather like todays North and West European people. Just somewhat bigger jaws due to more extensive use of them.
Tom Björklunds interpretation of a Western Hunter Gatherer girl from Denmark.
(In this context one must also mention that there were earlier populations earlier in Britain but they were already disappeared when Cheddar man and his people populated Britain)
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2687 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
Archeopteryx, were you the book Ancient And Modern Britons by David MacRitchie, 1884 ?
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not have that book. It is rather outdated. Many odd claims have been proposed through the ages. The problem is if people still believe in them.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2687 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: I do not have that book. It is rather outdated. Many odd claims have been proposed through the ages. The problem is if people still believe in them.
the whole book is here, the search on the left, see keywords negro, black, negroid
posted
There are ideas which today are promoted by some "Afrocentrics" which were once promoted by "white" European scholars but today are abandoned by mainstream academia.
But sometimes also others can create narratives, like the ones they talk about in the video I posted, out of political reasons. These ideas are among others promoted to make immigrants and minorities feel more included.
Also here in Sweden there has been such tendencies. Some years ago a Swedish museum promoted the idea that muslims were common in ancient Viking trade ports like Birka outside of todays Stockholm. In that context a figure was created who was called "Vik-Inga Muhammed" and who talked in some kind of suburban slang language. The curators at the museum admitted that the figure was created because immigrant children with muslim background should feel more included when they came to the museum, or learned about the Viking age in school. Several archaeologists and historians protested though and in the end "Viking-Inga Muhammed" was dropped.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2687 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: There are ideas which today are promoted by some "Afrocentrics" which were once promoted by "white" European scholars but today are abandoned by mainstream academia.
But sometimes also others can create narratives, like the ones they talk about in the video I posted, out of political reasons. These ideas are among others promoted to make immigrants and minorities feel more included.
Also here in Sweden there has been such tendencies. Some years ago a Swedish museum promoted the idea that muslims were common in ancient Viking trade ports like Birka outside of todays Stockholm. In that context a figure was created who was called "Vik-Inga Muhammed" and who talked in some kind of suburban slang language. The curators at the museum admitted that the figure was created because immigrant children with muslim background should feel more included when they came to the museum, or learned about the Viking age in school. Several archaeologists and historians protested though and in the end "Viking-Inga Muhammed" was dropped.
To this day there are still Europeans that promote all kinds of fringe nonsense such as the Egyptians of the Grand Canyon, which is obviously absurd. And again, the idea that Africans have to argue with people that Africans were in the ancient Nile Valley, which is totally in Africa, is different from arguing about ancient black Britons. People like throwing around these other ideas as somehow proof that Africans in ancient Africa is somehow fringe when it is not. And unfortunately a lot of people in the African diaspora are more interested in assimilation into foreign culture than promotion of African culture. So they aren't truly "Afrocentric". The whole point of ancient black Britons, blacks in Asia and the Americas is to show the proof of all humans originating in Africa . But that doesn't make those populations African either and unfortunately some people have gotten caught up in semantics over words like "african" vs "black" and so forth.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: To this day there are still Europeans that promote all kinds of fringe nonsense such as the Egyptians of the Grand Canyon, which is obviously absurd. And again, the idea that Africans have to argue with people that Africans were in the ancient Nile Valley, which is totally in Africa, is different from arguing about ancient black Britons. People like throwing around these other ideas as somehow proof that Africans in ancient Africa is somehow fringe when it is not. And unfortunately a lot of people in the African diaspora are more interested in assimilation into foreign culture than promotion of African culture. So they aren't truly "Afrocentric". The whole point of ancient black Britons, blacks in Asia and the Americas is to show the proof of all humans originating in Africa . But that doesn't make those populations African either and unfortunately some people have gotten caught up in semantics over words like "african" vs "black" and so forth.
Avoid using the term "African" as if the incredibly diverse population of this continent was homogeneous. Africa's population is heterogeneous, each with varying genetic and morphological characteristics, some of which may even have closer genetic/morphological affinities to populations outside of Africa. This principle also applies to populations in Asia.
Afrocentrists, as emphasized by Archeo, often trace their ancestry back to West/Central Africa, including Black Americans who have additional NW European heritage and of course these people are not similar to the ancient people of the Nile Valley. Consequently, their perspectives and narratives shouldn't automatically be deemed more authoritative or legitimate than those of Europeans or other groups. People of West/Central african descent are as foreign to the Nile Valley as Europeans if not more.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Africa's population is heterogeneous, each with varying genetic and morphological characteristics, some of which may even have closer genetic/morphological affinities to populations outside of Africa.
There are at least three possible things that account for that, aal true to varying extents:
A) Some Africans from distinct populations that began in Africa left Africa and some remained in Africa. The ones that left became more numerous in Eurasia as compared to the ones that stayed
B) Some Eurasians came into Africa and admixed with the Africans
C) People have lived in Africa longer than in other places and it has led to more genetic diversity
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Afrocentricism will never die because Eurocentricism never sleeps.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2707 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Afrocentrists, as emphasized by Archeo, often trace their ancestry back to West/Central Africa, including Black Americans who have additional NW European heritage
Black americans are made up of varied black ethnic groups like white americans. Black americans could be ethnic african americans,nigerian americans,jamaica americans,south african americans,black puerto rico ricans americans,black brazilians americans,ethiopians americans,black egyptians etc..
Rinse and repeat.
quote:Originally posted by Firewall:
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: the european admixed afro-american.
I don't know why you keep saying this(in fact i think i know why),just say african americans etc..but when you bring up white or european americans you do to not bring up the every time they have african admixture and what you said is non-sense /incorrect anyway.
If you bring up white americans next time i want you to keep that same energy and write something like this.
Antalas quote-
quote: Yes okay you're just playing on semantics and you do not have anything to back up your "possibly". Iberomaurusians were physically very different from modern europeans including the african admixed euro-american.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Afro-americans have NW european ancestry
Originally posted by Firewall: The way you write this you make it seem like it's all,but it's not true. Some african americans have NW european ancestry,not all.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: To this day there are still Europeans that promote all kinds of fringe nonsense such as the Egyptians of the Grand Canyon, which is obviously absurd. And again, the idea that Africans have to argue with people that Africans were in the ancient Nile Valley, which is totally in Africa, is different from arguing about ancient black Britons. People like throwing around these other ideas as somehow proof that Africans in ancient Africa is somehow fringe when it is not. And unfortunately a lot of people in the African diaspora are more interested in assimilation into foreign culture than promotion of African culture. So they aren't truly "Afrocentric". The whole point of ancient black Britons, blacks in Asia and the Americas is to show the proof of all humans originating in Africa . But that doesn't make those populations African either and unfortunately some people have gotten caught up in semantics over words like "african" vs "black" and so forth.
Avoid using the term "African" as if the incredibly diverse population of this continent was homogeneous. Africa's population is heterogeneous, each with varying genetic and morphological characteristics, some of which may even have closer genetic/morphological affinities to populations outside of Africa. This principle also applies to populations in Asia.
Afrocentrists, as emphasized by Archeo, often trace their ancestry back to West/Central Africa, including Black Americans who have additional NW European heritage and of course these people are not similar to the ancient people of the Nile Valley. Consequently, their perspectives and narratives shouldn't automatically be deemed more authoritative or legitimate than those of Europeans or other groups. People of West/Central african descent are as foreign to the Nile Valley as Europeans if not more.
I use the word Africa because it is an accurate description of the populations. You have various African populations in Europe and not all of them originate in one nation in Africa because the entire continent of Africa has been colonized in some shape or form at some point. And within that context, I am speaking of the fact that across the continent there are many different cultures that could be explored as part of promoting and defining pride for people of African descent but many of these immigrants are not interested in doing that. The point of true Afrocentrism means centered on African history and culture in general, which includes all the diversity in language, culture, tradition and so forth all over the continent. That has always been the core definition not so-called "fringe" theories that some people like to obsess over... As for the Nile Valley, it is completely in Africa and there are black Africans that have been along the entire length of its shores since the beginning of humans. And none of those populations are West Africans, just as Sudanese and Upper Egyptians are not West Africans either. Not that the traversing of the Sahara and Sahel hasn't been ongoing in Africa for tens of thousands of years by black Africans from different parts of the continent.
The reason why African Americans have been so vocal about Afrocentrism is because they were forcibly stripped of their identity as specific African ethnic groups and languages and customs as part of the slave trade. So they see the history of Africa in a wholistic way, not as being part of a specific ethic group. And quiet as it is kept most Africans are overly obsessed with their own ethnic identity over and above simply being Africans, so this idea of "North Africans" or Berbers as distinct from other Africans is not uncommon for any African ethnic group in any part of Africa. And it is that lack of unity as part of a larger cultural and geographic identity called African that hurts Africans, especially in the study and exploration of their own history as Africans. This is why African American voices on the topic are so loud given that they live in America which has such a global media presence. And this is also why the Eurocentric establishment hates them so much because they seem to be the only ones challenging that establishment.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: It's similar to nationalism or religion influencing an analysis of world history
Eurocentric political dominance requires renewal of the myth of a white European history that never existed... Eurocentric mytho history has real consequences, life and death consequences on people, economic consequences, global warming consequences, but y'all unserious people in here worried about " afrocentrics" and a black cleopatra.
UNSERIOUS!!!
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2707 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Eurocentric political dominance requires renewal of the myth of a white European history that never existed...
What are some of the top claims about European history that are widely accepted but false?
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Eurocentric political dominance requires renewal of the myth of a white European history that never existed...
What are some of the top claims about European history that are widely accepted but false?
Again... an unserious question from someone who has been here supposedly for so long. Google is literally a tap or two away for you to answer this question.
Eight Eurocentric historians Book by James Morris Blaut
he Colonizer's Model of the World
White Greece is a myth see Black Athena White Jesus is a myth White Egypt or non black Egypt is a myth White India is a myth Whiteness is a myth... they did not exist more than 5k years ago..
Eurasia is a myth Eurasian genetics is a myth The True Negro is a myth of Eurocentricism The Middle East is a myth The Mercator global map is a myth Non African Natufian is a myth...
I could go on, but you know, you can read, you can google.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2707 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
In Motala in Sweden we find people with the genetic disposition for light skin (and also light hair and light eyes) about 8000 years ago.
Alleles for light skin arose in the ancestors of Europeans and East Asians independently.
Blackness is also a myth, few peoples are literally black. Black is just a way to lump together a lot of people with different brown complexions. It is too unprecise to be useful in a scientific context.
A black Jesus is also a myth. In her Book "What did Jesus look like?" Joan Taylor, after having interviewed several anthropologists in Israel (and assessed a lot of other material) came to the conclusion that the people in what is today Israel during Jesus time were physically not unlike todays Iraqi Jews.
The Eurasian continent is no more myth than the African continent. These landmasses exist. Then one of course can choose different parts of them and call them by different names, that is another matter.
Of course there are genetic traits that exists in Eurasia. People on this landmass do not lack genes or genetics. And we find mutations and markers that we do not find in Africa.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2687 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Eurocentric political dominance requires renewal of the myth of a white European history that never existed...
What are some of the top claims about European history that are widely accepted but false?
Google is literally a tap or two away for you to answer this question.
I only use black owned information sources, not google.
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Eurocentric political dominance requires renewal of the myth of a white European history that never existed...
What are some of the top claims about European history that are widely accepted but false?
Google is literally a tap or two away for you to answer this question.
I only use black owned information sources, not google.
Unserious as I said
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2707 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
What is the reality? Don't tell me to google it because if I google it I can get hundreds of different answers. You tell us, What was the reality of Jesus?
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
White Greece is a myth see Black Athena
What do you mean? Are you saying Bernal said the Greeks were not "white"? Do you have a quote from Black Athena that says that? Don't bullshit me about "unserious question" That just means you don't like the question. Do you have a quote from Black Athena that says the Greeks were not white? Let's see if you know what you are talking about. I don't care that much about these simplistic concepts "white" and "black" (sides of the same stereotype coin) but you put the above statement out there, now let's see if you have quote to support it
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
White India is a myth
If you look up "white India" in google (I said you not me) If you look up "white India" in google nothing comes up except description of ink. Again you would need to elaborate, it sounds like you have a few simplistic concepts but no handle on the information, I'm supposed to google it. I suppose you are talking about Aryans but it sounds like you have none of this memorized. The least you could do is google it and then SELECT and explanation YOU think is right. If Djehuti or Doug make statements they can explain what they say off the top of their head, without having to "google it" If I google something to answer a question that could lead to anything, some sites will says man landed on the moon, others will say it was faked. So you go and google something and find a brief SERIOUS explanation that supports YOUR opinion
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
Whiteness is a myth... they did not exist more than 5k years ago..
Try to make sense. If something existed for 5,000 it's not a myth
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
Eurasia is a myth
Again a statement that makes no sense unless explained, it's the name of a landmass. Google WHY "Eurasia is a myth", see if anything comes up, get back to me. This shit is Mickey
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
The True Negro is a myth of Eurocentricism
Do you think if you go into any University a professor is going to be talking about "True Negro" ?
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: The Middle East is a myth
Is Africa a myth?
^^ answer this, I dare you
The Middle East is a just a name for a region. There are numerous different words for apples in various languages. That doesn't means apples don't exist. We can draw any kind of arbitrary boundary line on a world map and name it. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We are in grown folks land
Let's see if you can handle these serious questions, first do your homework in google
I notice another BS tactic people sometimes use, when asked a question instead of answering or saying they don't know, they list a book, long article or multi-page thread in a forum
They don't have a handle on the information and can't find a quote that supports their argument. Instead they refer you to a book and hope that you won't have the patience to read the whole book or multi-page thread to find some small something that may support THEIR argument and sometimes when I put in the time to read a long article, either they have distorted the information, there is something else in the article that contradicts their interpretation or the damn thing isn't in there at all !
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
basal eurasion is a myth too Scientific racism is a myth
quote:Dr. Tishkoff pointed to the genetic variation among people in Africa, where she has done field work for decades. Humans arose in Africa about 200,000 years ago and diversified into many populations, which have mixed together over thousands of generations. A wave of people expanded out of Africa about 60,000 years ago, spreading to other continents.
That history makes it impossible to identify a genetic makeup of all Africans that would correspond to a Black race. “There’s going to be more diversity between neighboring groups in certain regions of Africa than we see across the globe,” Dr. Tishkoff said.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2707 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
you're a rookie. You various "is a myth" statements are not explained as to why you think whatever is a myth
For instance to say "Scientific racism is a myth" is like saying racism doesn't exist
That is not the same as saying "Scientific racism is based on distorted and false information"
If Clyde makes statements and I ask him a question about them or to explain he always does. With you it's all memes
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Guidelines Warn Against Racial Categories in Genetic Research A new report from the National Academies of Science noted that race was a poor proxy for genetic diversity. NYTimes, March 14, 2023
Dr. Tishkoff pointed to the genetic variation among people in Africa, where she has done field work for decades. Humans arose in Africa about 200,000 years ago and diversified into many populations, which have mixed together over thousands of generations. A wave of people expanded out of Africa about 60,000 years ago, spreading to other continents.
That history makes it impossible to identify a genetic makeup of all Africans that would correspond to a Black race. “There’s going to be more diversity between neighboring groups in certain regions of Africa than we see across the globe,” Dr. Tishkoff said.
This is an article by an author named Carl Zimmer writing in the NYTimes He is talking about the researcher Sarah Tishkoff talking about Africans and then he brings up the racial term "Black" suggesting some Africans are not Black.
The implication of this article is that race, "white" , "black" etc are obsolete terms
Thus you can't accuse white or black people of doing things, you will have to switch to nationality/geographic terms, European, British, African, West African, etc, whatever I would say that is not perfect but could be an improvement over superficial color based terms
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2707 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
The World's Oldest Meme - (and it's origin in Scientific Racism)
quote: In the heart of the digital landscape, where memes are born and evolve, one phrase stands as a testament to the complexities of history and the persistence of derogatory stereotypes: 'we wuz kangz.' Join us on an enlightening journey through the annals of the internet as we explore the origins of this meme and its profound connection to the legacy of harmful narratives.
Just as the Sphinx of ancient Egypt has left its indelible mark on history, so too has 'we wuz kangz' become a symbol of hate and gaslighting. We will investigate the profound impact of this phrase as we peel back the layers of history.
Much like the Sphinx's true image astonished early European historians, the genesis of this meme might surprise you. Discover how figures like Charles Darwin, Karl Otfried Muller, George Gliddon, and William Flinders Petrie unwittingly contributed to the foundations of modern understanding, often built upon the troubling scaffolding of harmful stereotypes.
In this thought-provoking documentary, we'll uncover the connections between these historical narratives and the emergence of 'we wuz kangz' as a derogatory response to African heritage reclamation. As we journey through this complex web of ideas, we invite you to reflect on the meme's role in perpetuating harmful narratives and reshaping our understanding of identity and history.
Prepare to be captivated by the enigmatic history of 'we wuz kangz' and its resonance in the digital age. The past and present collide in a narrative that transcends the virtual realm and delves into the heart of cultural discourse. Welcome to a world where memes become mirrors reflecting the complexities of our shared human story.
posted
African History VS Tiktokers PART 2: Tiktoker Lies About Mr. Imhotep
quote: This Tiktoker is accusing me of lying to you. He decided to debunk my video about one of his videos on Ancient Egypt. Well, here is my answer. Do you agree with me or do you side with the tiktoker? Let me know what you think in the comments below. Let's talk about this because it's very dangerous. With such a large audience, one can't play with what we share. This is very misleading. Millions of people may be now believing these lies.
quote: Afrocentrism is a worldview that centered on the history of people of African descent or a biased view that favors it over non-African civilizations. It is in some respects a response to Eurocentric attitudes about African people and their historical contributions. It seeks to counter what it sees as mistakes and ideas perpetuated by the racist philosophical underpinnings of Western academic disciplines as they developed during and since Europe's Early Renaissance as justifying rationales for the enslavement of other peoples, in order to enable more accurate accounts of not only African but all people's contributions to world history.Afrocentricity deals primarily with self-determination and African agency and is a pan-African point of view for the study of culture, philosophy, and history.
Afrocentrism is a scholarly movement that seeks to conduct research and education on global history subjects, from the perspective of historical African peoples and polities. It takes a critical stance on Eurocentric assumptions and myths about world history, in order to pursue methodological studies of the latter. Some of the critics of the movement believe that it often denies or minimizes European, Near Eastern, and Asian cultural influences while exaggerating certain aspects of historical African civilizations that independently accomplished a significant level of cultural and technological development. In general, Afrocentrism is usually manifested in a focus on the history of Africa and its role in contemporary African-American culture among others.
What is today broadly called Afrocentrism evolved out of the work of African American intellectuals in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, but flowered into its modern form due to the activism of African American intellectuals in the U.S. civil rights movement and in the development of African American studies programs in universities. However, following the development of universities in African colonies in the 1950s, African scholars became major contributors to African historiography. A notable pioneer is the professor Kenneth Dike, who became chairman of the Committee on African Studies at Harvard in the 1970s. In strict terms Afrocentrism, as a distinct historiography, reached its peak in the 1980s and 1990s. Today[when?] it is primarily associated with Cheikh Anta Diop, John Henrik Clarke, Ivan van Sertima and Molefi Kete Asante. Asante, however, describes his theories as Afrocentricity.
Proponents of Afrocentrism support the claim that the contributions of various Black African people have been downplayed or discredited as part of the legacy of colonialism and slavery's pathology of "writing Africans out of history".
Major critics of Afrocentrism include Mary Lefkowitz, who dismiss it as pseudohistory, reactive, and obstinately therapeutic. Others, such as Kwame Anthony Appiah, believe that Afrocentrism defeats its purpose of dismantling unipolar studies of world history by seeking to replace Eurocentricity with an equally ethnocentric and hierarchical curriculum, and negatively essentializes European culture and people of European descent. Clarence E. Walker claims it to be "Eurocentrism in blackface".
Terminology
quote: The term "Afrocentrism" dates to 1962. The adjective "Afrocentric" appears in a typescript proposal for an entry in Encyclopedia Africana, possibly due to W. E. B. Du Bois. The abstract noun "Afrocentricity" dates to the 1970s, and was popularized by Molefi Asante's Afrocentricity: The Theory of Social Change (1980). Molefi Kete Asante's theory, Afrocentricity, has been one developed in academic settings and may incorporate the terms Afrocentric to describe scholarship and Afrocentrists to describe scholars, but does not use Afrocentrism. According to Asante, though the two terms are often confused to mean the same, Afrocentrists are not adherents of Afrocentrism.[ This has caused confusing notions about who is considered an Afrocentrist, as various scholars who may or may not be associated with Asante and his works have been erroneously given the title, even by other academics. Asante has written that Afrocentricity and Afrocentrism are not the same and neither do they share the same origin:
By way of distinction, Afrocentricity should not be confused with the variant Afrocentrism. The term “Afrocentrism” was first used by the opponents of Afrocentricity who in their zeal saw it as an obverse of Eurocentrism. The adjective “Afrocentric” in the academic literature always referred to “Afrocentricity.” However, the use of “Afrocentrism” reflected a negation of the idea of Afrocentricity as a positive and progressive paradigm. The aim was to assign religious signification to the idea of African centeredness. However, it has come to refer to a broad cultural movement of the late twentieth century that has a set of philosophical, political, and artistic ideas which provides the basis for the musical, sartorial, and aesthetic dimensions of the African personality. On the other hand, Afrocentricity, as I have previously defined it, is a theory of agency, that is, the idea that African people must be viewed and view themselves as agents rather than spectators to historical revolution and change. To this end Afrocentricity seeks to examine every aspect of the subject place of Africans in historical, literary, architectural, ethical, philosophical, economic, and political life.
History
quote: Afrocentrism has its origins in the work of African and African diaspora intellectuals in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, following social changes in the United States and Africa due both to the end of slavery and the decline of colonialism. Following the American Civil War, African Americans in the South gathered together in communities to evade white control, established their own church congregations, and worked hard to gain education. They increasingly took more active public roles despite severe racial discrimination and segregation. American and African intellectuals looked to the African past for a re-evaluation of what its civilizations had achieved and what they meant for contemporary people.
Afrocentric education
quote: Afrocentric education is education designed to empower peoples of the African diaspora. A central premise behind it is that many Africans have been subjugated by limiting their awareness of themselves and indoctrinating them with ideas that work against them.To control a people's culture is to control their tools of self-determination in relationship to others. Like educational leaders of other cultures, proponents assert that what educates one group of people does not necessarily educate and empower another group–so they assert educational priorities distinctly for the Africans in a given context.
Race and Pan-African identity
quote: Many Afrocentrists[who?] seek to challenge concepts such as white privilege, color-blind perspectives, and race-neutral pedagogies. There are strong ties between Afrocentricity and Critical race theory.
Afrocentrists agree with the current scientific consensus that holds that Africans exhibit a range of types and physical characteristics, and that such elements as wavy hair or aquiline facial features are part of a continuum of African types that do not depend on admixture with Caucasian groups. They cite work by Hiernaux and Hassan that they believe demonstrates that populations could vary based on micro-evolutionary principles (climate adaptation, drift, selection), and that such variations existed in both living and fossil Africans.
Afrocentrists have condemned what they consider to be attempts at dividing African peoples into racial clusters as new versions of discredited theories, such as the Hamitic hypothesis and the Dynastic Race Theory. These theories, they contend, attempted to identify certain African ethnicities, such as Nubians, Ethiopians and Somalis, as "Caucasoid" groups that entered Africa to bring civilization to the natives. They believe that Western academics have traditionally limited the peoples they defined as "Black" Africans to those south of the Sahara, but used broader "Caucasoid" or related categories to classify peoples of Egypt or North Africa. Afrocentrists also believe strongly in the work of certain anthropologists who have suggested that there is little evidence to support that the first North African populations were closely related to "Caucasoids" of Europe and western Asia.
In 1964 Afrocentric scholar Cheikh Anta Diop expressed a belief in such a double standard:
But it is only the most gratuitous theory that considers the Dinka, the Nouer and the Masai, among others, to be Caucasoids. What if an African ethnologist were to persist in recognising as white only the blond, blue-eyed Scandinavians, and systematically refused membership to the remaining Europeans, and Mediterraneans in particular—the French, Italians, Greek, Spanish, and Portuguese? Just as the inhabitants of Scandinavia and the Mediterranean countries must be considered as two extreme poles of the same anthropological reality, so should the Negroes of East and West Africa be considered as the two extremes in the reality of the Negro world. To say that a Shillouk, a Dinka, or a Nouer is a Caucasoid is for an African as devoid of sense and scientific interest as would be, to a European, an attitude that maintained that a Greek or a Latin were not of the same race.
French historian Jean Vercoutter has claimed that archaeological workers routinely classified Negroid remains as Mediterranean, even though they found such remains in substantial numbers with ancient artefacts.
Some Afrocentrists[who?] have adopted a pan-Africanist perspective that people of color are all "African people" or "diasporic Africans," citing physical characteristics they exhibit in common with Black Africans. Afrocentric scholar Runoko Rashidi writes that they are all part of the "global African community." Some Afrocentric writers include in the African diaspora the Dravidians of India, "Negritos" of Southeast Asia (Thailand, the Philippines and Malaysia); and the aboriginal peoples of Australia and Melanesia.
A few Afrocentrists[who?] claim that the Olmecs of Mexico were a hybrid society of Native American peoples and Africans. Mainstream historians of Mesoamerica overwhelmingly reject that view with detailed rebuttals.
Wikipedia
Note- i am only posting some of the info about Afrocentrism from wikipedia.
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote: In the 1970s, Ivan van Sertima advanced the theory that the complex civilizations of the Americas were the result of trans-oceanic influence from the Egyptians or other African civilizations. Such a claim is his primary thesis in They Came Before Columbus, published in 1978. The few hyper-diffusionist writers seek to establish that the Olmec people, who built the first highly complex civilization in Mesoamerica and are considered by some to be the mother civilization for all other civilizations of Mesoamerica, were deeply influenced by Africans. Van Sertima said that the Olmec civilization was a hybrid one of Africans and Native Americans. His theory of pre-Columbian American-African contact has since met with considerable and detailed opposition by scholars of Mesoamerica. Van Sertima has been accused of "doctoring" and twisting data to fit his conclusions, inventing evidence, and ignoring the work of respected Central and South American scholars in the advance of his own theory.
Afrocentrism and Ancient Egypt
quote: Several Afrocentrists have claimed that important cultural characteristics of ancient Egypt were indigenous to Africa and that these features were present in other early African civilizations such as the later Kerma and the Meroitic civilizations of Nubia. Scholars who have held this view include Marcus Garvey, George James, Cheikh Anta Diop, Martin Bernal, Ivan van Sertima, John Henrik Clarke, Chancellor Williams, and Molefi Kete Asante. The claim has also been made by many Afrocentric scholars that the Ancient Egyptians themselves were Black African (sub-saharan African) rather than North African/Maghrebi, and that the various invasions on Egypt resulted in the "Africanity" of Ancient Egypt becoming diluted, resulting in the modern diversity seen today. Examining this view, Egyptologist Stuart Tyson Smith, wrote that "Any characterization of race of the ancient Egyptians depends on modern cultural definitions, not on scientific study. Thus, by modern American standards it is reasonable to characterise the Egyptians as 'black', while acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans". Smith, however, expressed criticism of Egyptologists and Afrocentrists that defined ancient Egyptians "as members of an essentialist racial category" with perceived "Caucasoid" or "Negroid/Africoid" phenotypes".
As historian Ronald H. Fritze argued, mainstream Egyptologists and other scholars strongly object to Afrocentric Egyptology, viewing it as "theurapetic mythology" for black people, since it fails to provide sufficient evidence or persuasive interpretations to back up its claims.
Stephen Howe, professor in the history and cultures of colonialism at Bristol University, writes that contrary to "Afrocentric speculation, depending on undocumented assertions that the relatively light-skinned people of the lower Nile today descend from Arab conquerors rather than earlier residents". Howe also cited a 1995 publication which stated "the latest major synthetic work on African populations is firmly of the opinion that "It was not the Arabs physically displaced Egyptians. Instead the Egyptians were transformed by relatively small number of immigrants bringing in new ideas, which, when disseminated, created a wider ethnic identity".
S.O.Y. Keita, a biological anthropologist and research affilitate at the Smithsonian Institution who has been described as sympathetic to Afrocentrism,but defined his position as that "it is not a question of “African” “influence”; Ancient Egypt was organically African. Studying early Egypt in its African context is not “Afrocentric,” but simply correct". Keita has argued that the original inhabitants of the Nile Valley were primarily a variety of indigenous Northeast Africans from the areas of the desiccating Sahara and more southerly areas. He reviewed studies on the biological affinities of the Ancient Egyptian population and described the skeletal morphologies of early dynastic Egyptian remains as a "Saharo-tropical African variant". He also noted that over time gene flow from the Near East and Europe added more genetic variability to the region.In 2022, Keita argued that some genetic studies have a "default racialist or racist approach" and should be interpreted in a framework with other sources of evidence. Several other academics, including Christopher Ehret, Fekri Hassan, Bruce Williams, Frank Yurco, Molefi Kete Asante, Lanny Bell and A.J. Boyce across various disciplines have contended that Ancient Egypt was fundamentally an African civilization, with cultural and biological connections to Egypt's African neighbors.
Scholars have challenged the various assertions of Afrocentrists on the cultural and biological characteristics of Ancient Egyptian civilization and its people. At a UNESCO Symposium in the 1970s, some of the participants, including Jean Vercoutter, Serge Sauneron, Gunnar Säve-Söderbergh and Jean Leclant expressed "profound" disagreement with the "Black", homogeneous hypothesis.Despite contestations, UNESCO decided to include his "Origin of the ancient Egyptians" in the General History of Africa, with an editorial comment mentioning the disagreement. However, Diop's chapter was credited as a "painstakingly researched contribution" in the general conclusion of the symposium report by the International Scientific Committee's Rapporteur, Professor Jean Devisse,which nevertheless lead to a "real lack of balance" in the discussion among participants.The ancient world did not employ racial categories such as "Black" or "White" as they had no conception of "race", but rather labeled groups according to their land of origin and cultural traits. However, Keita studying the controversy, finds simplistic political appellations (in the negative or affirmative) describing ancient populations as "black" or "white" to be inaccurate and instead focuses on the ancestry of ancient Egypt as being a part of the native and diverse biological variation of Africa, which includes a variety of phenotypes and skin gradients.
Egyptian Egyptologist Zahi Hawass has gone on record as saying that the Ancient Egyptians were not black and “We believe that the origin of Ancient Egyptians was purely Egyptian based on the discovery made by British Egyptologist Flinders Petrie at Naqada, and this is why the Ancient Egyptian civilisation did not occur in Africa, it occurred only here”. In 2022, Hawass reiterated his view that "Africans have nothing to do with the pyramids scientifically" and stated that Africans "ruled in Egypt in the late Era, at the time of the 25th dynasty". Hawass also accused some international figures of African descent that promoted Afrocentrism of racism and fabrication of Egyptian history.
In 2008, Stuart Tyson Smith expressed criticism of a facial reconstruction of Tutankhamun as "very light-skinned" which reflected "bias" and "predictably and justifiably, it has provoked protests from Afrocentrists" as "Egyptologists have been strangely reluctant to admit that the ancient Egyptians were rather dark-skinned Africans, especially the farther south one goes".
In 2011, Stephen Quirke, professor of Egyptian Archaeology and Philology argued that the UNESCO-sponsored conference on the General History of Africa in 1974 "did not change the Eurocentric climate of research" and of the need to incorporate both African-centred studies and White European, academic perspectives. He later outlined that "research conferences and publications on the history and language of Kemet [Egypt] remain dominated ... by those brought up and trained in European, not African societies and languages (which include Arabic)".
African-American Afrocentric "hoteps" and the far-right
quote:
African-Americans who use the Black Egyptian hypothesis as a source of black pride have been called "the hoteps" (after the Egyptian word hotep). The term has often been used disparagingly by non-hotep African-Americans, some of whom have linked the ideology of the hotep community – which is anti-feminist, anti-gay and anti-Semitic – to the far-right. Hoteps have been described as promoting false histories and misinformation about black people and black history. Some have argued hotep beliefs are too narrow-minded (focusing only on Egypt as opposed to other aspects of African history), and black feminists argue that hoteps perpetuate rape culture by policing women's sexuality and not criticizing predatory black men.
Others
quote:Within Afrocentrism, claims have been forwarded involving the contention that African civilizations were founding influences on such distant civilizations as the American Olmec and the Chinese Xia cultures.
Wikipedia
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote: Afrocentrism has encountered significant opposition from mainstream scholars who charge it with historical inaccuracy, scholarly ineptitude, and racism.
Yaacov Shavit, a critic of the movement, summarises its goals in the preface to his book History in Black, in which he states:
Thus, if historical myths and legends, or an invented history, play such a major role in the founding of every national reconstruction, the question that should concern us here is the nature of the distinct style in which black Americans imagine their past. The answer to this question is that radical Afrocentrism, the subject of this study, which plays a central role in shaping the modern historical world-view of a large section of the African-American (or Afro-American) community, is far more than an effort to follow the line taken by many ethnic groups and nations in modern rewriting, inventing or developing collective identity and national history. Rather, it is a large-scale historical project to rewrite the history of the whole of humankind from an Afrocentric point of view. The result is a new reconstruction of world history: it is a universal history.
Other critics, such as Mary Lefkowitz, contend that the Afrocentric historical approach is entrenched in myth and fantasy. She argues that Afrocentrism is grounded in identity politics and myth rather than sound scholarship. In The Skeptic's Dictionary,philosophy professor Robert Todd Carroll labeled Afrocentrism "pseudohistorical". He argued that Afrocentrism's prime goal was to encourage black nationalism and ethnic pride in order to effectively combat the destructive consequences of cultural and universal racism. Professor of history Clarence E. Walker has described Afrocentrism as "a mythology that is racist, reactionary, essentially therapeutic and is eurocentrism in black face."
Classicist Mary Lefkowitz rejects George James's theories about Egyptian contributions to Greek civilization as being faulty scholarship. She writes that ancient Egyptian texts show little similarity to Greek philosophy. Lefkowitz states that Aristotle could not have stolen his ideas from the great Library at Alexandria as James suggested, because the library was founded after Aristotle's death. On the basis of such errors, Lefkowitz calls Afrocentrism "an excuse to teach myth as history." Mary Lefkowitz in 1997 whilst criticising elements of Afrocentrism had acknowledged that the origins of the ancient Egyptians were more clear due to the "recent evidence on skeletons and DNA [which] suggests that the people who settled in the Nile valley, like all of humankind, came from somewhere south of the Sahara; they were not (as some nineteenth-century scholars had supposed) invaders from the North".
In 2002, Ibrahim Sundiata wrote in the American Historical Review that:
The word "Afrocentric" has been traced by Derrick Alridge to the American historian W.E.B. Du Bois, who employed it in the early 1960s. During the 1970s, Molefi Kete Asante appropriated the term, insisting that he was the only person equipped to define it, and asserting that even the holy archangels Du Bois and Cheikh Anta Diop had an imperfect and immature grasp of a concept that finds ultimate expression in his own pontifications. Subsequently, it became a catchall "floating signifier," nebulous, unstable, and infinitely mutable.
Literature and languages scholar Cain Hope Felder, a supporter of Afrocentric ideas, has warned Afrocentrists to avoid certain pitfalls,including:
Demonizing categorically all white people, without careful differentiation between persons of goodwill and those who consciously perpetuate racism.
Adopting multiculturalism as a curricular alternative that eliminates, marginalizes, or vilifies European heritage to the point that Europe epitomizes all the evil in the world.
Gross over-generalizations and using factually or incorrect material is bad history and bad scholarship.
Nathan Glazer writes that although Afrocentricity can mean many things, the popular press has generally given most attention to its most outlandish theories. Glazer agrees with many of the findings and conclusions presented in Lefkowitz's book Not Out of Africa. Yet he also argues that Afrocentrism often presents legitimate and relevant scholarship.The late Manning Marable was also a critic of Afrocentrism. He wrote:
Populist Afrocentrism was the perfect social theory for the upwardly mobile black petty bourgeoisie. It gave them a sense of ethnic superiority and cultural originality, without requiring the hard, critical study of historical realities. It provided a philosophical blueprint to avoid concrete struggle within the real world.... It was, in short, only the latest theoretical construct of a politics of racial identity, a world-view designed to discuss the world but never really to change it.
Some Afrocentrists[who?] agree in rejecting those works which critics have characterized as examples of bad scholarship. Adisa A. Alkebulan states that the work of Afrocentric scholars is not fully appreciated because critics use the claims of "a few non-Afrocentrists" as "an indictment against Afrocentricity."
In 1996, the historian August Meier critically reviewed the new work of Mary Lefkowitz on Afrocentrism as "Eurocentric". He criticized her book Not out of Africa: How Afrocentrism became an Excuse to Teach Myth as History for what he saw as her neglect of the African-American historic literature of the 19th and 20th centuries. Meier believes she fails to take the African-American experiences into account, to the extent that she "fails to answer the question raised in this book's subtitle".
Maghan Keita describes the controversy over Afrocentrism as a cultural war. He believes certain "epistemologies" are warring with each other: the "epistemology of blackness" argues for the "responsibilities and potential of black peoples to function in and contribute to the progress of civilization."
Wikipedia
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: basal eurasion is a myth too Scientific racism is a myth
quote:Dr. Tishkoff pointed to the genetic variation among people in Africa, where she has done field work for decades. Humans arose in Africa about 200,000 years ago and diversified into many populations, which have mixed together over thousands of generations. A wave of people expanded out of Africa about 60,000 years ago, spreading to other continents.
That history makes it impossible to identify a genetic makeup of all Africans that would correspond to a Black race. “There’s going to be more diversity between neighboring groups in certain regions of Africa than we see across the globe,” Dr. Tishkoff said.
Race as defined by Europeans over 200 years ago is the origin of scientific racism and it has always been based on skin color. It was never about genetics and Dr Tishkoff knows it but she needs to pretend that this all is just some random thing that appeared in scientific discourse. Because modern European global domination of anthropology and archaeology originates in the colonial era when European scientists went around the world ranking populations using skin color to define race. Not to mention the fact that most arguing for light skin in Northern Africa is due to Eurasian migrations, not indigenous African evolution.
The only reason they have been able to get away with denying this history is because after the 1960s and civil rights, overt racism was no longer legal. So they could no longer use the racial language and theories in their scholarship like they used to. And they began 'playing stupid' and acting dumb about the history of racism that was ripe within their field. That became the main tactic they used against the so-called Afrocentrics, including trying to act like African scholars introduced skin color into the study of human history or African history.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2707 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even to mention a racist meme is to give it worth to do so
but now that it's on the table, from what I'm reading the original "We Wuz Kangz" was spread by 4chan (a forum) in 2015 at that time titled "we wuz kings n shit fam" (the "kangz" spelling seemed to come later)
posted
It can be hard for young people on social media who have a budding interest for history and archaeology to navigate among all the both false and true information on websites and social media. Thus it can also be hard to separate more academic Afrocentricity from all kinds of fringe theories that are promoted.
In the beginning of the thread for example Clyde Winters is mentioned. He has a YouTube channel called clyde Winters Afrocentric History Site where he present all kinds of rather odd theories.
In one of his videos he even promotes the old hoax about Ancient Egyptians in Grand Canyon.
posted
^ Afrocentricism that seeks to steal cultures not only outside of Africa but those as far as India, Thailand, and Olmec America is nothing more than a pathetic form of the Aryanist attempts of culture theft seen in the 1930s to 40s ala the Nazi Ahnenerbe. It's like the idiotic cult of "Black Hebrew Israelites" here in the U.S. is a pathetic reincarnation of 'White British Israelite' cult of Britain.
People like to attack the easy target of misguided Afrocentrics but ignore the original European progenators of such racial ideology.
Take for example the black Olmec beliefs, which are nowhere near as prevalent as the 'Solutrean Nativists' or 'White Amerindian' followers including a college professor of mine. I have yet to see a black professor or any black person dress up as an 'Olmec' or Meso-American.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic