posted
There are many Pseudo-Egyptocentric researchers here at ES. They spend their time attacking each other. The pseudo-Egyptocentric researchers are of two schools. One group accepts anything written by a "European Authority" as valid and reliable and will fight to the death supporting this research witout, reservation e.g., the white Berbers are native to Africa.
The second group supports Europeans who write any piece supporting Black contributionism to ancient history i.e., Black Athena, and Black Genesis.
Most contributors here are not original thinkers. The science they practice is called: "Science by Authority". People who practice science by authority believe that any research done by a European--no matter who they are, or done by Black researchers found acceptable by Europeans in the academy, e.g., Gates, Mboli and Keita is recognized as correct while they ignore research from "alternative African scholarly sources." not recognized by "mainstream" i.e., "Europeans".
A coconut is brown on the outside and white on the inside.
A coconut represents Blacks who are confused about their identity and need someone white to verify they are thinking correct and scholarly.These people spend their time citing any white scholar that happens to claim that Blacks have contributed anything to history.
The best example of this is references to Bernal's Black Athena-- which was promoting a Semitic-centric [Hyksos] origin for the Egyptian influence on ancient Greece--as an "Afro-Centric text".
These pseudo-coconuts they are pseudo-coconuts because they don't don't consiously see themselves as uncle TOMS because they support their views by citing any European who promotes an idea they feel illustrates a contribution of Blacks to world history. They don't realize that they continue to practice the old Afro-American saying, "If you're "white you're right.If you're black get back. If you're brown [or acceptable to whites] stick around.
The "alternative African scholarly sources." would represent the heroes of the Afrocentric Social Sciences: DuBois, J.A. Rogers, Diop, John Jackson and etc.
In the 1990's, the media in articles published by Newsweek, the New York Times, and Time magazine, was able to show that Ivan van Sertima and Hunter Adams were Charlatan
quote:
A charlatan (also called swindler or mountebank) is a person practicing quackery or some similar confidence trick in order to obtain money, fame or other advantages via some form of pretense or deception.
Ivan was shown to be a Charlatan because he could not back-up what he had wrote in the books he edited in the 1980's.Hunter, pretended to be a scientist working at Argon National Laboratory when he was really a Janitor.
This was pure deception on the part of conservatives. The attacks on Ivan were unfounded because Ivan, as the editor of the books only wrote about the upcoming chapters in the books you were about to read. Hunter, was wrong to pretend he was a scientist. At the time Hunter was employed by the University of Chicago and could have got his degree through the University--but he refused to do eventhough I advise him to do so as early as 1979.
Young researchers who write on this site accept that Afrocentrism lacks any foundation because of the media attacks on Ivan and Hunter. These young people have an inferiority complex, and seek out any white/European authority to support their work.
They do this out of ignorance. They don't know that Hunter and Ivan were not Afrocentists. Ivan was not an Afrocentrist's, he made a name for himself popularizing the work of others.
As a result, eventhough no one has falsified the research of DuBois, John Jackson, J.A. Rogers Diop , and the other heroes of the Afrocentric Social Science, young people here spend all their time citing anything written by "whites" that show some sort of contribution of Blacks to ancient history.This is sad.
I have taught research methods at the Graduate school level for years. One of the things we teach Graduate students is to become expert consumers of research literature. They become expert comsumers by understanding the foundations and theories of learning and pedagogy.Using this as the knowledge base you crtically analyze eucational research based on these theories.
Young researchers here don't know the roots of Afrocentrism or they read this literature with a jaundice eye, colored by Europeans who hate Afrocentrism because it shows history has been white washed--to white out African people from history. This is a sad situation because we have a 200 year tradition of the Afrocentric Social Science that was mianly contructed by Afro-American scholars who held Phds and MAs, most from Harverd, e.g.,Carter G. Woodson, DuBois and Hansberry.
Because of the tradition of an Afrocentric Social Science, young researchers should base their understanding of the African origin of Egypt, based on the research of Afrocentric social science like DuBois and Diop. But instead of doing this the young researchers here seek out any white authority or Black recognized by these whites, to support the African origin of Egypt.
This is not the way research should be done. Good research should cite the original research done by the heroes of Afrocentric research, and then cite the recent research that confirms the original findings of the Afrocentric researchers. This would promote the continuity of research, instead of acting like every "new" publication on the African origin of Egypt is so significant or outstanding.
The research of Marc and Mike is a good example of confirmation studies, that is the major occupation of professional researchers. They have confirmed the theory of J.A. Rogers that the families of many European elites were of African origin. They also created a new hypothesis: Many early Americans were Black Europeans who immigrated to America from Europe. This was an important hypothesis, which Mike confirmed, because it added more evidence to the fact that all Afro-Americans were not slaves.
You can find out more on the Structure of the Afrocentric Social Science at:
Topic: Video: Primary Evidence - Ancient Egyptians were African
^^^in the intial post, clcik yourtube link black dude, an Egyptologist from Essex County college in Newark speaks on what he thinks is evidence of "Mountains on the Moon" , South origins for Egypt in the Famine Stele text
Also the reverse situation Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: There are many Pseudo-Egyptocentric researchers here at ES. They spend their time attacking each other. The pseudo-Egyptocentric researchers are of two schools. One group accepts anything written by a "European Authority" as valid and reliable and will fight to the death supporting this research witout, reservation e.g., the white Berbers are native to Africa.
The second group supports Europeans who write any piece supporting Black contributionism to ancient history i.e., Black Athena, and Black Genesis.
Most contributors here are not original thinkers. The science they practice is called: "Science by Authority". People who practice science by authority believe that any research done by a European--no matter who they are, or done by Black researchers found acceptable by Europeans in the academy, e.g., Gates, Mboli and Keita is recognized as correct while they ignore research from "alternative African scholarly sources." not recognized by "mainstream" i.e., "Europeans". .
Still, we can't ignore research done by mainstream egyptology just because it was done by Europeans!!
We must take into account all sources of information from mainstream egyptology as well as less mainstream egyptology/history such as Diop, Obenga, Williams, etc. There's bigots around the world, but also professional people. Each source must be judged by its own value.
Even yourself in your papers use European scholars as sources of information.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clyde what about Andrzej Wiercinski and Gerald Massey?
-And there are also well known afrocentric classic books in which they don't lists references yet many of those references are earlier vanilla researchers, some of Dr. Ben's books for instance
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Topic: Video: Primary Evidence - Ancient Egyptians were African
^^^in the intial post, clcik yourtube link black dude, an Egyptologist from Essex County college in Newark speaks on what he thinks is evidence of "Mountains on the Moon" , South origins for Egypt in the Famine Stele text
Also the reverse situation
Even though we dont always see eye to eye. I have to agree with this...
Especially the "reverse situation".
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Afro-centric and Eurocentrics forming a pact. Hmmmm. What is up?! And why?
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Young researchers here don't know the roots of Afrocentrism or they read this literature with a jaundice eye, colored by Europeans who hate Afrocentrism because it shows history has been white washed--to white out African people from history. This is a sad situation because we have a 200 year tradition of the Afrocentric Social Science that was mianly contructed by Afro-American scholars who held Phds and MAs, most from Harverd, e.g.,Carter G. Woodson, DuBois and Hansberry.
I think the root of the problem was bigotry among the 17th to 19th century "scholars". By scolars I mean the recognized experts who were primarily European and American. They really considered all other "races" to be inferior and tried to explain history in terms that made sense to them. Most all the paradigms they invented are still in existence today even where those beliefs are absurd on their face.
When Europe rose to ascendency it was taken as prima fascie evidence that Europeans were superior rather than evidence of numerous large trends coming together to foster their economic development. Rather than the ability to see that the mantle of human knowledge is passed from place to place over time they could see their own greatness and no further. Even this is "natural" to some extent since it's only since science has grown more powerful that any certain knowledge of ancient times has become apparent. Perhaps no matter what people happened to be at the forefront at that time would come to believe they were superior.
Over the next few decades science will provide real facts about details and the nuts and bolts of ancient civilizations. We're going to learn that most things are much different than they appear on the surface and that all the paradigms are wrong. The new paradigms will be wrong as well but they will be much closer to the reality and they will involve far less "race". Human progress is about trends and natural forces that drive it. Human progress is about language and has become about the language of science. The internet and scientific language should bind us so closely together that in the future intellectual progress comes from all corners and economic development is based largely on resources and demand.
Posts: 393 | From: NW Indiana, US of A | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
Quote: I think the root of the problem was bigotry among the 17th to 19th century "scholars". By scolars I mean the reconized experts who were primarily European and American. They really considered all other "races" to be inferior and tried to explain history in terms that made sense to them. Most all the paradigms they invented are still in existence today even where those beliefs are absurd on their face.
When Europe rose to ascendency it was taken as prima fascie evidence that Europeans were superior rather than evidence of numerous large trends coming together to foster their economic development. Rather than the ability to see that the mantle of human knowledge is passsed from place to place over time they saw their own greatness and no further. Even this is "natural" to some extent since it's only since science has grown more powerful that any certain knowledge of ancient times has become apparent. Perhaps no matter what people happebned to be at the forefront at that time would come to believe they were superior.
Over the next few decades science will provide real facts about details and the nuts and bolts of ancient civilizations. We're going to learn that most things are much different than they appear on the surface and that all the paradigms are wrong. The new paradigms will be wrong as well but they will be much closer to the reality and they will will involve far less "race". Human progress is about trends and natural forces that drive it. Human progress is …………. the language of science. The internet and scientific language should bind us so closely together ……. ……..
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to sound rude, but this is a bunch of BS.
quote:e.g., Gates, Mboli and Keita
Really? You put Mboli and Keita in the same boat as Gates? Mboli's work is not only accepted by "white" scholars (as its presence in various university libraries attests), but also African scholars from the African school of Egyptology, which he is a part of. It is getting annoying that you attack a scholar whose work you haven't read, tried to read snippets on the net, and then misrepresented his information and methods. Anyone who has actually purchased and read the book knows he builds off of Diop and Obenga and confirms this in a way because his method is rigorous and reduplicatable.
Often what I am seeing from Dr. Winters is that, when a researcher doesn't agree with his perspective, and they are Black, he claims that they are closet Eurocentrists. This is ad hominem. What Dr. Winters fails to do is systematically falsify any of the claims against him. He writes/cuts and pastes these long articles he wrote where he claims other (white) scholars "made clear" some claim, but he never demonstrates in his work how they "makes it clear" that they did so.
If someone is serious about learning research methods in Africana, I recommend the following works.
This work deals specifically with Afrocentric Methodology. It is a complete introduction. If you aren't dealing with what's in this text, you're not an Afrocentric scholar.
The next book is:
This is also a good book on methodology when dealing with African history. Before one can talk about methods, one must read texts on research methods.
Last but not least,
For those that don't know, this is a book on linguistic methods and the linguistic methods of Diop and Obenga. Don't let Dr. Winter's misinformed rhetoric fool you. This is the real deal. Let him drown in his own misery because most scholars isn't taking most of his work seriously. Once you start understanding method, you'll see why much of Dr. Winter's assertions can be thrown in the trash. This madness has to stop.
Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: Not to sound rude, but this is a bunch of BS.
quote:e.g., Gates, Mboli and Keita
Really? You put Mboli and Keita in the same boat as Gates? Mboli's work is not only accepted by "white" scholars (as its presence in various university libraries attests), but also African scholars from the African school of Egyptology, which he is a part of. It is getting annoying that you attack a scholar whose work you haven't read, tried to read snippets on the net, and then misrepresented his information and methods. Anyone who has actually purchased and read the book knows he builds off of Diop and Obenga and confirms this in a way because his method is rigorous and reduplicatable.
Often what I am seeing from Dr. Winters is that, when a researcher doesn't agree with his perspective, and they are Black, he claims that they are closet Eurocentrists. This is ad hominem. What Dr. Winters fails to do is systematically falsify any of the claims against him. He writes/cuts and pastes these long articles he wrote where he claims other (white) scholars "made clear" some claim, but he never demonstrates in his work how they "makes it clear" that they did so.
If someone is serious about learning research methods in Africana, I recommend the following works.
This work deals specifically with Afrocentric Methodology. It is a complete introduction. If you aren't dealing with what's in this text, you're not an Afrocentric scholar.
The next book is:
This is also a good book on methodology when dealing with African history. Before one can talk about methods, one must read texts on research methods.
Last but not least,
For those that don't know, this is a book on linguistic methods and the linguistic methods of Diop and Obenga. Don't let Dr. Winter's misinformed rhetoric fool you. This is the real deal. Let him drown in his own misery because most scholars isn't taking most of his work seriously. Once you start understanding method, you'll see why much of Dr. Winter's assertions can be thrown in the trash. This madness has to stop.
LOL . There have been no claims against my research made by any researchers I know of except Haslip-Viera, Ortiz de Montellano and Barbour (1997) and I answered them here:
Before I began to make presentations on my research on the Olmecs at national American Anthropological Association Conferences I was waiting to be attacked by the "experts" in the field. They usually attended my presentations and said nothing.
If you know of any papers where my research is disputed please let me know.
I have not seen any reviews of Mboli's work by African linguist. One of the reasons why may be because they are comparative linguist and have not done any research in historical linguistics.
I have done historical linguistic research for years and published numerous papers on Dravido-African linguistics and reconstructed proto-terms for these languages.This gives me the knowledge base to criticize his work.
Mboli's research is not based on the research of Obenga and Diop. This is obvious from the fact that Diop and Obenga accept Coptic as an aspect of Egyptian. Secondly, Mboli did not study any of the languages studied by Obenga and Diop. If I am wrong please correct me. If Mboli was such a supporter of there research he would have used some of their examples in his text.
Mboli did not use any of these examples because he wants to make Negro-Egyptian proto-terms identical to Indo-European.
Research methods in Africana studies is a resource for people conducting psycholgy, education or sociology research. I teach all of these research methods.
I know research and have taught a couple of hundred graduate students in the research courses I have taught. In addition I was the advisor for 45 students when they wrote their Master's Thesis, and I have served on the dissertation committees for 5 PhDs.
Really? You put Mboli and Keita in the same boat as Gates? Mboli's work is not only accepted by "white" scholars (as its presence in various university libraries attests), but also African scholars from the African school of Egyptology, which he is a part of.
You prove my point. If "whites" say the research is ok its ok. As I said earlier this is the research method called "Research by Authority".
This why you encourage ES readers to learn African rsearch methods form the text below. You wrote
quote:
The next book is:
This is also a good book on methodology when dealing with African history. Before one can talk about methods, one must read texts on research methods.
LOL. This text will not teach anyone how to do Africological research. It was written by Europeans to provide researchers with a Eurocentric perspective on African studies. Of corse it would be your research guide, simply because it was written and edited by Eurocentrists.
You can find out more on the Structure of the Afrocentric History and Anthropological research at:
posted
SMH. You do know the author is Black right? A graduate from Temple's African American Studies under Asante right? You do know that I KNOW THE AUTHOR right? You do know this work is anti-Eurocentricism and provides methods to combat such perspectives in Africological research right? Why do I even bother to discuss matters with someone who critiques works he's never even read? At this point, I've lost all respect for you. Maybe someone else will entertain your foolishness.
EDIT: Note that Dr. Winters edited his statement and originally had this image up:
posted
Serie McDougal, III is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Africana Studies, in the School of Ethnic Studies at San Francisco State University
Molefi Asante is Professor of Department of African American Studies at Temple University in Philly
Jean Claude Mboli is an Electronics engineer
. Thoth, Papyrus, Thebes, 1275 BC
what happened here? ^^^ they lightened a brutha up for an Africana studies book???
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: SMH. You do know the author is Black right? A graduate from Temple's African American Studies under Asante right? You do know that I KNOW THE AUTHOR right? You do know this work is anti-Eurocentricism and provides methods to combat such perspectives in Africological research right? Why do I even bother to discuss matters with someone who critiques works he's never even read? At this point, I've lost all respect for you. Maybe someone else will entertain your foolishness.
EDIT: Note that Dr. Winters edited his statement and originally had this image up:
It dosen't matter who you know. The question is do you have a knowledge of linguistics to analyze a linguistics text.
You don't understand historical linguistic and probably comparative linguistics as well. Sure you can disagree with me--but this disagreement should be based on linguistic research methods and literature.
I prvided linguistic examples in my criticism of Mboli. If I was wrong about Mboli's work you should have been able to argue--based on the literature-with specific examples where my criticism were invalid.
You have failed to do this, instead of arguing your points with solid linguistic examples you prefer to practice a policy of deception in which you expect people to believe what you write without linguistic evidence to back up your claim. Your reliance on "Research by Authories" will not suffice. And personally attacking me does nothing to validate you comments.
I have worked with Asante. We served on the same dissertation committee and I have had my work published in the Journal of Black Studies and one of his books.
I know research and I am respected in my field. I participated in the development of numerous research text used by graduate students in Colleges across the country. In these text I am mentioned as a reviewer. These text include Organizational Behavior in Education, by G. Owens and Thomas Valesky (pg. Xiv); the second edition of Curriculum Leadership: Strategies for Development and Implementation, by Allan A. Glatthorn, Floyd Boschee, Bruce M. Whitehead (pg.xxiv) and Leading Schools to Success: Constructing and Sustaining High-Performing Schools , By James W. Guthrie, Patrick Schuermann(pg. xxvi)
I have lost respect for you. You have accepted a work as creditable without asking two questions one does the research sample represent an accurate sample of the population under review; and two did the evidence of the researcher support his conclusion. The answer to both of these questions is no.
First, the majority of the languages used in Mboli's sample of Negro-African were from the Afro-Asiatic family: Somali, Hausa, Middle Egyptian and Coptic. Since these languages are already related naturally his results will be biased and lack validity.
Secondly, Mboli claims to have determined the
quote:
VI.14 Évolution grammaticale du négro-égyptien…………………… 361 VI.14.1 Grammaire du négro-égyptien archaïque ………………….. 362 VI.14.2 Grammaire du négro-égyptien pré-classique………………. 365 VI.14.3 Grammaire du négro-égyptien classique…………………… 367 VI.14.4 Grammaire du négro-égyptien post-classique........................ 370
This is impossible. You need to evaluate text to determine these periods in any languge. There are only text for egyptians relating to various time periods so this was an impossible task. Yet Mboli claims he has done such a thing.
Even a first year student in linguistics would have to reject Mboli's claim based on absence of text to allow him to confirm his hypothesis.
Your support of this work shows that you lack any knowledge of historical linguistic. Given your acceptance of a work without having the ability to judge if the researcher proved his hypotheses now leads me to suspect your own work as pure fiction.
Oh I forgot, to you Asar, if a text is written by a European, or a work is supported by Europeans it has to be correct. LOL
posted
Asar Imohotep says: Really? You put Mboli and Keita in the same boat as Gates? Mboli's work is not only accepted by "white" scholars (as its presence in various university libraries attests), but also African scholars from the African school of Egyptology, which he is a part of. It is getting annoying that you attack a scholar whose work you haven't read, tried to read snippets on the net, and then misrepresented his information and methods. Anyone who has actually purchased and read the book knows he builds off of Diop and Obenga and confirms this in a way because his method is rigorous and reduplicatable.
Often what I am seeing from Dr. Winters is that, when a researcher doesn't agree with his perspective, and they are Black, he claims that they are closet Eurocentrists. This is ad hominem.
Indeed. I give Clyde credit for some of his work but.. like you say on certain counts..
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is false that I attack any Black researcher who does not agree with my work. If I attack a researcher it is because he is 1) an Uncle Tom/Coconut , 2) violate the four ASAH hypotheses and paradigms, or 3) a work under review is unsound, invalid and unreliable.
quote:
The Afrocentric study of ancient history (ASAH) is based on four hypotheses confirmed by 200 years of research.
The paradigms for ASAH predicted four hypotheses that were unknown at the time the "Ancient Model" of history was developed, to guide the development of scientific knowledge for the africalogical study of early history. These propositions based on the "Ancient Model" are:
(1) If Blacks founded civilization in Asia and Africa , they may have influenced civilization in the Americas.
(2) If Blacks founded civilization in West Asia, Africa and Europe, archaeological data will support their earlier presence in these regions of the world.
(3) If Blacks founded the first civilizations, they also invented writing and other elements of social and scientific technology.
(4) If Blacks founded civilization they probably founded civilization throughout Asia and Europe.
I attack Gates work, because he is a Coconut and spread propaganda to support Eurocentric interest. My only problem with Keita, is the idea that the Berbers are native to Africa—when they are probably the result of the Vandal invasion of North Africa.
I have read Mboli’s work at the Google site. It is not a complete copy of the text but it is enough to evaluate the worth of his theories. I dispute the research because he makes claims about recognizing stages in Negro Egyptian which can not be done without text written in the languages under review dating to each alledge period of Negro-Egyptian. There are no texts written in languages discussed by Mboli for any of the proposed periods in Negro-Egyptian, except Egyptian.
I also reject Mboli’s work because proto-African languages are usually monosylabic, and Mboli’s reconstructions are meant to resemble Indo-European terms, and therefore fail to reflect Proto-Negro-Egyptian.
LOL. You and Asar know nothing about scholarly research and APA style.This is why you can't evaluate and criticize linguistic and antropological research literature. zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova wrote:
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Asar Imohotep says:
Often what I am seeing from Dr. Winters is that, when a researcher doesn't agree with his perspective, and they are Black, he claims that they are closet Eurocentrists. This is ad hominem. What Dr. Winters fails to do is systematically falsify any of the claims against him. He writes/cuts and pastes these long articles he wrote where he claims other (white) scholars "made clear" some claim, but he never demonstrates in his work how they "makes it clear" that they did so.
Indeed.
LOL. Zarahan, you and Asar know nothing about scholarly research methods and the APA writing styles. A researcher determines if a scholar “made clear” a particular point in their research by reading the cited article, and checking to see if the author of a citation made this or that point .
In linguistics and anthropology you use what's called the APA style.The APA style calls on the researcher to avoid quotations. This means that you have to read the work cited in a research paper.
Since you have to read the cited articles to know what the authors wrote --if you don't read the cited papers--of course you would not understand if the author of a particular article made this or that clear.As a result, a researcher does not spend their time explaining what someone else has written. Discussing the work of others in a research paper does not denote original research.
This is the problem with your long post. You provide many valuable quotations but you fail to provide any interpretation of the material you have written. I respect your work and believe it could be reformulated into numerous research articles. I suggest that you take a course in graduate research methods in antropology or education where you can learn APA style. Once you take the course you should be able to write your great research in APA style.
If you don’t have the money to take a course purchase a copy of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. Make sure it is the latest edition. Study the manual. Then review your numerous postings at ES and see how they can be re-written into informative research articles.
I have been able to publish my research, even before I got my PhD, because I had mastered the Chicago, and APA writing styles. In graduate school you learn APA, because your research papers have to be written APA style. .
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clyde I know APA style and have used it in my own graduate courses. I just dont think it is necessary in a casual web forum like this, to be use that exact format to the letter. If there is accurate cite of title, author, publication, date and pages, that's good enough here. Also when I post quotes like that I also include an interpretative header in bold text, not to mention when debating assorted issues and opponents with plenty of interpretation.
While we disagree on certain items, I recognize that you have been working & fighting in this field a long time, sometimes alone, for which you deserve credit. And I am sure we both agree, that overall, classicists like Diop are supported by modern scholarship on numerous key counts.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Clyde I know APA style and have used it in my own graduate courses. I just dont think it is necessary in a casual web forum like this, to be use that exact format to the letter. If there is accurate cite of title, author, publication, date and pages, that's good enough here. Also when I post quotes like that I also include an interpretative header in bold text, not to mention when debating assorted issues and opponents with plenty of interpretation.
While we disagree on certain items, I recognize that you have been working & fighting in this field a long time, sometimes alone, for which you deserve credit. And I am sure we both agree, that overall, classicists like Diop are supported by modern scholarship on numerous key counts.
I am glad to hear you know APA. I believe you have enough information for a 5 chapter book:
1. Introduction 2. Mainstream Egyptological view of African crainiometrics and genetics. 3. African centered anthropology relating to Egyptians (Discuss the work of Diop and Keita. 4. Recent finding concerning the Origin of Egypt and Egyptians (Anthropological view). 5. Final Remarks
You could give the chapters different names. A book on this topic is necessary because there is a lot of new findings.
You could publish via Amazon's Kindle Press and Createspace. This is a good time to publish because you don't have to pay any publication cost.
I have now put the topic out in the open so you might consider doing it soon before someone else does it. Remember when writing the book don't just tell your readers what the findings are tell them what they mean. You could have someone read the book after you write it. I am usually very busy but if you want me to review the final product I would be glad to do so.
posted
Before I respond to the other nonsense given by Dr. Winters, let's give a prime example of what I mean when I say that Dr. Winters misrepresents data given by other authors. In the following citation, Dr. Winters makes the following definitive statements concerning a citation written by Wm. E. Welmers concerning the possible origins of Niger-Congo in the Nile Valley.
quote:Wm. E. Welmers identified the Niger Congo home land was in the Sudan not Niger Valley. Welmers explained that the Niger-Congo homeland was in the vicinity of the upper Nile valley [4].
4. Welmers Wm.(1971). "Niger-Congo Mande". Current Trends in Linguistics, 7:113-140.
He repeats the same claim here on EgyptSearch here:
quote:Wm. E. Welmers identified the Niger Congo home land. Welmers in "Niger-Congo Mande", Current trends in Linguistics 7 (1971), pp.113-140,explained that the Niger-Congo homeland was in the vicinity of the upper Nile valley (p.119). He believes that the Westward migration began 5000 years ago.
Now, let's go to the citation. When we go to the text, there is not this air of certainty that Dr. Winters is asserting in his work. Here is what the original text says:
WELMERS
quote:By way of conclusion to this general overview of the Mande languages, a a bit of judicious speculation about Mande origins and migrations may not be out of order. It has already been stated that the Mande languages clearly represent the earliest offshoot from the parent Niger-Congo stock—not counting Kordofanian, which Greenberg considers parallel to all of the Niger-Congo, forming a Niger-Kordofanian macrofamily. An original Niger-Congo homeland in the general vicinity of the upper Nile valley is probably as good a hypothesis as any. From such a homeland, a westward Mande migration may have begun well over 5000 years ago. Perhaps the earliest division within this group resulted in the isolation of what is now represented only by Bobo-fing. Somewhat later— perhaps 3500 to 4500 years ago, and possibly from a new homeland around northern Dahomey [now Benin]— the ancestors of the present Northern-western Mande peoples began pushing farther west, ultimately reaching their present homeland in the grasslands and forests of West Africa. This was followed by a gradual spread of the Southern-Eastern division, culminating perhaps 2000 years ago in the separation of its to branches and the ultimate movement of Southern Mande peoples southeast and westward until Mano and Kpelle, long separated, became once more contiguous.
As we can see here, Welmers doesn't make a definitive argument for a Niger-Congo origin in the Nile-Valley, he makes a "judicious speculation," meaning, he's just throwing the idea out there to be tested in the future. Welmers is not making a claim here. Dr. Winters totally misrepresents the data from Welmers by using words like "Welmers explained that..." or "Welmers identified..." when he did no such thing. This is dishonest scholarship and I've called him on it numerous times on his misquoting and misrepresenting Mboli's work and positions in the same way on the forum on Obenga. We can cite many examples like this from Dr. Winters and I am not the only one who has called him out on this. This is a warning to anyone reading Dr. Winter's works: ALWAYS TRIPLE CHECK THE SOURCES he is claiming supports his contentions. Often you will find that he misrepresents their data. These errors have nothing to do with APA style. It is directly misquoting and misrepresenting data. You don't learn how to do that using "Chicago Style." A bunch of nonsense.
Now, I am not arguing that the Mande did not have their origins in the Nile Valley. What I am saying is that the author (Welmers) is speculating in this article concerning origins based on circumstantial evidence. This is why Welmers is using words like "hypothesis, probably, as good as any, speculation" to ensure the reader that he is not making a definitive argument. An honest scholar would have said, "Wm. E. Welmers, a linguist specializing in Niger-Congo languages, has speculated that the origins of Niger-Congo probably lies somewhere in the Nile-Valley, possibly in Sudan." This is a far cry from "Wm. E. Welmers identified the Niger Congo home land." The previous wording accurately represents the sentiments of the author in the text and doesn't add any connotations that the author did not advance. This is how scholars represents others works: by being honest.
Not only do you have to know how to properly cite sources, you have to be a critical reader and know context clues so you know the difference between an argument and a suggestion. This is why we can't trust you Dr. Winters. Too much folly in your methods.
Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: Before I respond to the other nonsense given by Dr. Winters, let's give a prime example of what I mean when I say that Dr. Winters misrepresents data given by other authors. In the following citation, Dr. Winters makes the following definitive statements concerning a citation written by Wm. E. Welmers concerning the possible origins of Niger-Congo in the Nile Valley.
quote:Wm. E. Welmers identified the Niger Congo home land was in the Sudan not Niger Valley. Welmers explained that the Niger-Congo homeland was in the vicinity of the upper Nile valley [4].
4. Welmers Wm.(1971). "Niger-Congo Mande". Current Trends in Linguistics, 7:113-140.
He repeats the same claim here on EgyptSearch here:
quote:Wm. E. Welmers identified the Niger Congo home land. Welmers in "Niger-Congo Mande", Current trends in Linguistics 7 (1971), pp.113-140,explained that the Niger-Congo homeland was in the vicinity of the upper Nile valley (p.119). He believes that the Westward migration began 5000 years ago.
Now, let's go to the citation. When we go to the text, there is not this air of certainty that Dr. Winters is asserting in his work. Here is what the original text says:
WELMERS
quote:By way of conclusion to this general overview of the Mande languages, a a bit of judicious speculation about Mande origins and migrations may not be out of order. It has already been stated that the Mande languages clearly represent the earliest offshoot from the parent Niger-Congo stock—not counting Kordofanian, which Greenberg considers parallel to all of the Niger-Congo, forming a Niger-Kordofanian macrofamily. An original Niger-Congo homeland in the general vicinity of the upper Nile valley is probably as good a hypothesis as any. From such a homeland, a westward Mande migration may have begun well over 5000 years ago. Perhaps the earliest division within this group resulted in the isolation of what is now represented only by Bobo-fing. Somewhat later— perhaps 3500 to 4500 years ago, and possibly from a new homeland around northern Dahomey [now Benin]— the ancestors of the present Northern-western Mande peoples began pushing farther west, ultimately reaching their present homeland in the grasslands and forests of West Africa. This was followed by a gradual spread of the Southern-Eastern division, culminating perhaps 2000 years ago in the separation of its to branches and the ultimate movement of Southern Mande peoples southeast and westward until Mano and Kpelle, long separated, became once more contiguous.
As we can see here, Welmers doesn't make a definitive argument for a Niger-Congo origin in the Nile-Valley, he makes a "judicious speculation," meaning, he's just throwing the idea out there to be tested in the future. Welmers is not making a claim here. Dr. Winters totally misrepresents the data from Welmers by using words like "Welmers explained that..." or "Welmers identified..." when he did no such thing. This is dishonest scholarship and I've called him on it numerous times on his misquoting and misrepresenting Mboli's work and positions in the same way on the forum on Obenga. We can cite many examples like this from Dr. Winters and I am not the only one who has called him out on this. This is a warning to anyone reading Dr. Winter's works: ALWAYS TRIPLE CHECK THE SOURCES he is claiming supports his contentions. Often you will find that he misrepresents their data. These errors have nothing to do with APA style. It is directly misquoting and misrepresenting data. You don't learn how to do that using "Chicago Style." A bunch of nonsense.
Now, I am not arguing that the Mande did not have their origins in the Nile Valley. What I am saying is that the author (Welmers) is speculating in this article concerning origins based on circumstantial evidence. This is why Welmers is using words like "hypothesis, probably, as good as any, speculation" to ensure the reader that he is not making a definitive argument. An honest scholar would have said, "Wm. E. Welmers, a linguist specializing in Niger-Congo languages, has speculated that the origins of Niger-Congo probably lies somewhere in the Nile-Valley, possibly in Sudan." This is a far cry from "Wm. E. Welmers identified the Niger Congo home land." The previous wording accurately represents the sentiments of the author in the text and doesn't add any connotations that the author did not advance. This is how scholars represents others works: by being honest.
Not only do you have to know how to properly cite sources, you have to be a critical reader and know context clues so you know the difference between an argument and a suggestion. This is why we can't trust you Dr. Winters. Too much folly in your methods.
LOL. You're stupid. Dr. Welmers called this a hypothesis, not speculation. You can make definitive statements about hypotheses and theories. We talk about the theory of evolution everyday, as if it is a fact, because no scientist has falsified the "theory of Evolution". If we followed your reasoning science would never advance.
You quote Dr. Welmers who said:
quote:
An original Niger-Congo homeland in the general vicinity of the upper Nile valley is probably as good a hypothesis as any.
This statement shows that "Welmers explained that...[ (the) original Niger-Congo homeland in the general vicinity of the upper Nile valley ] " or "Welmers identified...[ (the) original Niger-Congo homeland in the general vicinity of the upper Nile valley ]". As you note above, I said:
quote:
Wm. E. Welmers identified the Niger Congo home land. Welmers in "Niger-Congo Mande", Current trends in Linguistics 7 (1971), pp.113-140,explained that the Niger-Congo homeland was in the vicinity of the upper Nile valley (p.119).
As you can see I paraphrased Dr. Welmers accurately. He said this is "as good a hypothesis as any".
LOL. Asar, do you know what a hypothesis is? In science a hypothesis is a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
A hypothesis is valid until it is disconfirmed. No one has disconfirmed his hypothesis, so I quoted him accurately. Researchers make conjectures all the time about the past, that's why we use the terms "probably" or "may" in our writing/publications. Moreover, Dr. Welmers said his hypothesis was based on "judicius speculation". Do you know what judicious means? It means "having, exercising, or characterized by good or discriminating judgment; wise, sensible, or well-advised. You are such a liar and misrepresenter of information, you make it appear that Welmers just concoted his hypothesis out of thin air. Use of the term "judicious" makes it clear he was making this judgment based on " discriminating judgment".
You are so desperate to discredit me you make stupid post like the one above. Nobody can positively say anything about the past if we lack written documents going back to the period we are discussing to verify our findings. We make hypotheses based on the evidence.
The more we discuss anthropological issues the more ignorant about science and anthropology you demonstrate in this forum. Asar, you are beginning to make me believe all of your work is a fraud. This explains why you were unable to embrace Wally's finding that Egypt was a Pan-African civilization.
(epistemology) The view, first expounded by Karl Popper, that a statement or theory has the potential to be true only if it is falsifiable, i.e., only if it describes the types of evidence that could show it to be unscientific. According to falsificationalism, any other statement or theory is outside the realm of scientific investigation.
Thus, the term falsifiability is sometimes synonymous to testability.
The most common example of this approach is the proposition "all swans are white": this can never be proven, since that would require checking each and every swan anywhere; but it can be disproven by finding a single instance of a non-white swan. On the other hand the statement "all men are mortal", it can't be tested so it is is unfalsifiable, therefore unscientific
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Many commentators on Afrocentricism maintain that the Olmecs weren't Africans. In support of this conjecture they maintain: 1) Africans first came to America with Columbus; 2) Amerindians live in Meso-America; 3) the Olmec look like the Maya; 4) linguistic groups found in the Olmec heartland have always lived in areas they presently inhabit. These are all logical deduction, but they are mainly nonfalsifiable and therefore unscientific (but may still be meaningful)
the statement “all men are mortal” is unfalsifiable because there can never be any positive data of an immortal man to falsify the statement. The statement “all men are immortal” is falsifiable because there can be a positive data of a mortal man to falsify the statement.
In a way, falsification still lives by the spirit of verification inasmuch as it shows that an assertion is scientific only if it is “open” to data of observation and experimentation.
Unlike verification which proves a theory by presenting data that support the said theory, falsification aims at disproving a theory by presenting data or experiments that invalidate the said theory.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters
you have to understand that Afrocentric researchers are falsificationist.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Afrocentric social scientists use confirmation to verify the africalogical paradigm rather than falsification. Confirmatory knowledge is based on generalizing as a result of observation. Whereas confirmation is based on observation of observable facts, the aim of falsification is the rejection of an established theory.
Clyde your last two quotes here seem contradictory here. What's up with that?
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
(epistemology) The view, first expounded by Karl Popper, that a statement or theory has the potential to be true only if it is falsifiable, i.e., only if it describes the types of evidence that could show it to be unscientific. According to falsificationalism, any other statement or theory is outside the realm of scientific investigation.
Thus, the term falsifiability is sometimes synonymous to testability.
The most common example of this approach is the proposition "all swans are white": this can never be proven, since that would require checking each and every swan anywhere; but it can be disproven by finding a single instance of a non-white swan. On the other hand the statement "all men are mortal", it can't be tested so it is is unfalsifiable, therefore unscientific
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Many commentators on Afrocentricism maintain that the Olmecs weren't Africans. In support of this conjecture they maintain: 1) Africans first came to America with Columbus; 2) Amerindians live in Meso-America; 3) the Olmec look like the Maya; 4) linguistic groups found in the Olmec heartland have always lived in areas they presently inhabit. These are all logical deduction, but they are mainly nonfalsifiable and therefore unscientific (but may still be meaningful)
the statement “all men are mortal” is unfalsifiable because there can never be any positive data of an immortal man to falsify the statement. The statement “all men are immortal” is falsifiable because there can be a positive data of a mortal man to falsify the statement.
In a way, falsification still lives by the spirit of verification inasmuch as it shows that an assertion is scientific only if it is “open” to data of observation and experimentation.
Unlike verification which proves a theory by presenting data that support the said theory, falsification aims at disproving a theory by presenting data or experiments that invalidate the said theory.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters
you have to understand that Afrocentric researchers are falsificationist.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Afrocentric social scientists use confirmation to verify the africalogical paradigm rather than falsification. Confirmatory knowledge is based on generalizing as a result of observation. Whereas confirmation is based on observation of observable facts, the aim of falsification is the rejection of an established theory.
Clyde your last two quotes here seem contradictory here. What's up with that?
posted
Falscification theory is not a scientific proceedure. It is epistemology, a "theory of knowledge"
Falsification theory of Karl Popper is not simply proving something to be false. It is determining if something can be proven false. I don't see reference to falsification theory in Afrocentric writing. Do you have any examples of afrocentric writers using this term?
What I have seen are statements like "Euopeans falsify history" That is not this epistemological philosphical concept of Karl Popper called "falsification" It is simply basic assement of something being true or false, the idea that that Europeans present a false history or 2 + 2 does not equal 3 while 2 + 2 does equal four.
What Karl Popper was saying that an issue is scientific if it can be tested to see if it's false. That doesn't mean some particular thing is proven false. Concepts that are not falsifiable may still have value but not be scientific according to Popper.
Falsificationism is not concerned as an end with what is true or false, but with what is scientific or unscientific, and is happy to acknowledge both that most scientific claims either have turned out to be false, or are likely to do so, and that many unscientific (unfalsifiable) claims may actually be true. “I like chocolate,” is, arguably, unfalsifiable and thus not a part of science, but it is, very plausibly, true
I don't see how this philisophical argument applies to Afrocentrism
All unfalsifiable claims are not fallacious; they are just unfalsifiable. As long as proper skepticism is retained and proper evidence is given, it could be a legitimate form of reasoning.
Never assume you must be right simply because you can’t be proven wrong.
__________________
Clyde one of your statements was
"Afrocentric researchers are falsificationist"
the other says
"Afrocentric social scientists use confirmation to verify the africalogical paradigm rather than falsification."
One statement is saying they use falsification the other says they use verification rather than falsification
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: Before I respond to the other nonsense given by Dr. Winters, let's give a prime example of what I mean when I say that Dr. Winters misrepresents data given by other authors. In the following citation, Dr. Winters makes the following definitive statements concerning a citation written by Wm. E. Welmers concerning the possible origins of Niger-Congo in the Nile Valley.
quote:Wm. E. Welmers identified the Niger Congo home land was in the Sudan not Niger Valley. Welmers explained that the Niger-Congo homeland was in the vicinity of the upper Nile valley [4].
4. Welmers Wm.(1971). "Niger-Congo Mande". Current Trends in Linguistics, 7:113-140.
He repeats the same claim here on EgyptSearch here:
quote:Wm. E. Welmers identified the Niger Congo home land. Welmers in "Niger-Congo Mande", Current trends in Linguistics 7 (1971), pp.113-140,explained that the Niger-Congo homeland was in the vicinity of the upper Nile valley (p.119). He believes that the Westward migration began 5000 years ago.
Now, let's go to the citation. When we go to the text, there is not this air of certainty that Dr. Winters is asserting in his work. Here is what the original text says:
WELMERS
quote:By way of conclusion to this general overview of the Mande languages, a a bit of judicious speculation about Mande origins and migrations may not be out of order. It has already been stated that the Mande languages clearly represent the earliest offshoot from the parent Niger-Congo stock—not counting Kordofanian, which Greenberg considers parallel to all of the Niger-Congo, forming a Niger-Kordofanian macrofamily. An original Niger-Congo homeland in the general vicinity of the upper Nile valley is probably as good a hypothesis as any. From such a homeland, a westward Mande migration may have begun well over 5000 years ago. Perhaps the earliest division within this group resulted in the isolation of what is now represented only by Bobo-fing. Somewhat later— perhaps 3500 to 4500 years ago, and possibly from a new homeland around northern Dahomey [now Benin]— the ancestors of the present Northern-western Mande peoples began pushing farther west, ultimately reaching their present homeland in the grasslands and forests of West Africa. This was followed by a gradual spread of the Southern-Eastern division, culminating perhaps 2000 years ago in the separation of its to branches and the ultimate movement of Southern Mande peoples southeast and westward until Mano and Kpelle, long separated, became once more contiguous.
As we can see here, Welmers doesn't make a definitive argument for a Niger-Congo origin in the Nile-Valley, he makes a "judicious speculation," meaning, he's just throwing the idea out there to be tested in the future. Welmers is not making a claim here. Dr. Winters totally misrepresents the data from Welmers by using words like "Welmers explained that..." or "Welmers identified..." when he did no such thing. This is dishonest scholarship and I've called him on it numerous times on his misquoting and misrepresenting Mboli's work and positions in the same way on the forum on Obenga. We can cite many examples like this from Dr. Winters and I am not the only one who has called him out on this. This is a warning to anyone reading Dr. Winter's works: ALWAYS TRIPLE CHECK THE SOURCES he is claiming supports his contentions. Often you will find that he misrepresents their data. These errors have nothing to do with APA style. It is directly misquoting and misrepresenting data. You don't learn how to do that using "Chicago Style." A bunch of nonsense.
Now, I am not arguing that the Mande did not have their origins in the Nile Valley. What I am saying is that the author (Welmers) is speculating in this article concerning origins based on circumstantial evidence. This is why Welmers is using words like "hypothesis, probably, as good as any, speculation" to ensure the reader that he is not making a definitive argument. An honest scholar would have said, "Wm. E. Welmers, a linguist specializing in Niger-Congo languages, has speculated that the origins of Niger-Congo probably lies somewhere in the Nile-Valley, possibly in Sudan." This is a far cry from "Wm. E. Welmers identified the Niger Congo home land." The previous wording accurately represents the sentiments of the author in the text and doesn't add any connotations that the author did not advance. This is how scholars represents others works: by being honest.
Not only do you have to know how to properly cite sources, you have to be a critical reader and know context clues so you know the difference between an argument and a suggestion. This is why we can't trust you Dr. Winters. Too much folly in your methods.
LOL. You're stupid. Dr. Welmers called this a hypothesis, not speculation. You can make definitive statements about hypotheses and theories. We talk about the theory of evolution everyday, as if it is a fact, because no scientist has falsified the "theory of Evolution". If we followed your reasoning science would never advance.
You quote Dr. Welmers who said:
quote:
An original Niger-Congo homeland in the general vicinity of the upper Nile valley is probably as good a hypothesis as any.
This statement shows that "Welmers explained that...[ (the) original Niger-Congo homeland in the general vicinity of the upper Nile valley ] " or "Welmers identified...[ (the) original Niger-Congo homeland in the general vicinity of the upper Nile valley ]". As you note above, I said:
quote:
Wm. E. Welmers identified the Niger Congo home land. Welmers in "Niger-Congo Mande", Current trends in Linguistics 7 (1971), pp.113-140,explained that the Niger-Congo homeland was in the vicinity of the upper Nile valley (p.119).
As you can see I paraphrased Dr. Welmers accurately. He said this is "as good a hypothesis as any".
LOL. Asar, do you know what a hypothesis is? In science a hypothesis is a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
A hypothesis is valid until it is disconfirmed. No one has disconfirmed his hypothesis, so I quoted him accurately. Researchers make conjectures all the time about the past, that's why we use the terms "probably" or "may" in our writing/publications. Moreover, Dr. Welmers said his hypothesis was based on "judicius speculation". Do you know what judicious means? It means "having, exercising, or characterized by good or discriminating judgment; wise, sensible, or well-advised. You are such a liar and misrepresenter of information, you make it appear that Welmers just concoted his hypothesis out of thin air. Use of the term "judicious" makes it clear he was making this judgment based on " discriminating judgment".
You are so desperate to discredit me you make stupid post like the one above. Nobody can positively say anything about the past if we lack written documents going back to the period we are discussing to verify our findings. We make hypotheses based on the evidence.
The more we discuss anthropological issues the more ignorant about science and anthropology you demonstrate in this forum. Asar, you are beginning to make me believe all of your work is a fraud. This explains why you were unable to embrace Wally's finding that Egypt was a Pan-African civilization.
LOL. You are a sad joke.
.
For one nobody should falsify anything, not even as some kind of metaphor. Falsify means false, we want truth. Secondly, Asar Imhotep got you on that one, it does feel your misrepresenting a bit Welmers's position about the homeland of Niger-Congo. You're making it more definitive that it is really. "As good as any" doesn't strike me as a strong hypothesis but it can still be used. Your explanations doesn't convince me. It's not a big deal since, as Asar said, you could still have you used Welmers's position for similar effect. Welmers's cite that position as his only position (at least in the passage posted here), as a linguist he admits it as a good hypothesis (among others), he even goes on about it, so it can be used. Personally I wouldn't use it (alone) since there's so many linguists now (it's like the mainstream position) placing the possible homeland of Niger-Congo in that general region more definitely than Welmers.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
Knowledge is cumulative. In other words we build new knowledge on the research of the giants in our field. From your lack of knowledge about DuBois' it is clear you have no recognition of the fact that what you guys are writing about has already been discussed formerly, and your job should be confirming or disconfirming what these giants wrote.
I teach educational philosophy on occasion. In this class I just don't talk about contemporary educators I also talk about the Greek philosophers.
Charlie I have posted the following previously. I hope you will read it this time and begin to recognize that what Mike, Marc and I write about is part of a 200 year tradition of Afro-American scholarship. Learn to respect your own scholars. Don't let white supremacy continue to blind you to the truths of history.
Afrocentrism, is a mature social science that was founded by Afro-Americans almost 200 years ago.
These men and women provided scholarship based on contemporary archaeological and historical research the African/Black origination of civilization throughout the world. These Afro-American scholars, mostly trained at Harvard University (one of the few Universities that admitted Blacks in the 19th Century) provide the scientific basis the global role played by African people in civilizing the world.
Afrocentrism and the africalogical study of ancient Black civilizations was began by Afro-Americans.
Edward Blyden
The foundation of any mature science is its articulation in an authoritive text (Kuhn, 1996, 136). The africalogical textbooks published by Hopkins (1905), Perry (1893) and Williams (1883) provided the vocabulary themes for further afrocentric social science research.
The pedagogy for ancient africalogical research was well established by the end of the 19th century by African American researchers well versed in the classical languages and knowledge of Greek and Latin. Cornish and Russwurm (1827) in the Freedom Journal, were the first African Americans to discuss and explain the "Ancient Model" of history.
These afrocentric social scientists used the classics to prove that the Blacks founded civilization in Egypt, Ethiopia, Babylon and Ninevah. Cornish and Russwurm (1827) made it clear that archaeological research supported the classical, or "Ancient Model" of history.
Edward Blyden (1869) also used classical sources to discuss the ancient history of African people. In his work he not only discussed the evidence for Blacks in West Asia and Egypt, he also discussed the role of Blacks in ancient America (Blyden, 1869, 78).
By 1883, africalogical researchers began to publish book on African American history. G.W. Williams (1883) wrote the first textbook on African American history. In the History of the Negro Race in America, Dr. Williams provided the schema for all future africalogical history text.
Dr. Williams (1883) confirmed the classical traditions for Blacks founding civilization in both Africa (Egypt, Ethiopia) and West Asia. In addition, to confirming the "Ancient Model" of history, Dr. Williams (1883) also mentioned the presence of Blacks in Indo-China and the Malay Peninsula. Dr. Williams was trained at Howard.
A decade later R.L. Perry (1893) also presented evidence to confirm the classical traditions of Blacks founding Egypt, Greece and the Mesopotamian civilization. He also provided empirical evidence for the role of Blacks in Phoenicia, thus increasing the scope of the ASAH paradigms.
Pauline E. Hopkins (1905) added further articulation of the ASAH paradigms of the application of these paradigms in understanding the role of Blacks in West Asia and Africa. Hopkins (1905) provided further confirmation of the role of Blacks in Southeast Asia, and expanded the scope of africalogical research to China (1905).
This review of the 19th century africalogical social scientific research indicate confirmation of the "Ancient Model" for the early history of Blacks. We also see a movement away from self-published africalogical research, and publication of research, and the publication of research articles on afrocentric themes, to the publication of textbooks.
It was in these books that the paradigms associated with the "Ancient Model" and ASAH were confirmed, and given reliability by empirical research. It was these texts which provided the pedagogic vehicles for the perpetuation of the africalogical normal social science.
The afrocentric textbooks of Hopkins (1905), Perry (1893) and Williams (1883) proved the reliability and validity of the ASAH paradigms. The discussion in these text of contemporary scientific research findings proving the existence of ancient civilizations in Egypt, Nubia-Sudan (Kush), Mesopotamia, Palestine and North Africa lent congruency to the classical literature which pointed to the existence of these civilizations and these African origins ( i.e., the children of Ham= Khem =Kush?).
The authors of the africalogical textbooks reported the latest archaeological and anthropological findings. The archaeological findings reported in these textbooks added precision to their analysis of the classical and Old Testament literature. This along with the discovery of artifacts on the ancient sites depicting Black\African people proved that the classical and Old Testament literature, as opposed to the "Aryan Model", objectively identified the Black\African role in ancient history. And finally, these textbooks confirmed that any examination of references in the classical literature to Blacks in Egypt, Kush, Mesopotamia and Greece\Crete exhibited constancy to the evidence recovered from archaeological excavations in the Middle East and the Aegean. They in turn disconfirmed the "Aryan Model", which proved to be a falsification of the authentic history of Blacks in early times.
The creation of africalogical textbooks provided us with a number of facts revealing the nature of the afrocentric ancient history paradigms. They include a discussion of:
1) the artifacts depicting Blacks found at ancient sites
recovered through archaeological excavation;
2) the confirmation of the validity of the classical and Old
Testament references to Blacks as founders of civilization in Africa and Asia;
3) the presence of isolated pockets of Blacks existing outside Africa; and
4) that the contemporary Arab people in modern Egypt are not the descendants of the ancient Egyptians.
The early africalogical textbooks also outlined the africalogical themes research should endeavor to study. A result, of the data collected by the africalogical ancient history research pioneers led to the development of three facts by the end of the 19th century, which needed to be solved by the afrocentric paradigms: (1) What is the exact relationship of ancient Egypt, to Blacks in other parts of Africa;
(2) How and when did Blacks settle America, Asia and Europe;
(3) What are the contributions of the Blacks to the rise, and cultural expression ancient Black\African civilizations;
(4) Did Africans settle parts of America in ancient times.
As you can see the structure of Afrocentrism were made long before Boas and the beginning of the 20th Century.In fact , I would not be surprised if Boas learned what he talked about from the early Afrocentric researchers discussed in this post.
As you can see Afro-Americans have be writing about the Global history of ancient Black civilizations for almost 200 years. It was Afro-Americans who first mentioned the African civilizations of West Africa and the Black roots of Egypt. These Afro-Americans made Africa a historical part of the world.
Afro-American scholars not only highlighted African history they also discussed the African/Black civilizations developed by African people outside Africa over a hundred years before Bernal and Boas.
Your history of what you call "negrocentric" or Black Studies is all wrong. It was DuBois who founded Black/Negro Studies, especially Afro-American studies given his work on the slave trade and sociological and historical studies of Afro-Americans. He mentions in the World and Africa about the Jews and other Europeans who were attempting to take over the field. Hansberry There is no one who can deny the fact that Leo Hansberry founded African studies in the U.S., not the Jews.Hansberry was a professor at Howard University.
Moreover, Bernal did not initiate any second wave of "negro/Blackcentric" study for ancient Egyptian civilization. Credit for this social science push is none other than Chiek Diop, who makes it clear that he was influenced by DuBois.
DuBois
These scholars recognized that the people of ancient Greece, Southeast Asia and Indo-China were African people. When giants in study of Afrocentrism discussed Blacks in Asia they were talking about people of African descent. So when you claim that these civilizations should be outside the study area of Afrocentric scholars you don't know what you're talking about.
These researchers used anthropological, archaeological historical and linguistic evidence to support their conclusions. It is only natural that these well founded hypotheses developed by these scholars can be supported by population genetics.
REFERENCES
Anselin, A. (1982). Le mythe d' Europe. Paris: Editions Anthropos.
Bernal, M. (1996, Spring). The Afrocentric interpretation of history: Bernal replies to Lefkowitz. Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 86-95.
Bernal,M. (1987). Black Athena. New York: Free Association Press. Volume 1.
________. (1991). Black Athena. New York: Free Association Press. Volume 2.
Blyden, E.W. ( January, 1869). The Negro in ancient history.
Methodist Quarterly Review, 71-93.
Blyden, E.W. (1887). Christianity, Islam and the Negro Race. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
_____________. (1890). The African Problem and the method for
its solution. Washington, D.C.: Gibson Brothers.
_______________.(1905). West Africa before Europe. London:
C.M. Phillips.
Clegg, L.H. (1975). Who were the first Americans? The Black
Scholar, 7(1), 32-41.
Coleman, B.E. (1971). A history of Swahili, The Black Scholar,
2 (6), 13-25.
Cornish, S. & Russwurm, J.B. (1827). European colonies in America, Freedom Journal, 1.
Carruthers, J. (1977). Writing for Eternity, black book bulletin,
5 (2), 32-35.
Carruthers, J. (1980). Reflections on the history of afrocentric
worldview, black book bulletin, 7(1), 4-13, 25.
Delany, M.R. (1978). The origin of races and color. Baltimore, M.D.: Black Classic Press.
Diop,C.A. (1974). The African Origin of Civilization. (ed. & Trans) by Mercer Cook, Westport:Lawrence Hill & Company.
_________.(1977). Parente genetique de l'Egyptien Pharaonique et
des Languaes Negro-Africaines. Dakar: IFAN ,Les Nouvelles
Editions Africaines.
__________.(1978) The Cultural Unity of Black Africa. Chicago: Third World Press.
__________. (1981). A Methodology for the study of migration.
UNESCO (Ed.), African Ethnonyms and Toponyms, (pp.87-110).
Paris: UNESCO.
___________.(1986). "Formation of the Berber Branch". In Libya
Antiqua. (ed.) by Unesco,(Paris: UNESCO) pp.69-73.
____________.(1987). Precolonial Black Africa. (trans. ) by
Harold Salemson, Westport: Lawrence Hill & Company.
____________.(1988). Nouvelles recherches sur l'Egyptien ancient
et les langues Negro-Africaines Modernes. Paris: Presence
Africaine.
_____________(1991). Civilization or Barbarism: An Authentic Anthropology. (trans.) by Yaa-Lengi Meema Ngemi and (ed.) by
H.J. Salemson and Marjoliiw de Jager, Westport:Lawrence
Hill and Company.
Douglas, F. (1966). The claims of the Negro ethnologically considered. In H. Brotz (Ed.), Negro social and political
thought (pp. 226-244). New York: Basic Books, Inc., Pub.
DuBois, W.E.B. (1924). The Gift of Black Folks. Boston.
DuBois, W.E.B. (1970). The Negro. New York: Oxford University
Press.
DuBois, W.E.B. (1965). The world and Africa. New York :
International Publishers Co., Inc.
Ferris, W.H. (1913). The African abroad. 2 vols. New Haven,CT
:Tuttle, Morehouse and Taylor.
Garvey, M. (1966). Who and What is a Negro. In H. Brotz (Ed.), Negro social and political thought (pp. 560-562).New York: Basic Books, Inc. Publishers.
Graves, Robert. (1980). The Greek Myths. Middlesex:Peguin Books
Ltd. 2 volumes.
Hansberry, L.H. (1981). Africa and Africans: As seen by classical
writers (Vol. 2). Washington, D.C.: Howard University Press.
Hopkins, P.E. (1905). A Primer of Facts pertaining to the early greatness of the african race and the possibility of restoration by its descendants-with epilogue. Cambridge: P.E. Hopkins & Com.
Hume, D. (1875). Essays: Moral political and literary. T.H. Green
and T.H. Grose. 2 Vols. London.
Jackson, J. (1974). Introduction to African civilization.
Secaucus, N.J.: Citadel Press.
James, G.M. (1954). Stolen legacy. New York: Philosophical Library.
Kuhn, T.S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolution.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lacouperie, Terrien de. (1891). The black heads of Babylonia and ancient China, The Babylonian and Oriental Record, 5 (11), 233-246.
Lawrence, H.G. (1962). African explorers of the New World,
The Crisis, 321-332.
Merton, R.K. (1957). Social theory aand social structure.
Glencoe, Ill. : The Free Press.
Moitt,B. (1989). "Chiekh Anta Diop and the African Diaspora:
Historical Continuity and Socio-Cultural Symbolism".
Presence Africaine, no. 149-150:347-360.
Parker,G.W. (1917) . "The African Origin of Grecian Civilization
".Journal of Negro History, 2(3):334-344.
___________. (1981). The Children of the Sun. Baltimore,Md.:
Black Classic Press.
Perry, R.L. (1893). The Cushite. Brooklyn: The Literary Union.
Rawlinson, George. (1928).The History of Herodutus. New York
: Tudor.
Schomburg, A.A. (March, 1925).The Negro digs up his past.
Thompson, Jr. A.A. (1975). Pre-Columbian [African] presence
in the Western Hemisphere,Negro History Bulletin, 38 (7), 452-456.
Williams, G.W. (1869). History of the Negro Race in America. New York: G.P. Putnam.
Wimby, D. (1980). The Greco-Roman Tradition concerning Ethiopia and Egypt, black books bulletin, 7(1), 14-19, 25.
Winters, C.A. (1977). The influence of the Mande scripts on ancient American writing systems", Bulletin l'de IFAN, T39, serie B, no. 2 (1977), pp.941-967.
Winters, C.A. (1979). Manding Scripts in the New World", Journal of African Civilizations, l(1), 80-97.
Winters,C.A. (December 1981/ January 1982). Mexico's Black Heritage. The Black Collegian, 76-84.
Winters, C.A. (1983a). "The Ancient Manding Script". In Blacks
in Science:Ancient and Modern. (ed.) by Ivan van Sertima, (New Brunswick: Transaction Books) pp.208-215.
__________. (1983b). "Les Fondateurs de la Grece venaient d'Afrique en passant par la Crete". Afrique Histoire (Dakar), no.8:13-18.
_________. (1983c) "Famous Black Greeks Important in the development of Greek Culture". Return to the Source,2(1):8.
________.(1983d). "Blacks in Ancient China, Part 1, The Founders
of Xia and Shang", Journal of Black Studies 1 (2), 8-13.
________. (1984a). "Blacks in Europe before the Europeans".
Return to the Source, 3(1):26-33.
Winters, C.A. (1984b). Blacks in Ancient America, Colorlines, 3(2), 27-28.
Winters, C.A. (1984c). Africans found first American Civilization , African Monitor, l , pp.16-18.
_________.(1985a). "The Indus Valley Writing and related
Scripts of the 3rd Millennium BC". India Past and
Present, 2(1):13-19.
__________. (1985b). "The Proto-Culture of the Dravidians,
Manding and Sumerians". Tamil Civilization,3(1):1-9.
__________. (1985c). "The Far Eastern Origin of the Tamils",
Journal of Tamil Studies , no.27, pp.65-92.
__________.(1986). The Migration Routes of the Proto-Mande.
The Mankind Quarterly,27 (1), 77-96.
_________.(1986b). Dravidian Settlements in Ancient Polynesia.
India Past and Present, 3 (2), 225-241.
__________. (1988). "Common African and Dravidian Place Name
Elements". South Asian Anthropologist, 9(1):33-36.
__________. (1989a). "Tamil, Sumerian, Manding and the Genetic
Model". International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics,18(1):98-127.
__________. (1989b). "Review of Dr. Asko Parpola's 'The Coming of the Aryans'",International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 18(2):98-127.
__________. (1990). "The Dravido-Harappan Colonization of Central Asia". Central Asiatic Journal, 34(1/2):120-144.
___________. (1991). "The Proto-Sahara". The Dravidian Encyclopaedia, (Trivandrum: International School of Dravidian Linguistics) pp.553-556. Volume l.
----------.(1994). Afrocentrism: A valid frame of reference, Journal of Black Studies, 25 (2), 170-190.
_________.(1994b). The Dravidian and African laguages, International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 23 (1), 34-52.
________.2007. Afrocentrism Myth or Science.www.lulu.com Here
Woodson, C.G. & Wesley, C.H. (1972). The Negro in Our History. Washington, D.C. Associated Publisher.
Get up off your knees and learn from the Afro-American scholars who began the study of Blacks in ancient history.
In conclusion, Afrocentrism is a mature social science. A social science firmly rooted in the scholarship of Afro-American researchers lasting almost 200 years. Researchers like Marc Washington, Mike and I are continuing a tradition of scholarship began 20 decades ago. All we are doing is confirming research by DuBois and others, that has not been disconfirmed over the past 200 years.
Aluta continua.....The struggle continues..... .
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
"Afrocentric social scientists use confirmation to verify the africalogical paradigm rather than falsification."
One statement is saying they use falsification the other says they use verification rather than falsification
A falsificationist determines if a hypothesis can be confirmed or disconfirmed. Afrocentric researchers, due to the well establish foundation of Afrocentric studies spend their time confirming the hypotheses made by the heroes of the Afrocentric science.
Let me explain. The Afrocentric social science was established over 200 years ago. Due to racism, the Afrocentric social scientists like J.A. Rogers, John Jackson, Rufus Lewis Perry and George Washington Williams practiced their scientific research outside academia. This tradition continues up to today. Although they were not in Academia they used the latest archaeological and anthropological knowledge to write their narratives of Afrocentric history.
The majority of the heroes of Afrocentric social science were trained at institutions of higher education, e.g., G.W. Williams. Many of them attended Harvard . The Havard alums include W.E.B. DuBois, Leo Hansberry and Carter G. Woodson. Because these heroes made there case for an Ancient history of Black people based on the latest anthropological and anthropological literature of their day used the scientific method in writing their textbooks and articles.
This allows us to have a common language to discuss the field of Afrocentric social science. That language is the language of science. Science includes hypotheses testing. You can only use the scientific method if a hypothesis is testable. If a hypothesis can not be tested to determine if it can be confirmed or not confirmed it is not science. Afrocentrism is the normal (social) science used by the heroes of Afrocentrism: DuBois, Rogers and etc. . To determine if it is a true social science I examined this field of study using T.S. Kuhn the The structure of scientific revolution, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kuhn noted that:Normal science consists in the actualization of that promise, an actualization achieved by extending the knowledge of those facts that the paradigm displays as particularly revealing, by increasing the extent of the match between those facts and the paradigm's predictions, and by further articulation of the paradigm itself (p.24). It was determined that the Afrocentric study of ancient history (ASAH) is based on four hypotheses confirmed by 200 years of research.
quote: The paradigms for ASAH predicted four hypotheses that were unknown at the time the "Ancient Model" of history was developed, to guide the development of scientific knowledge for the africalogical study of early history. These propositions based on the "Ancient Model" are:
(1) If Blacks founded civilization in Asia and Africa , they may have influenced civilization in the Americas.
(2) If Blacks founded civilization in West Asia, Africa and Europe, archaeological data will support their earlier presence in these regions of the world.
(3) If Blacks founded the first civilizations, they also invented writing and other elements of social and scientific technology.
(4) If Blacks founded civilization they probably founded civilization throughout Asia and Europe.
These paradigms were established by the end of the 19th century. These four paradigms based on the “Ancient Model” of history were confirmed in the 20th Century by DuBois, Diop, J.A. Rogers and others. Since they are already confirmed there was no longer any need to determine if the paradigms were falsifiable, since they are confirmed. Now we only do research to add further confirmation or verification to the four propositions of africalogical study of early history (ASEH). This makes continued research in ASEH by researchers the production of confirmational studies. Since Falsificationist confirm or disconfirm research, Afrocentric researchers are falsificationist because they are confirming the four propositions of ASEH.
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: Before I respond to the other nonsense given by Dr. Winters, let's give a prime example of what I mean when I say that Dr. Winters misrepresents data given by other authors. In the following citation, Dr. Winters makes the following definitive statements concerning a citation written by Wm. E. Welmers concerning the possible origins of Niger-Congo in the Nile Valley.
quote:Wm. E. Welmers identified the Niger Congo home land was in the Sudan not Niger Valley. Welmers explained that the Niger-Congo homeland was in the vicinity of the upper Nile valley [4].
4. Welmers Wm.(1971). "Niger-Congo Mande". Current Trends in Linguistics, 7:113-140.
He repeats the same claim here on EgyptSearch here:
quote:Wm. E. Welmers identified the Niger Congo home land. Welmers in "Niger-Congo Mande", Current trends in Linguistics 7 (1971), pp.113-140,explained that the Niger-Congo homeland was in the vicinity of the upper Nile valley (p.119). He believes that the Westward migration began 5000 years ago.
Now, let's go to the citation. When we go to the text, there is not this air of certainty that Dr. Winters is asserting in his work. Here is what the original text says:
WELMERS
quote:By way of conclusion to this general overview of the Mande languages, a a bit of judicious speculation about Mande origins and migrations may not be out of order. It has already been stated that the Mande languages clearly represent the earliest offshoot from the parent Niger-Congo stock—not counting Kordofanian, which Greenberg considers parallel to all of the Niger-Congo, forming a Niger-Kordofanian macrofamily. An original Niger-Congo homeland in the general vicinity of the upper Nile valley is probably as good a hypothesis as any. From such a homeland, a westward Mande migration may have begun well over 5000 years ago. Perhaps the earliest division within this group resulted in the isolation of what is now represented only by Bobo-fing. Somewhat later— perhaps 3500 to 4500 years ago, and possibly from a new homeland around northern Dahomey [now Benin]— the ancestors of the present Northern-western Mande peoples began pushing farther west, ultimately reaching their present homeland in the grasslands and forests of West Africa. This was followed by a gradual spread of the Southern-Eastern division, culminating perhaps 2000 years ago in the separation of its to branches and the ultimate movement of Southern Mande peoples southeast and westward until Mano and Kpelle, long separated, became once more contiguous.
As we can see here, Welmers doesn't make a definitive argument for a Niger-Congo origin in the Nile-Valley, he makes a "judicious speculation," meaning, he's just throwing the idea out there to be tested in the future. Welmers is not making a claim here. Dr. Winters totally misrepresents the data from Welmers by using words like "Welmers explained that..." or "Welmers identified..." when he did no such thing. This is dishonest scholarship and I've called him on it numerous times on his misquoting and misrepresenting Mboli's work and positions in the same way on the forum on Obenga. We can cite many examples like this from Dr. Winters and I am not the only one who has called him out on this. This is a warning to anyone reading Dr. Winter's works: ALWAYS TRIPLE CHECK THE SOURCES he is claiming supports his contentions. Often you will find that he misrepresents their data. These errors have nothing to do with APA style. It is directly misquoting and misrepresenting data. You don't learn how to do that using "Chicago Style." A bunch of nonsense.
Now, I am not arguing that the Mande did not have their origins in the Nile Valley. What I am saying is that the author (Welmers) is speculating in this article concerning origins based on circumstantial evidence. This is why Welmers is using words like "hypothesis, probably, as good as any, speculation" to ensure the reader that he is not making a definitive argument. An honest scholar would have said, "Wm. E. Welmers, a linguist specializing in Niger-Congo languages, has speculated that the origins of Niger-Congo probably lies somewhere in the Nile-Valley, possibly in Sudan." This is a far cry from "Wm. E. Welmers identified the Niger Congo home land." The previous wording accurately represents the sentiments of the author in the text and doesn't add any connotations that the author did not advance. This is how scholars represents others works: by being honest.
Not only do you have to know how to properly cite sources, you have to be a critical reader and know context clues so you know the difference between an argument and a suggestion. This is why we can't trust you Dr. Winters. Too much folly in your methods.
LOL. You're stupid. Dr. Welmers called this a hypothesis, not speculation. You can make definitive statements about hypotheses and theories. We talk about the theory of evolution everyday, as if it is a fact, because no scientist has falsified the "theory of Evolution". If we followed your reasoning science would never advance.
You quote Dr. Welmers who said:
quote:
An original Niger-Congo homeland in the general vicinity of the upper Nile valley is probably as good a hypothesis as any.
This statement shows that "Welmers explained that...[ (the) original Niger-Congo homeland in the general vicinity of the upper Nile valley ] " or "Welmers identified...[ (the) original Niger-Congo homeland in the general vicinity of the upper Nile valley ]". As you note above, I said:
quote:
Wm. E. Welmers identified the Niger Congo home land. Welmers in "Niger-Congo Mande", Current trends in Linguistics 7 (1971), pp.113-140,explained that the Niger-Congo homeland was in the vicinity of the upper Nile valley (p.119).
As you can see I paraphrased Dr. Welmers accurately. He said this is "as good a hypothesis as any".
LOL. Asar, do you know what a hypothesis is? In science a hypothesis is a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
A hypothesis is valid until it is disconfirmed. No one has disconfirmed his hypothesis, so I quoted him accurately. Researchers make conjectures all the time about the past, that's why we use the terms "probably" or "may" in our writing/publications. Moreover, Dr. Welmers said his hypothesis was based on "judicius speculation". Do you know what judicious means? It means "having, exercising, or characterized by good or discriminating judgment; wise, sensible, or well-advised. You are such a liar and misrepresenter of information, you make it appear that Welmers just concoted his hypothesis out of thin air. Use of the term "judicious" makes it clear he was making this judgment based on " discriminating judgment".
You are so desperate to discredit me you make stupid post like the one above. Nobody can positively say anything about the past if we lack written documents going back to the period we are discussing to verify our findings. We make hypotheses based on the evidence.
The more we discuss anthropological issues the more ignorant about science and anthropology you demonstrate in this forum. Asar, you are beginning to make me believe all of your work is a fraud. This explains why you were unable to embrace Wally's finding that Egypt was a Pan-African civilization.
LOL. You are a sad joke.
.
For one nobody should falsify anything, not even as some kind of metaphor. Falsify means false, we want truth. Secondly, Asar Imhotep got you on that one, it does feel your misrepresenting a bit Welmers's position about the homeland of Niger-Congo. You're making it more definitive that it is really. "As good as any" doesn't strike me as a strong hypothesis but it can still be used. Your explanations doesn't convince me. It's not a big deal since, as Asar said, you could still have you used Welmers's position for similar effect. Welmers's cite that position as his only position (at least in the passage posted here), as a linguist he admits it as a good hypothesis (among others), he even goes on about it, so it can be used. Personally I wouldn't use it (alone) since there's so many linguists now (it's like the mainstream position) placing the possible homeland of Niger-Congo in that general region more definitely than Welmers.
LOL. Asar has done nothing but make a fool of himself.Yes. It is mainstream now because researchers followed up on Welmers hypothesis.
Contemporary linguist support this idea with the same linguistic knowledge used by Welmers.Please show where their acknowledgement of a Nubian homeland is more definitive than Welmers when they are using the same linguistic knowledge.
Moreover I confirmed Welmers theories back in 1996, when I illustrated that the founders of Tichitt, which is recognized as a Mande settlement originally used the Saharo-Sudanese cermic tradition that began in Nubia.
Contemporary linguist support this idea with the same linguistic knowledge used by Welmers.Please show where their acknowledgement of a Nubian homeland is more definitive than Welmers when they are using the same linguistic knowledge.
I think the knowledge and analysis of Niger-Congo languages has expanded since the time of Welmers. Ehret in the citation I posted here is certainly more definitive than Welmers. So are most modern linguists. You must admit that "as good as any" seems rather weak, even if we get to understand it's the most probable theory since that's the only one he cites (at least in the citation that were posted in this thread). To be fair, Welmers is more precise by citing the Nile Valley as a possible homeland, so I understand why you use his citation. Personally, I prefer to say somewhere in eastern Africa probably Sudan or something in that sense.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dr. Winters, you are not fooling anyone here. You misrepresented what he said and he did not put it out there as a valid hypothesis but a speculation based on the presence of dogs, not on linguistic grounds. Again, I'm not arguing whether NC comes from the Nile-Valley or not, that's irrelevant at this point. It's about how you cited the material.
Welmer said that "An original Niger-Congo homeland in the general vicinity of the upper Nile valley is probably as good a hypothesis as any. He did not say as you quote it that, "the Niger-Congo homeland WAS in the vicinity of the upper Nile valley. You made it seems as if he confirmed it and we can all move on now about it. Welmers did not name the other hypotheses and he didn't do any "experiments" to knock all the other hypotheses out of the runnings for explaining the origins of NC. That wasn't the focus of his paper.
You play too many games here and when you're called out on your foolishness you go to ad hominem attacks because you can't support your work. I don't have to work hard at discrediting you. Your work speaks for itself and is why most of the scholastic community doesn't take you serious. They see through the fraudulent premises as I do here. The first sign of a weak scholar and a person who has lost their position is ad hominem and you retreat there every time your positions are challenged.
You clearly do not know much about quantitative research. When you propose a hypothesis, you automatically have to propose the opposite hypothesis and test both of them to either accept or reject the hypotheses under examination. We have two hypotheses here:
1) Niger-Congo originates in the upper nile valley 2) Niger-Congo does not originate in the upper nile valley (the null-hypothesis)
Where in this paper did he test both hypotheses and what are the variables he used to come to his conclusion? He does no such hypothesis testing because that wasn't the focus of his paper, which is why at that point he made it a point to inform the reader that it was a speculation.
For those who do not understand research methodology, you have three basic types of research methods: quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. Simply saying "science is about falsification" is incorrect. You have to specify the type of data collection method used in the study.
Quantitative research often, but not always, involves the use of methods such as experimentation and survey/questionnaire design. Quantitative research is generally used to examine cause-and-effect relationships and to test theories.
Qualitative research makes use of non-numeric observations of phenomena. Qualitative approaches to research are often carried out using research methods such as ethnography, interviews, questionnaires, field observations, and analysis of cultural documents. These methods often produce data in the form of words, descriptions, and images to explain phenomena and develop theories.
Mixed methods simply is the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods in one's research design.
These things are important to note because, for example (as in this case), you cannot "test" (as in experimentation) historical accounts because you cannot recreate the conditions to see what caused these events. In other words, scientists cannot reduplicate the historical events: e.g. the uniting of the two lands in Egypt. They can only speculate on what happened and its motivating factors, based on the extant evidence. This is what makes human history primarily qualitative.
When Welmers suggested a homeland in the Nile Valley for Niger-Congo, he could not have used quantitative methods because he could not experiment and test the hypotheses (the cause-and-effect relationship between variables) because he could not recreate the conditions to prove that certain variables were the motivating factors for the movement of NC westward. His analysis was qualitative and he proposed a theory to explain how Mande ended up in West Africa with the aim of finding more evidence to support this theory later on in the future. He did not pass this off as a definitive claim (like orange and blue makes green).
For those reading this, research is a lot more entailed than simply citing sources. Context and methodology are key for deciphering and critiquing other's works. I would suggest for those wanting to know more about solid African-Centered research methodologies, and what they entail, to pick up:
Then you will see why Dr. Winters' approach will lead you into epistemological traps in the field among other scholars. When Dr. Winters says things such as
quote:Afrocentric researchers, due to the well establish foundation of Afrocentric studies spend their time confirming the hypotheses made by the heroes of the Afrocentric science.
this is misleading. Afrocentric researchers do not spend their time "confirming" the hypotheses made by the heroes of Afrocentric science. They may be wrong. Remember that for a hypothesis to be testable, it must be falsifiable. If you are coming into the research project with the idea that one needs to "confirm" a hypothesis, than you may fall victim to all sorts of research bias because you are only looking for data that appears to support your premise(s) (beliefs), which nullifies the whole research project in the end.
Afrocentric, like any other theoretical framework in the various scientific fields, seeks to answer research questions using quantitative, qualitative or mixed research methodologies, which seeks to explain African historical phenomena.
Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL. I fail to understand why you want to show everybody how stupid you are about how to conduct research. Asar, the reason why you write a research paper is to confirm a hypothesis.
Asar you said
quote:
Afrocentric, like any other theoretical framework in the various scientific fields, seeks to answer research questions using quantitative, qualitative or mixed research methodologies, which seeks to explain African historical phenomena.
LOL. You are silly. I teach research methods so I am familiar with all these research methods. I had to teach my graduate students how to use these methods to write their Master’s Thesis.
Asar, again you have entered an area you fail to understand. We are talking here about anthropological and archaeological research. In these fields you rarely use quantitative or mixed research methodologies, because these research methods involve statistical measures, e.g., t-test, chi-square, pearson and etc.I bet you can't perform any of these statistical measures.
Asar you claim that when" you propose a hypothesis, you automatically have to propose the opposite hypothesis and test both of them to either accept or reject the hypotheses under examination". This is false, you simply state the hypothesis and then you confirm or disconfirm your proposed hypothesis.
Asar you said
quote:
When Welmers suggested a homeland in the Nile Valley for Niger-Congo, he could not have used quantitative methods because he could not experiment and test the hypotheses (the cause-and-effect relationship between variables) because he could not recreate the conditions to prove that certain variables were the motivating factors for the movement of NC westward. His analysis was qualitative and he proposed a theory to explain how Mande ended up in West Africa with the aim of finding more evidence to support this theory later on in the future. He did not pass this off as a definitive claim (like orange and blue makes green).
You contradict yourself. You said “When Welmers suggested a homeland in the Nile Valley for Niger-Congo, he could not have used quantitative methods because he could not experiment and test the hypotheses (the cause-and-effect relationship between variables) because he could not recreate the conditions to prove that certain variables were the motivating factors for the movement of NC westward.” And in the next sentence you admit that Welmers “ His analysis was qualitative and he proposed a theory to explain how Mande ended up in West Africa with the aim of finding more evidence to support this theory later on in the future. “ This is confusing because you have said that Welmers’ used qualitative methods while originally saying he couldn’t use qualitative methods.
Asar you are ignorant about writing and publishing a research article. No research paper is going to be published unless the author uses qualitative or quantitative research methods to confirm his/her hypothesis. In anthropology and linguistics you use qualitative methods.This method gives any proposed research project the following elements:
1.Problem/research question 2. Significance of the study 3. Review of literature 4.Hypothesis or Question 5. Population 6. Sample 7. Method of data collection 8.Results: The Relevant literature relating to your hypothesis 9. Discussion/Conclusion 10. References
Welmers Wm. In his article on "Niger-Congo Mande"( Current Trends in Linguistics, 7:113-140) met of these requirements.
Let look at what Welmers wrote
quote:
Wm. E. Welmers. 1971 "Niger-Congo, Mande" in T.A. Sebeok, et al. eds. Linguistics in sub-Saharan Africa (Current Trends in Linguistics, 7), pp. 113-140 The Hague: Mouton
P 119-120. By way of conclusion to this general overview of the Mande languages, a a bit of judicious speculation about Mande origins and migrations may not be out of order. It has already been stated that the Mande languages clearly represent the earliest offshoot from the parent Niger-Congo stock—not counting Kordofanian, which Greenberg considers parallel to all of the Niger-Congo, forming a Niger-Kordofanian macrofamily. An original Niger-Congo homeland in the general vicinity of the upper Nile valley is probably as good a hypothesis as any. From such a homeland, a westward Mande migration may have begun well over 5000 years ago. Perhaps the earliest division within this group resulted in the isolation of what is now represented only by Bobo-fing. Somewhat later— perhaps 3500 to 4500 years ago, and possibly from a new homeland around northern Dahomey [now Benin]— the ancestors of the present Northern-western Mande peoples began pushing farther west, ultimately reaching their present homeland in the grasslands and forests of West Africa. This was followed by a gradual spread of the Southern-Eastern division, culminating perhaps 2000 years ago in the separation of its to branches and the ultimate movement of Southern Mande peoples southeast and westward until Mano and Kpelle, long separated, became once more contiguous.
This reconstruction of Mande prehistory receives striking support from a most unexpected source— dogs. Back in the presumed Niger-Congo homeland—the southern Sudan and northern Uganda of modern times— is found the unique barkless, worried-looking, fleet Basenji, who also appears on ancient Egyptian monuments with the typical bee that compensates for his natural silence. Among the Kpelle and Loma people of Liberia, a breed of dogs is found which is so closely identical to the Basenji that it now recognized as the ‘Liberian Basenji’. In all of the Sudan belt of Africa from the Nile Valley to the Liberian forest, the dogs are somewhat similar in appearance, but very obviously mongrelized. It would appear that the Mande peoples originally took their Basenji dogs with them in their westward migration. At that time, the present Sahara desert was capable of sustaining a substantial population, and was presumably the homeland of the Nilo-Saharan peoples. The early Mande moment thus may have been through uninhabited land, and their dogs were spared any cross-breeding. The farthest westward Mande movement—that of the Southwestern group—was virtually complete before contact with dogs of other breeds. With the gradual drying of the Sahara and the southward movement of the Nilo-Saharan peoples, the remaining Mande peoples, as well as later waves of Niger-Congo migration made contact with other people and other dogs. The present canine population of the Liberian forests thus reflects the very early departure of the Mande peoples from their original homeland, and the subsequent early movement of the Southwestern group towards its present location, without contacting substantial number of unrelated people or dogs.
The key to science, is that control is used to test the cause of a hypothesis, layman rarely use control, they accept a hypothesis gased on belief and biases.
Finally scientists test relationships to determine their validity. Science is concerned only with things that can be tested and observed.
Let's look at Welmers hypothesis. All research begins with a research question.
Research Question: Where did the Niger Congo speakers originate?
Null hypothesis: There is no relationship between the present location of the Niger-Congo speakers and the original homeland of the speakers of these languages.
There are three main variables in Welmers study: 1) the location of Niger-Congo speakers in Nubia/Sudan; 2) the drying up of the Sahara that started migrations out of the Sahar; 3) the existence of bansanji dogs in Egypt and among the Mande speakers.
Result: The Niger Congo speakers probably originated in the Nile Valley because the Kpelle , who speak a Mande language, have the basanji dog, which was the domesticated dog of the Egyptians and other Nile Valley people.
The hypothesis was further supported by a most interesting finding, that was that the basanji dog is not the hunting dog of other ethnic groups inhabiting areas between the Nile Valley and where the Mande speakers live.
Welmers hypothesis was confirmed. To disconfirm this hypothesis you have to present evidence that nullifies the findings of Welmers.
To test Welmers hypothesis, lets compare the Egyptian term for dog and the Mande term for dog.
Egyptian term for dog corresponds to many African, and Dravidian terms for dog: Egptian uher
Azer wulle
Bozo kongoro
Guro bere
Vai wuru, ulu
Bo[Bambara] -ulu
Wassulunka wulu
Konyanka wulu
Malinke wuli, wuru, wulu
Dravidian ori .
The above data indicates that there is contrast between Paleo-Afican l =/= r. The Egyptian Ø uher # , Azer Ø wulle # and Manding Ø wuru # suggest that the r > l in Paleo-African.
There is also vowel alternation in the terms for dog o =/= u. The predominance of the vowel /u/ in the terms for dog, make it clear that o<u. This evidence suggest that there are two Paleo-African terms for dog: Paleo-African [PA] *uru and *oro.
Futhermore, this comparison of the term for dog within and among Niger-Congo languages and Egyptian supports Welmers view that the dog was domesticated in the Nile Valley before the speakers of these languages separated, and migrated to other parts of Africa.
The linguistic evidence supports the physical evidence discussed by Welmer.
quote:
Physical Evidence from Paper
Wm. E. Welmers identified the Niger Congo home land. Welmers in "Niger-Congo Mande", Current trends in Linguistics 7 (1971), pp.113-140,explained that the Niger-Congo homeland was in the vicinity of the upper Nile valley (p.119). He believes that the Westward migration began 5000 years ago.
In support of this theory he discusses the dogs of the Niger-Congo speakers. This is the unique barkless Basenji dogs which live in the Sudan and Uganda today, but were formerly recorded on Egyptian monuments (Wlemers,p.119). According to Welmers the Basanji, is related to the Liberian Basenji breed of the Kpelle and Loma people of Liberia. Welmers believes that the Mande took these dogs with them on their migration westward. The Kpelle and Loma speak Mande languages.
He believes that the region was unoccupied when the Mande migrated westward. In support of this theory Welmers' notes that the Liberian Banji dogs ,show no cross-breeding with dogs kept by other African groups in West Africa, and point to the early introduction of this cannine population after the separation of the Mande from the other Niger-Congo speakers in the original upper Nile homeland for this population. As a result, he claims that the Mande migration occured before these groups entered the region.
Linguistic research make it clear that there is a close relationship between the Niger-Congo Superlanguage family and the Nilo-Saharan languages spoken in the Sudan. Heine and Nurse (Eds.), in African languages: An introduction , Cambridge University Press, 2000, discuss the Nilo-Saharan connection. They note that when Westerman (1911) described African languages he used lexical evidence to include the Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Congo languages into a Superfamily he called "Sudanic" (p.16). Using Morphological and lexical similarities Gregerson (1972) indicated that these languages belonged to a macrophylum he named " Kongo-Saharan" (p.16). Research by Blench (1995) reached the same conclusion, and he named this Superfamily: "Niger-Saharan".
Genetic evidence supports the upper Nile origin for the Niger-Congo speakers. Rosa et al, in Y-Chromosomal diversity in the population of Guinea-Bissau (2007), noted that while most Mande & Balanta carry the E3a-M2 gene, there are a number of Felupe-Djola, Papel, Fulbe and Mande carry the M3b*-M35 gene the same as many people in the Sudan.
In conclusion, Welmers proposed a normal qualitative hypothesis which was supported by the following evidence confirming an upper Nile (Sudan-Uganda) homeland for the Niger-Congo speakers. He claims that they remained intact until 5000 years ago. This view is supported by linguistic and genetics evidence. The linguistic evidence makes it clear that the Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Congo languages are related. The genetic evidence indicates that Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Congo speakers carry the M3b*-M35 gene, an indicator for the earlier presence of speakers of this language in an original Nile Valley homeland.
Let us review the elements of Welmers qualitated research paper.
1.Problem/research question What is the origin of Niger-Congo Mande
2. Significance of the study We need to know where the Niger-Congo speakers originated
3. Review of literature He discussed the linguistic literature.
4. Research Question: Where did the Niger Congo speakers originate?
4b.Null hypothesis: There is no relationship between the present location of the Niger-Congo speakers and the original homeland of the speakers of these languages.
5. Population/Sample Literature relating to Mande speakers and basenji dogs
7. Method of data collection Review of research literature
8. Discussion/Result: The Niger Congo speakers probably originated in the Nile Valley because the Kpelle , who speak a Mande language, have the basanji dog, which was the domesticated dog of the Egyptians and other Nile Valley people.
10. References
Asar does not know anything about qualitative research, let alone quantitative research. As you can see Welmers paper is a great example of qualitative research. You can not get a paper published if it does not illustrate the about elements in the paper.
posted
This was the most illogical and misinformed response to date from Dr. Winters. This, above all else, definitively proves that Dr. Winters does not know what he is talking about and I feel sorry for any student that has taken his courses.
Let’s deal with the fundamental issue here and not get side-tracked by Winters’ red herrings. Dr. Winters stated:
quote: His analysis was qualitative and he proposed a theory to explain how Mande ended up in West Africa with the aim of finding more evidence to support this theory later on in the future. “ This is confusing because you have said that Welmers’ used qualitative methods while originally saying he couldn’t use qualitative methods.
These comments demonstrate that Dr. Winters doesn’t know what he is talking about and I will show you why. I argued that Welmer’s analysis wasn’t QUANTITATIVE (I argued his analysis was qualitative. I didn’t argue against this) because it is in QUANTITATIVE research that one does HYPOTHESIS TESTING. One doesn’t do hypothesis testing in QUALITATIVE research. Let’s make sure my critique is correct here (there are a few scholars emerging, however, that claim you can use qual. research to test hypotheses; content analysis is being touted as such an procedure, but most reject this position). Dr. Winters states:
quote: In anthropology and linguistics you use qualitative methods.This method gives any proposed research project the following elements:
Welmer’s 1971 work is a linguistic and anthropological analysis. This we both agree on and this is confirmed by Dr. Winters’ statement that said:
quote: Welmers Wm. In his article on "Niger-Congo Mande"( Current Trends in Linguistics, 7:113-140) met of these requirements.
…after providing HIS criteria for a qualitative study. In other words, Welmer’s article (according to Dr. Winters) is a qualitative study, not quantitative.
This is important because of the criteria which distinguishes both. When discussing theory, we have two ways for coming to a theory: i.e. induction and deduction. INDUCTION moves from the particular to the general, that is, you move from a specific set of observations to the discovery of patterns in those observations, hypotheses, and theories. DEDUCTION, on the other hand, moves from an EXPECTED pattern of behavior to observations that test whether that pattern actually exists.
This is important to pay attention to. QUANTITATIVE research uses DEDUCTIVE approaches to test EXPECTED patterns of behavior to see if the pattern actually exists. QUALITATIVE research uses INDUCTIVE methods where one makes observations, draws conclusions and develops theories and explanations to clarify the observations (grounded theory is a good example: theory that emerges from data). Qualitative research is not involved in HYPOTHESIS TESTING. You can’t test a hypothesis using qualitative research methods: that is the domain of QUANTITATIVE (the cause-and-effect relationship between variables). And by Dr. Winters admitting that Welmer’s 1971 paper was qualitative, he argues against his own premise, which makes anything he says after that null and void. Dr. Winters doesn’t know what he is talking about.
For those wanting an expanded discourse on research methodology, I recommend—in addition to the work of Dr. McDougal mentioned earlier—Dr. John W. Creswell’s work Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches, 4th Edition (I currently have the 3rd edition).
Here you will learn why Dr. Winters approach and reasoning is unsound and why his assessment of Welmers work falls short of a representative analysis. I won’t even get into the errors of his linguistic analysis on the Benji dog. He has to get past this hurdle first. For those wanting to up their game here on EgyptSearch, you have to learn proper methodology. Only by knowing the nuances in methodological procedures, can you make a strong case for or against the work you are using to make arguments. Know what the researcher can and cannot say based on the type(s) of methods they are using in their research. This is how you eliminate trolls from boards such as this.
Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have the 3rd edition of the Creswell book and it does support my assessment of the Welmers paper.
Asar said
quote: Qualitative research is not involved in HYPOTHESIS TESTING. You can’t test a hypothesis using qualitative research methods: that is the domain of QUANTITATIVE (the cause-and-effect relationship between variables). And by Dr. Winters admitting that Welmer’s 1971 paper was qualitative, he argues against his own premise, which makes anything he says after that null and void. Dr. Winters doesn’t know what he is talking about.
LOL. This is false.
You can have a hypothesis in a qualitative study when you are using a mixed methods approach to produce knowledge. This is obvious because Welmers states in his paper, his hypothesis concerning the origin of the Mande speakers in the Nile Valley. Welmers wrote:
quote: An original Niger-Congo homeland in the general vicinity of the upper Nile valley is probably as good a hypothesis as any.
Asar you say that hypothesis is not a part of a qualitative study because it involves deduction, while quantitative research involves induction. There is not a clear cut distinction between the use of deduction and induction when conducting research because of the ability to use a mixed methods research approach.
Induction relates to the actions that result in a hypothesis, i.e. the idea or hunch about a phenomena. Deduction refers to the recognition of the implications resulting from the hypothesis which needs to be verified. As a result, a hypothesis or research question can not be verified without deduction. Creswell, notes that “However the case can be made that no qualitative study begins from pure observation and that prior conceptual structure composed of theory and methods provides the starting point for all observations”.
This quote by Creswell makes it clear that theory is behind all research. Theories are the result of proven hypothesis.
quote: A hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven hypotheses. A theory is always backed by evidence; a hypothesis is only a suggested possible outcome, and is testable and falsifiable.
As a result, qualitative research is conducted with hypothesis at its foundation. This means that a hypothesis can be explicit or implicit in a qualitative study.
As a result when Welmers says
quote: An original Niger-Congo homeland in the general vicinity of the upper Nile valley is probably as good a hypothesis as any.
Welmers is stating an explicit hypothesis in a qualitative study. He goes on to discuss the variables he uses to confirm his hypothesis. There are three main variables in Welmers study: 1) the former location of Niger-Congo speakers in Nubia/Sudan; 2) the drying up of the Sahara that started migrations out of the Sahara; 3) the existence of bansanji dogs in Egypt and among the Mande speakers. These variables are measured via a literature review.
It would appear that when Welmers stated a hypothesis in his paper he was using a mixed method approach in this qualitative study of Niger-Congo languages. This is possible because as noted by Creswell on page 136: “Mixed method studies may include theory deductively in theory testing and verification, or inductively as in an emerging theory or pattern. In either situation , the use of theory may be directed by emphasis on either quantitative or qualitative approches in the mixed methods research”.
These words by Creswell make it clear you can have quantitative methods, i.e. a hypothesis, in a qualitative research paper. It is clear that Asar has not read Creswell or he would have told the truth that in a mixed methods research paper you can use multiple procedures from the methods of qualitative and quantitative research.
Now that I have shown that a researcher can use mixed methods in their research based on the text you mentioned in your own post, now show me the errors in my analysis of the Benji dog.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let’s get this perfectly clear Dr. Winters, I don’t argue for or against something I have not read. When I say I have read something, you can take it to the bank and cash it. All my citations in any discussion of mine are accurate.
Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches, John W. Creswell (2009: 4)
quote: Qualitative research is a means for exploring and understanding the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem. The process of research involves emerging questions and procedures, data typically collected in the participant’s setting, data analysis inductively building from particulars to general themes, and the researcher making interpretations of the meaning of the data. Those who engage in this form of inquiry support a way of looking at research that honors an inductive style, a focus on individual meaning, and the importance of rendering the complexity of a situation (adapted from Creswell, 2007).
Quantitative research is a means for testing objective theories by examining the relationship among variables. These variables, in turn, can be measured, typically on instruments, so that numbered data can be analyzed using statistical procedures. The final written report has a set structure consisting of introduction, literature and theory, methods, results, and discussion (Creswell, 2008). Like qualitative researchers, those who engage in this form of inquiry have assumptions about testing theories deductively, building in protections against bias, controlling for alternative explanations, and being able to generalize and replicate findings.
Mixed methods research is an approach to inquiry that combines or associates both qualitative and quantitative forms. It involves philosophical assumptions, the use of qualitative and quantitative approaches, and the mixing of both approaches in a study. Thus, it is more than simply collecting and analyzing both kinds of data; it also involves the use of both approaches in tandem so that the overall strength of a study is greater than either qualitative or quantitative research (Creswell * Plano Clark, 2007).
It is clear here that Creswell sees inductive reasoning as being associated with qualitative methods, and deductive reasoning as being associated with quantitative methods. It doesn’t matter what research design book you get, these are the correlations. And for the record, the primary source of definitions for discussions about these research methods comes from McDougal (2014).
And Dr. Winters seems to get theory confused here. All a theory is, is an explanation for phenomena. It is not the result of “proven” hypothesis testing. Welmers didn’t do any quantitative studies (even if you were to erroneously argue he was doing mixed methods research) in his 1971 paper. You cannot quote his exact procedure and the steps that he did to “control for alternative explanations.” His work was qualitative. If his aim was to test theories, what was the test he used and where in the paper did he state he did this test? This ain’t about the benji dogs or proving Niger-Congo came from the Nile-Valley. That is not my focus. If you would have actually read Mboli’s book, for example, you’d know that he argues as well that many of the languages we currently call Niger-Congo derived from the Nile-Valley. I’m not making a stance here. The point is to simply point out how you misrepresented Welmer’s work and after reviewing your statements, as well as Welmer’s, others in this forum see your slip of hand in your paper. As I said, you dig your own grave and it is easy for the world to see. You throw red herrings as if this is a bonafied strategy to deter us from the point. That may work with the internet trolls, but does not work on me. I know how to keep focus and always bring things back to the main point under discussion. You misrepresented Welmer’s statements by treating his “judicious speculations” as tested and confirmed facts. You were called out on it, you tried to defend it and failed. It’s over. Get over it.
Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
A falsificationist determines if a hypothesis can be confirmed or disconfirmed.
That's incorrect. A falsificationist determines if a hypothesis can be disconfirmed only.
That's why they are called a falsificationist, they seek to determine if a hypothesis can be tested and to be determined if it is false.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters
Afrocentric researchers, due to the well establish foundation of Afrocentric studies spend their time confirming the hypotheses made by the heroes of the Afrocentric science.
well obviously they are not falsificationists if they are confirming anything, confirmation is the opposite of falsification and is called
Verificationism
( or just induction)
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
(1) If Blacks founded civilization in Asia and Africa , they may have influenced civilization in the Americas.
this is an induction not falsification. The falsificationist would say that the idea that Africans were a influence on the Americas cannot be proven to be false therefore while it may be true it is not a scientific statement. There has to be the possibility that you could do a test to find out if Africans were not an influence on the Americas and since you might be able to confirm it but you cannot disconfirm it the hypothesis is not scientific. It might be true but to the falsificationist it s not a science.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
(2) If Blacks founded civilization in West Asia, Africa and Europe, archaeological data will support their earlier presence in these regions of the world.
This is an assumption.
It is not falsificationism.
In falsificationism you determine if something could be tested to falsehood
You say that if Blacks founded civilization in West Asia, Africa and Europe, archaeological data will support their earlier presence in these regions of the world. That assumes that a people who founded a civilization would have also had to have been living in the region at an earlier time before the civilization was present but you can't prove this. A civilization can expand or migrate into an uncivilized area and have no earlier presence there as the same people before they were civilized.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Afrocentric researchers are falsificationist because they are confirming the four propositions of ASEH.
This statement doesn't make sense. The word falsification comes from the word false. People who confirm things are not falsificationists. They are confirmationists, the opposite of a falsificationists ( more properly "verificationist"
To say Afrocentric researchers are falsificationist because they are confirming propositions is like saying tall people are short.
Falsificationists don't confirm propositions. They falsify propositions, hence they name
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: Let’s get this perfectly clear Dr. Winters, I don’t argue for or against something I have not read. When I say I have read something, you can take it to the bank and cash it. All my citations in any discussion of mine are accurate.
Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches, John W. Creswell (2009: 4)
quote: Qualitative research is a means for exploring and understanding the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem. The process of research involves emerging questions and procedures, data typically collected in the participant’s setting, data analysis inductively building from particulars to general themes, and the researcher making interpretations of the meaning of the data. Those who engage in this form of inquiry support a way of looking at research that honors an inductive style, a focus on individual meaning, and the importance of rendering the complexity of a situation (adapted from Creswell, 2007).
Quantitative research is a means for testing objective theories by examining the relationship among variables. These variables, in turn, can be measured, typically on instruments, so that numbered data can be analyzed using statistical procedures. The final written report has a set structure consisting of introduction, literature and theory, methods, results, and discussion (Creswell, 2008). Like qualitative researchers, those who engage in this form of inquiry have assumptions about testing theories deductively, building in protections against bias, controlling for alternative explanations, and being able to generalize and replicate findings.
Mixed methods research is an approach to inquiry that combines or associates both qualitative and quantitative forms. It involves philosophical assumptions, the use of qualitative and quantitative approaches, and the mixing of both approaches in a study. Thus, it is more than simply collecting and analyzing both kinds of data; it also involves the use of both approaches in tandem so that the overall strength of a study is greater than either qualitative or quantitative research (Creswell * Plano Clark, 2007).
It is clear here that Creswell sees inductive reasoning as being associated with qualitative methods, and deductive reasoning as being associated with quantitative methods. It doesn’t matter what research design book you get, these are the correlations. And for the record, the primary source of definitions for discussions about these research methods comes from McDougal (2014).
And Dr. Winters seems to get theory confused here. All a theory is, is an explanation for phenomena. It is not the result of “proven” hypothesis testing. Welmers didn’t do any quantitative studies (even if you were to erroneously argue he was doing mixed methods research) in his 1971 paper. You cannot quote his exact procedure and the steps that he did to “control for alternative explanations.” His work was qualitative. If his aim was to test theories, what was the test he used and where in the paper did he state he did this test? This ain’t about the benji dogs or proving Niger-Congo came from the Nile-Valley. That is not my focus. If you would have actually read Mboli’s book, for example, you’d know that he argues as well that many of the languages we currently call Niger-Congo derived from the Nile-Valley. I’m not making a stance here. The point is to simply point out how you misrepresented Welmer’s work and after reviewing your statements, as well as Welmer’s, others in this forum see your slip of hand in your paper. As I said, you dig your own grave and it is easy for the world to see. You throw red herrings as if this is a bonafied strategy to deter us from the point. That may work with the internet trolls, but does not work on me. I know how to keep focus and always bring things back to the main point under discussion. You misrepresented Welmer’s statements by treating his “judicious speculations” as tested and confirmed facts. You were called out on it, you tried to defend it and failed. It’s over. Get over it.
LOL. I have not misrepresented Welmers work.
In research we do not recognize facts, fact are decided in a court of law by a judge. You either confirm or disconfirm a hypothesis .
You are full of sh**. First you claimed you were basing your comments on Creswell , now you say its McDougal, after I illustrated Creswell said you could employ quantitative methods in a qualitative study. Make up your mind liar.
I never said Welmers did a quantative study. I said he used elements, i.e., he made a hypothesis in the paper under discussion.
You are just mad because Welmers used mixed methods in his research and you failed to understand how you can perform a research project with more than one method. If you were graded on your performance in this matter you earned a F+.
By the way, if you list the quantative studies you have published, I will cite mine.
You say that if Blacks founded civilization in West Asia, Africa and Europe, archaeological data will support their earlier presence in these regions of the world. That assumes that a people who founded a civilization would have also had to have been living in the region at an earlier time before the civilization was present but you can't prove this. A civilization can expand or migrate into an uncivilized area and have no earlier presence there as the same people before they were civilized.
This is not what I meant. I said that Blacks introduced civilization in America and Eurasia.
Today these areas are inhabited by non-Blacks, but archaeological evidence indicates these regions were inhabited by Blacks in earlier times, not Europeans, Native Americans or mongoloid people.
posted
First of all I didn't say my thoughts came from anywhere. You assumed that. Did you even read what I said? I said:
quote: For those wanting an expanded discourse on research methodology, I recommend—in addition to the work of Dr. McDougal mentioned earlier—Dr. John W. Creswell’s work Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches, 4th Edition (I currently have the 3rd edition).
What about this says to you that I said otherwise. I really lost respect for you. You can continue arguing with someone else. I won't waste my time any more. Good day.
Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
A so called scholar cursing and insulting during a civil debate. Real "professional."
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: lioness you said
quote:
You say that if Blacks founded civilization in West Asia, Africa and Europe, archaeological data will support their earlier presence in these regions of the world. That assumes that a people who founded a civilization would have also had to have been living in the region at an earlier time before the civilization was present but you can't prove this. A civilization can expand or migrate into an uncivilized area and have no earlier presence there as the same people before they were civilized.
This is not what I meant. I said that Blacks introduced civilization in America and Eurasia.
Today these areas are inhabited by non-Blacks, but archaeological evidence indicates these regions were inhabited by Blacks in earlier times, not Europeans, Native Americans or mongoloid people.
.
Is there an example of a civiliation not founded by Blacks?
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: First of all I didn't say my thoughts came from anywhere. You assumed that. Did you even read what I said? I said:
quote: For those wanting an expanded discourse on research methodology, I recommend—in addition to the work of Dr. McDougal mentioned earlier—Dr. John W. Creswell’s work Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches, 4th Edition (I currently have the 3rd edition).
What about this says to you that I said otherwise. I really lost respect for you. You can continue arguing with someone else. I won't waste my time any more. Good day.
You never respected me. If you had we would never of had this debate.
Asar I have lost my respect for you. This dispute resulted from your pridefulness. I was never attacking your work. I was attacking the work of Mboli. Instead of you recognizing this you wanted to feel it was an attack on you personally and so you spoke your mind.
While I truly was one of your supporters you felt that I was not legit. Like most negroes you felt, that it was no way Dr. Winters knows as much as he claims he knows so you tried to use my review of Mboli to “prove” that what others were saying about me was correct. This was a wrong move on your part I try to make sure that what I write about can be supported because it is public.
You were so confident that I was wrong about Mboli ,that you felt now you could attack all of my work and express your true feelings, and jealousy of my work. This was stupid.
Instead, of maybe trying to attack me in areas I might be weak in you chose to show that I lacked knowledge in linguistics and research methods. This was moronic. It was moronic because linguistics and research methods are my love. I have been doing linguistic research and publishing articles on linguistics since the 1980’s..Many of my papers were in historical linguistics and I have worked on reconstructing paleo-African terms for over 20 years. I even taught linguistics at Saint Xavier for severa years.
In addition, I have published anywhere from 20-30 quantitative articles over the years. I minored in Research Methods for my PhD at Loyola. At Governors State University I taught Research Methods and guided over 40 students in writing their Master’s thesis. As a result, I have always had a talent in research.
At first, I was surprised by your attempt to discredit me given the fact I have mentioned this experience over the years I have posted at ES. Yet you tried to discredit me by using Mboli as a pawn. It was no reason for you to attack me because of Mboli’s work. This was my opinion of his work and had nothing to do with what you felt about his work. You could have just said,”Hey, just because Dr. Winters sees Mboli’s work as Eurocentric, that’s his opinion”, and left it there. You didn’t do this and I had to discover that you are a fraud and jealous of my work.
You want to be an original researcher. Most other people you interact with don’t do original research so they can never be your real friend. You did the same thing that Hunter Adams and Ivan did when they chose to abandon my friendship to join forces with Berry Fell. In the end they proved to be embarassed nationally and internationally by the media because they were promoting research they did not understand and had never conducted. This allowed people to claim Afrocentrism was a discipline, just to give Black people self-esteem.
Now that I know you are a fraud and jealous of my work I will no longer support you and your work.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: lioness you said
quote:
You say that if Blacks founded civilization in West Asia, Africa and Europe, archaeological data will support their earlier presence in these regions of the world. That assumes that a people who founded a civilization would have also had to have been living in the region at an earlier time before the civilization was present but you can't prove this. A civilization can expand or migrate into an uncivilized area and have no earlier presence there as the same people before they were civilized.
This is not what I meant. I said that Blacks introduced civilization in America and Eurasia.
Today these areas are inhabited by non-Blacks, but archaeological evidence indicates these regions were inhabited by Blacks in earlier times, not Europeans, Native Americans or mongoloid people.
.
Is there an example of a civiliation not founded by Blacks?
Not that I know of. We could say Classical Greece and Rome, but the roots of these civilizations was Black people. Western civilization was introduced by Black Muslims/Moors. Today's Western civilization is supreme, but its technology was developed and perfected by Black Americans, and financed by the Atlantic slave trade..
posted
Let's not get me confused with you. Anyone viewing this thread can see for themselves what I said. I never made this about me. I never even mentioned my work on this thread. Where did you get that from? Also, unlike you, I never attacked YOU, I attacked your work. That's what scholars do. You noticed I didn't just make a claim, I went to your actual work and cited it. I never called you out of your name or used language that was unprofessional. I don't get caught up in internet politics. I keep it strictly academic, even when the opposition is being childish: as in this case. So you can miss me with your erroneous claims. You are not the scholar you claimed to be and your immature actions has, and continuously, demonstrates this fact. You can go on with your life now.
Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: Let's not get me confused with you. Anyone viewing this thread can see for themselves what I said. I never made this about me. I never even mentioned my work on this thread. Where did you get that from? Also, unlike you, I never attacked YOU, I attacked your work. That's what scholars do. You noticed I didn't just make a claim, I went to your actual work and cited it. I never called you out of your name or used language that was unprofessional. I don't get caught up in internet politics. I keep it strictly academic, even when the opposition is being childish: as in this case. So you can miss me with your erroneous claims. You are not the scholar you claimed to be and your immature actions has, and continuously, demonstrates this fact. You can go on with your life now.
You are a liar. You attacked me personally. If you call someone "foolish" or dishonest, you are attacking my personal character.
True, you didnt't mention your work but the fact you have failed to explain why my attacks on Mbobli's work is unsound using linguistic examples, instead of your declaration his work is in "white" libraries, illustrates you can't find any linguistic sources to support his claims.
You attacked my character.
Asar
quote:
You play too many games here and when you're called out on your foolishness you go to ad hominem attacks because you can't support your work. I don't have to work hard at discrediting you. Your work speaks for itself and is why most of the scholastic community doesn't take you serious. They see through the fraudulent premises as I do here. The first sign of a weak scholar and a person who has lost their position is ad hominem and you retreat there every time your positions are challenged.
Here you say I "play games", when called "out on foolishness" and "the scholastic community doesn't take you serious ". You never showed what I did was foolish, or cited any publications where the scholastic community attacked my work and 'fraudulent premises'. all OF THESE COMMENTS ARE AD HOMINEM.
You began your posting in this thread with personal attacks on my character.
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: Not to sound rude, but this is a bunch of BS.
quote:e.g., Gates, Mboli and Keita
Really? You put Mboli and Keita in the same boat as Gates? Mboli's work is not only accepted by "white" scholars (as its presence in various university libraries attests), but also African scholars from the African school of Egyptology, which he is a part of. It is getting annoying that you attack a scholar whose work you haven't read, tried to read snippets on the net, and then misrepresented his information and methods. Anyone who has actually purchased and read the book knows he builds off of Diop and Obenga and confirms this in a way because his method is rigorous and reduplicatable.
Often what I am seeing from Dr. Winters is that, when a researcher doesn't agree with his perspective, and they are Black, he claims that they are closet Eurocentrists. This is ad hominem.
What Dr. Winters fails to do is systematically falsify any of the claims against him. He writes/cuts and pastes these long articles he wrote where he claims other (white) scholars "made clear" some claim, but he never demonstrates in his work how they "makes it clear" that they did so.
For those that don't know, this is a book on linguistic methods and the linguistic methods of Diop and Obenga. Don't let Dr. Winter's misinformed rhetoric fool you. This is the real deal.
Let him drown in his own misery because most scholars isn't taking most of his work seriously.
[/b] Once you start understanding method, you'll see why much of Dr. Winter's assertions can be thrown in the trash. This madness has to stop. [/B]
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: SMH. You do know the author is Black right? A graduate from Temple's African American Studies under Asante right? You do know that I KNOW THE AUTHOR right? You do know this work is anti-Eurocentricism and provides methods to combat such perspectives in Africological research right? Why do I even bother to discuss matters with someone who critiques works he's never even read? At this point, I've lost all respect for you. Maybe someone else will entertain your foolishness.
In these post you claim:
1. That what I am doing is “BS”.
2. I presented specific linguistic evidence that Mboli’s work was not linguistically sound and you said it “ is ad hominem” and “foolishness” , and yet up-to-now you have failed to provide linguistic evidence falsifying my comments.
3. “Don't let Dr. Winter's misinformed rhetoric fool you. [/b]This is the real deal.” You call the presentation of linguistic evidence supporting my assertions “rhectoric”, eventhough each proposition was supported by evidence.
4.” Let him drown in his own misery because most scholars isn't taking most of his work seriously.” Eventhough you made this comment you have failed to cite any published papers by scholars attacking my claims.
5. “[/b] Once you start understanding method, you'll see why much of Dr. Winter's assertions can be thrown in the trash. This madness has to stop. [/B] “
You are such a liar you wrote:
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: Before I respond to the other nonsense given by Dr. Winters, let's give a prime example of what I mean when I say that Dr. Winters misrepresents data given by other authors. Now, I am not arguing that the Mande did not have their origins in the Nile Valley. What I am saying is that the author (Welmers) is speculating in this article concerning origins based on circumstantial evidence. This is why Welmers is using words like "hypothesis, probably, as good as any, speculation" to ensure the reader that he is not making a definitive argument. An honest scholar would have said, "Wm. E. Welmers, a linguist specializing in Niger-Congo languages, has speculated that the origins of Niger-Congo probably lies somewhere in the Nile-Valley, possibly in Sudan." This is a far cry from "Wm. E. Welmers identified the Niger Congo home land." The previous wording accurately represents the sentiments of the author in the text and doesn't add any connotations that the author did not advance. This is how scholars represents others works: by being honest.
Not only do you have to know how to properly cite sources, you have to be a critical reader and know context clues so you know the difference between an argument and a suggestion. This is why we can't trust you Dr. Winters. Too much folly in your methods.
In this post you imply my presentation of linguistic knowledge to describe the problems in Mboli’s work “nonesense”; and you claimed I was dishonest in claiming welmers could make a hypothesis in a qualitative paper, eventhough Asar, you knew researchers can use both methods in their researc papers.
Your posts show you are a liar and a fake. They imply you are jealous of my success. You thought you could hide your jealousy behind the work of Mboli. You believed this because Europeans had published his book and to nrgroes like you , anything done that involves Europeans--or whites generally --has to be right.You were wrong
These post illustrate your lack of knowledge about research methods. They show your character as represenhtative of a snake.
posted
Clyde which scholars, if you were to call them up today, would say you do good work? Who do you consider your peers or colleagues at the present time?
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Western civilization was introduced by Black Muslims/Moors.
You would say that prior to the Umayyad conquest of Hispania in 711 that Europe was always uncivilzed?
The conquest began with an invasion by an army that (according to traditional accounts) consisted largely of Berber Northwest Africans and was commanded by Tariq ibn Ziyad.
However the Moorish architecture style came from the Arabs and is said to be derivative of the Byzantines
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Clyde which scholars, if you were to call them up today, would say you do good work? Who do you consider your peers or colleagues at the present time?
You might want to check Google scholar and Research Gate. These sites will provide information on researchers who have cited my work.
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic