Do afrocentrics ask the wrong questions about KMT

[oshun]

Eurocentrism tends to suggest that African inferiority can be demonstrated through thing such as a supposed "lack" of culture, and an inability for norms and practices commonly associated with Africa to function/coexist in a civilization. This has been the crux of an argument to relegate blacks to a secondary status within civilizations where they are the majority and to find other ways to exploit them when they are not. Elevating blacks in status almost comes with a pre req to strip them of any cultural ties to Africa. The blacks that get power are often more culturally assimilated to Euro culture, an their "achievements" are defined by and are often characteristically European.


I would think to an Afrocentric, the race of the Egyptians is perhaps even less important than establishing where their cultural affinities lie. If we were to ask the average person about AE culture no one knows. Many people can readily discuss the race of the Egyptians but know nothing about culture. To me this is perhaps the most important because if Egypt demonstrates core African beliefs and concepts can coexist in a civilization, then this destroys a Eurocentric belief that Europeans must "civilize" Africans, and on their terms. The real question to me is: Was AE culturally black. Cause even if (please dont get stuck on the word if), the AE were white, if they relied on black culture to make their civilization what it was, it remains a conceptually black achievement. More to the point it can deconstruct notions of race but emphasizes the connectedness of Egypt to Africa without that social construct if undesired.

[truthteacher2007]

Afrocentrics are asking the wrong questions because despite their name, they are still functioning in a Eurocentric world view in which skin color and not language, nationality, blood lines and culture are the basis upon which identity is based. The reality of Africa shows that skin color is almost never considered as an indication of affiliation.

The other problem is that it is too preoccupied with trying to get the recognition of the White man. They think that if the white man shouts that Egypt was black from the Empier State Building its going to change something. They fail to realize that the Eurocentric society is dependent on having an underclass to survive. Belonging to a "race" or ethnic group that demonstrated the achiebvement of high civilization is not going to change the way they see us or interact with us. If that were the case, the Mayas in Mexico would be at the top of society, not the bottom. Same goes for the descendants of the Aztecs and other groups that Cortez met. Everyone knows of their achievements. Yet despite the amount of tourism to see the monuments, the documentaries, the books on MesoAmerican achievement MesoAmericans in Mexico are still on the total bottom of society while the white minority remains firmly entrenched at the top. Turn on any Mexican soap opera and you tell me how many Aztecs you see.

[anansi]

Jul 16, 2012 9:50:02 GMT -5 truthteacher2007 said:

Afrocentrics are asking the wrong questions because despite their name, they are still functioning in a Eurocentric world view in which skin color and not language, nationality, blood lines and culture are the basis upon which identity is based. The reality of Africa shows that skin color is almost never considered as an indication of affiliation.

The other problem is that it is too preoccupied with trying to get the recognition of the White man. They think that if the white man shouts that Egypt was black from the Empier State Building its going to change something. They fail to realize that the Eurocentric society is dependent on having an underclass to survive. Belonging to a "race" or ethnic group that demonstrated the achiebvement of high civilization is not going to change the way they see us or interact with us. If that were the case, the Mayas in Mexico would be at the top of society, not the bottom. Same goes for the descendants of the Aztecs and other groups that Cortez met. Everyone knows of their achievements. Yet despite the amount of tourism to see the monuments, the documentaries, the books on MesoAmerican achievement MesoAmericans in Mexico are still on the total bottom of society while the white minority remains firmly entrenched at the top. Turn on any Mexican soap opera and you tell me how many Aztecs you see.

Very true it's like some folks still try and get respect based off the works of their ancestors and get others to admit the Kemites were....well black and African will magically change attitude far from it it's all about exploitation historical achievements have very little to do with anything , people respect you when you acquire power and wealth,then all of a sudden they want to know what makes you tick,

I think those who are into knowledge for it's own sake or finding answers in the past for solutions to today's problems or simply storing and cataloging knowledge are on the right tract.African history or any history for that matter should not be used as a pissing contest for who is first or biggest in whatever endeavor.

[truthteacher2007]

Exactly! I think more often than not, so called afrocentrics are not able to see the forest because of the trees. Knowing our own personal histories and the histories of other African civilizations is an important first step in disengaging from the Eurocentric mind set which teaches us that as African peoples and descendants we are genetically inferior to the Western European. Showing the achievements of African peoples as a whole dispells that myth and allows you to determine who you are and what you are capable of achieving based on your own merits, not the limits that others would set for you. However, if you are unaware of the existance of the Eurocentric world view and how and why it was created, you will be lost.

Arguing over whether or not there were light skinned peole in Egypt, why Modern Egyptians look the way they do are all irrelevant distractions. And last time I looked, Modern Egyptians get the same nigger treatment that every other African country gets from the west anyway, so WTF? Reminds me of a Puerto Rican friend of my father that went south and pulled into a gas station. The attendant tells him, BOY, WE DON'T SERVE NIGGERS HERE. The guy tells him, BUT I'M NOT BLACK, I'M PUERTO RICAN. The attendant replies, BOY I AIN'T ASKED YOU WHAT KIND OF NIGGER YOU IS, I JUST SAID WE DON'T SERVE NIGGERS!

The point of the matter is that European society was based on the need to make money and the need to have an underclass,to facilitate that need, bottom line.

In the colonial experience, they had to create and maintain these divisions with whatever means they could. In Ireland nationality and religion were used. Ireland was where the template that would be used against Africans and their descendants was created. They took the best land from the natives and gave it to English protestants, thus creating the divisions that continue to rip Northern Ireland apart to this day. In the Caribbean and North America the servant underclass became the native Americans and Africans. That's really all its about. Therefore, if you understand that then you realize that what we are really against here is class warefare and the real objective needs to be universal civil rights, economic and political.

Therefore, what people of color need, is not ONLY history, but practical knowledge in acquiring education, economic intelligence and continued social and legal representation and protection. We have to create the institutions within our communities to acomplish these goals the same way the Jews, Chinese and Koreans do instead of waiting for mister white man to throw us a bone. Your opressor will never place you on an equal footing with him. You have to create what you want and this is where afrocentrics miss the boat. They want to be recognized. They want to prove the "black man" is superior, they want to wear exotic garb and festoon themselves in baubles, bangles and beads to prove to everyone they're special, in other words, insignificant inconsequental bullshit. None of that will change anything, just like electing a black president didn't change anything. Doing for ourselves will.

Jul 16, 2012 10:28:32 GMT -5 anansi said:

Jul 16, 2012 9:50:02 GMT -5 truthteacher2007 said:

Afrocentrics are asking the wrong questions because despite their name, they are still functioning in a Eurocentric world view in which skin color and not language, nationality, blood lines and culture are the basis upon which identity is based. The reality of Africa shows that skin color is almost never considered as an indication of affiliation.

The other problem is that it is too preoccupied with trying to get the recognition of the White man. They think that if the white man shouts that Egypt was black from the Empier State Building its going to change something. They fail to realize that the Eurocentric society is dependent on having an underclass to survive. Belonging to a "race" or ethnic group that demonstrated the achiebvement of high civilization is not going to change the way they see us or interact with us. If that were the case, the Mayas in Mexico would be at the top of society, not the bottom. Same goes for the descendants of the Aztecs and other groups that Cortez met. Everyone knows of their achievements. Yet despite the amount of tourism to see the monuments, the documentaries, the books on MesoAmerican achievement MesoAmericans in Mexico are still on the total bottom of society while the white minority remains firmly entrenched at the top. Turn on any Mexican soap opera and you tell me how many Aztecs you see.

Very true it's like some folks still try and get respect based off the works of their ancestors and get others to admit the Kemites were....well black and African will magically change attitude far from it it's all about exploitation historical achievements have very little to do with anything , people respect you when you acquire power and wealth,then all of a sudden they want to know what makes you tick,

I think those who are into knowledge for it's own sake or finding answers in the past for solutions to today's problems or simply storing and cataloging knowledge are on the right tract.African history or any history for that matter should not be used as a pissing contest for who is first or biggest in whatever endeavor.

[Tukuler al~Takruri]

This thread appears unmoored.

Nobody ever gave a definition of an Afrocentric
nor which questions they ask leave alone refer
any books etc., on Egypt written by any Afrocentric.

So, what Afrocentric writers works on Egypt has
anyone read?

Even more important, other than colour and race,
what do y'all know on the history and culture of
Egypt from the same standpoint any other nation's
or people's culture, development, and history are
presented in books, studies, the classroom, etc.?

When will the leap be made to examine what
made ancient Egypt what it was? Certainly it
was not colour and race that made Egypt great.

It seems to me, focus here is really current black
sociology issues in which Egypt is merely a foil.

[truthteacher2007]

Jul 16, 2012 14:07:25 GMT -5 Tukuler al~Takruri said:

This thread appears unmoored.

Nobody ever gave a definition of an Afrocentric
nor which questions they ask leave alone refer
any books etc., on Egypt written by any Afrocentric.

My exposure to so called Afrocentrics has been people on the internet claiming to be Afrocentrics. Almost all of these people have been individuals who comment on my videos, or the videos others have made on the topic.

I have seen books written by people claiming to be Afrocentrics, but these people also believed in Atlantis, Mu, the magical properties of melanine and all other kind of stuff which I consider airy fairy nonsense and often display the annoying habbit of dressing up in funny outfits. In a word, people I just can't bring myself to take seriously, so I never bought any of them.

So, what Afrocentric writers works on Egypt has
anyone read?

The only one I've read was Diop the African Origins of Civilization, buty that was over 20yrs ago. I think in a great many ways he was on point and was pivital in pointing out the Africanity of the Egyptian culture. He forced the mainstream to engage in the diologue. If you know any books by people who are serious scholars I'd appreciate knowing about them.

Even more important, other than colour and race,
what do y'all know on the history and culture of
Egypt from the same standpoint any other nation's
or people's culture, development, and history are
presented in books, studies, the classroom, etc.?

This is exactly the point I've been arguing for years. Its the history and the culture we must pay most attention to if we are to know who these people really are. We can't just look at cartoons painted on tomb wall and then attempt to construct what an entire society was all about. I see no evidence to support that color was the thing that Egyptians based their identity on.

It speaks volumes to me that the race controversey videos on youtube have hits in the hundreds of thousands, yet the videos on history and culture of Egypt have less than a hundred and almost no comments. This tells me people really don't care, nor do they really want to learn. They only want to use Egypt as a platform to spew their sentiments of racial superiority, whether it be black or white supremacy.

When will the leap be made to examine what
made ancient Egypt what it was? Certainly it
was not colour and race that made Egypt great.

I hope you're not holding your breath based on reasons I just stated above

It seems to me, focus here is really current black
sociology issues in which Egypt is merely a foil.

BINGO! DING, DING, DING! SOMEBODY GIVE THAT MAN A CIGAR!

[truthteacher2007]

I basically said everything you just did. When I mention physical appearances its only because the issue has been raised by others, specifically that the Modern population can not be the descendants of the ancients. I give the genetic anthropolgical evidence as much as I know, but I also do include cultural traits as well. If you read through my statements in the other thread with .... you know who you will see that is exactly what I did. Yes I posted a video of Amazighs, but within it were cultural traits that I mentioned such as the fact that their music is polyrhythmic and has a call and response structure. I also mentioned dance styles although I didn't show any clips. However, all of these things were totally ignored and I was insulted thus changing the nature of the discussion.

However, off the top of my head, a few cultural traits that link Modern Egyptians to Ancients and Africa:

#1: The practice of male and female circumcision. Still parcticed in Egypt and found from Kenya all the way to West Africa.

#2: the cried of joy, called zaghrouda in Egypt which can be heard as far south as South Africa.

#3: Dance: The primary dance style of Egypt is a torso intencive, solo improvisational style. Meaning the torso and hips play the major role rather than the legs and feet. Tis style of movement is called Belly Dance in the west, but variations on the theme are found in Somalia, Kenya, Uganda, Congo as well as the entire North African coast, thus dispelling the theory that it originated in India.

#4: The Sabua: This is a ritual still practiced in Egypt on the 7th day of a child's birth. The child is placed in a sive while a moter and pestle is rung in its ear. This ritual has been depicted on temple walls.

#5: Martial Arts: Takhtyib> Is a stick fight. Depicted on temple walls, it is still a common past time in rural Egyptian communities. Variations of this are found as far south as Ethiopia.

Jul 25, 2012 5:53:46 GMT -5 arara sabalu said:

Actually as the point has been raised before, several actual Afrocentric scholars such as Maulana Karenga or Ama Mazama are very much interested in the cultures of Africa and provided very good contributions to Egyptology and African studies as a whole. Karenga's book about Maât was one of the most enlightening book i have read about Ancient Egypt. Ironically, from my personal experience, most people who criticize "Afrocentrics" for being obsessed with race (or race vs genetics) are actually the ones who are obsessed with Ancient Egyptian physical appearance, very knowledgeable about their genetics and physical anthropology but could not care less about cultural aspects of Egyptian & other African civilizations. This leads me to believe that they only care about Egypt because of its inhabitants being potentially biologically close to them, thus not caring about Ancient Egypt because of its culture but because it is one of the few African civilizations held in high regard by Europeans and their descendants.

PS: Not to start trouble, truthteacher2007, but despite of your message above, I can't help but notice that your posts do not seem to reveal a great interest in Egyptian culture and history from your part, but rather a quasi exclusive interest in Egyptian physical and genetic profile. I hope I am wrong though, and I strongly encourage you to post more about cultural aspects of Egyptology and Africana.

Best,

Arara

[zarahan]

The real question to me is: Was AE culturally black.

^^But this falls into the same trap posed by your initial post. If race should
be irrelevant or secondary why ask if they are culturally "black"? Your
premise is not only shaky but it contradicts itself


Afrocentrics are asking the wrong questions because despite their name, they are still functioning in a Eurocentric world view in which skin color and not language, nationality, blood lines and culture are the basis upon which identity is based. The reality of Africa shows that skin color is almost never considered as an indication of affiliation.

^^WHat 'Afrocentrics" are you talking about? Guys on the street during
Black History Month who spout pop culture platitudes bout "Nubians"?
CLassic writers like Diop or Van Sertima? Or serious current scholars like
Keita who disavows the label "Afrocentric"? OR serious students like those
on Reloaded or Egyptsearch that analyze the latest research?


The other problem is that it is too preoccupied with trying to get the recognition of the White man.

Sure SOME people are into a self-esteem thing. But many others simply want
more balanced and accurate information on African bio-cultural history.


Showing the achievements of African peoples as a whole dispells that myth and allows you to determine who you are and what you are capable of achieving based on your own merits, not the limits that others would set for you. However, if you are unaware of the existance of the Eurocentric world view and how and why it was created, you will be lost.

^^WHat makes you think that "Afrocentrics" are not concerned about showing
the achievements of African peoples as a whole? Diop did a large amount of work
demonstrating links between many African areas- a clear "pan African" focus at times.


Arguing over whether or not there were light skinned peole in Egypt, why Modern Egyptians look the way they do are all irrelevant distractions.

^Actually it is highy relevant. Knowing why they look the way they do
is esentially anthropology and human variation science. Light skin is more
related to climate for example, not "Hamitic" outsiders. Body mass is highly
related to increases in nurtition- a product both of more productive
mixed foraging/harvesting economies and the development of agriculture.
.
SUch details must be mastered by those who want a full and accurate picture
of African achievements. The 2 factors above for example expose bogus "biodiversity"
claims and misleading scholarship that seek to downplay and distort African
history. The student of African history that does not have a good grasp of
such things will not be able to create alternative models or defend Africa and
Africans against those who would appropriate or distort the very same
achievments you speak of. And it is not only the Nile Valley at stake.
The same distortion is in place from Ethiopia, to Guinea, to SOuth Africa.
THe basic science must be mastered to not only defend Africa and Africans,
but to create alternative models.

Racists of all stripes would like nothing better than that people interested
ina balanced view of Africans abandon the field and not raise questions or critiques,
while they get a free hand to spin their distortions.


You have to create what you want and this is where afrocentrics miss the boat.

You havent defined what "Afrocentrism" is or how "Afrocentrics" are neglecting
the creation of institutions.. etc.. Your notions sound suspiciously like
the bogus strawmen put forward by racists, Eurocentrics, bio-diversitists
etc re "Afrocentrism" - which itself is a highly diverse concept and rubric.

[truthteacher2007]

Dec 2, 2012 14:55:14 GMT -5 zarahan said:

The real question to me is: Was AE culturally black.

^^But this falls into the same trap posed by your initial post. If race should
be irrelevant or secondary why ask if they are culturally "black"? Your
premise is not only shaky but it contradicts itself

This was not my statement. But I would agree with the basic premise. I would ask the question whether or not the culture was indiginous to te continent. In other words, did it show a stronger relationship to itself and its neighbors on the continent? Or did it show a stronger relationship to those nearby cultures outside the continent?

Afrocentrics are asking the wrong questions because despite their name, they are still functioning in a Eurocentric world view in which skin color and not language, nationality, blood lines and culture are the basis upon which identity is based. The reality of Africa shows that skin color is almost never considered as an indication of affiliation.

^^WHat 'Afrocentrics" are you talking about? Guys on the street during
Black History Month who spout pop culture platitudes bout "Nubians"?
CLassic writers like Diop or Van Sertima? Or serious current scholars like
Keita who disavows the label "Afrocentric"? OR serious students like those
on Reloaded or Egyptsearch that analyze the latest research?

You do have a point there Al Afrocentrics are not the same.You have people who are very well educated scholars who have done and continue to do very indepth research and then you have the kind who are not very well educated, have done no research, but love to spout rehtoric about the superiority of the Black man, quite often have no knowledge of any real African cultures or peoples outside of their fantasy of what they would like to believe Africa is or was...and occasionally hav a strong attraction to dressing up in funny costumes. Unfortunately, the latter are the ones who get the most attention because they are the most vocal and visible in public and on public forums such as youtube etc.

The other problem is that it is too preoccupied with trying to get the recognition of the White man.

Sure SOME people are into a self-esteem thing.

And those are the people I'm talking about

But many others simply want
more balanced and accurate information on African bio-cultural history.
...And those are the people I'm not talking about. Unfortunatly they are not as visible to most.

Showing the achievements of African peoples as a whole dispells that myth and allows you to determine who you are and what you are capable of achieving based on your own merits, not the limits that others would set for you. However, if you are unaware of the existance of the Eurocentric world view and how and why it was created, you will be lost.

^^WHat makes you think that "Afrocentrics" are not concerned about showing
the achievements of African peoples as a whole? Diop did a large amount of work
demonstrating links between many African areas- a clear "pan African" focus at times.

As stated above, these are not the types of people I'm talking about. But the most important part of my statement is the fact certain points of views held by "so called Afrocentrics" are rooted in a Eurocentric world view. The concept of a universal Black race or identity, implying that all African peoples are the same, look the same and share the same culture. The concept of the "black race being superior". These are just two examples of concepts that are in fact borrowed from the European colonial sytem and its concept of race, or the notion that we wre all the same, just "Black", just "African" etc.

Arguing over whether or not there were light skinned peole in Egypt, why Modern Egyptians look the way they do are all irrelevant distractions.

^Actually it is highy relevant. Knowing why they look the way they do
is esentially anthropology and human variation science. Light skin is more
related to climate for example, not "Hamitic" outsiders. Body mass is highly
related to increases in nurtition- a product both of more productive
mixed foraging/harvesting economies and the development of agriculture.
.
SUch details must be mastered by those who want a full and accurate picture
of African achievements. The 2 factors above for example expose bogus "biodiversity"
claims and misleading scholarship that seek to downplay and distort African
history. The student of African history that does not have a good grasp of
such things will not be able to create alternative models or defend Africa and
Africans against those who would appropriate or distort the very same
achievments you speak of. And it is not only the Nile Valley at stake.
The same distortion is in place from Ethiopia, to Guinea, to SOuth Africa.
THe basic science must be mastered to not only defend Africa and Africans,
but to create alternative models.

Racists of all stripes would like nothing better than that people interested
ina balanced view of Africans abandon the field and not raise questions or critiques,
while they get a free hand to spin their distortions.

And I agree wih you whole heartedly. But try using that line of reasoning with some of these folks. They will argue you till there blue in the fact that there is only one "real African phuysical type and everything that diviates from that must be the result of some sort of racial mixture. Look throuh some of the pervious threads this year and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

You have to create what you want and this is where afrocentrics miss the boat.

You havent defined what "Afrocentrism" is or how "Afrocentrics" are neglecting
the creation of institutions.. etc.. Your notions sound suspiciously like
the bogus strawmen put forward by racists, Eurocentrics, bio-diversitists
etc re "Afrocentrism" - which itself is a highly diverse concept and rubric.

By now I think you understand where I'm coming from.