|
Post by Charlie Bass on Mar 31, 2010 15:27:17 GMT -5
I have seen too many arguments trying to discredit Afrocentrism by attacking weak strawmen and non-scholarly works, but no detailed refutation of Ancient Egypt and African civilizations being the products of Native Africans and not outsiders, so the question remains, where is the evidence?
|
|
|
Post by truth on Mar 31, 2010 15:56:43 GMT -5
it is pretty simple. Afrocentrism is an extremist fringe. It is not supported by Academia. No reputable domestic or any foreign institution teaches that nonsense. Not even the universities found in sub sahara, will you find this ideology being vigorously promoted, like you find here in Afro-centric circles. The ideology is unique to African American radicals here in the state. It is based pseudo science and history and is reactionary.
There is legitimate beef w/Afrocentrism.
|
|
|
Post by Kalonji on Mar 31, 2010 18:09:26 GMT -5
Charlie Bass I personally don't like to identify myself with Afro centrists anymore There is too much flawed scholarship active in that area for me to still want to belong to it. Where do I stand on African matters?
Ancient Egypt Culture as African as it gets People part of the African spectrum, clustering closest with more southernly Africans, while displaying variation, mainly in the north.
Black Hebrews I don't buy it, or at least, I haven't seen enough to make a case for it.
Black Chaldeans Definitely a black componant, predominant in the Ubaid phase, and decreasing as time progressed. Black asiatics, though no one can exclude genetic affinity with contemporary Africans.
Fulani, Horners African peoples with a West African and East African genesis, respectively.
Northern Africans Don't think the light skin color is indigenous, I believe it is the result of admixture from outside maternal influences. I also think that this mix of indigenous north African + outside influences have been present in Africa since before dynastic times. Hence Keita's 57% southern patterns in first dynasty royal remains. I think the other 43% represents that aforementioned mix. Perhaps the ''dual states'' implied in foreign names for Egypt, like Misrayim refers to this. The only thing that prevents me from stating the above as fact is the lack of a gradual difference in body plan as one leaves Africa and enters Israel. Also, up until dynastic times, tropical body plans were not only found in southerners, but in Egyptians in general. Recently, Mindovermatter posted a study that mentioned that certain other north Africans carry said limb proportions too. We asked him about the population the authors were referring to, but he didn't have the full study. If light skin north Africans can harbour tropically adapted bodyplans, we know the range of phenotypes we can ascribe to those nortern Egyptians that limb-wise failed to cluster with Palestinians.
Perhaps you have access to this study, Charlie
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Apr 1, 2010 2:13:14 GMT -5
it is pretty simple. Afrocentrism is an extremist fringe. It is not supported by Academia. No reputable domestic or any foreign institution teaches that nonsense. Not even the universities found in sub sahara, will you find this ideology being vigorously promoted, like you find here in Afro-centric circles. The ideology is unique to African American radicals here in the state. It is based pseudo science and history and is reactionary. There is legitimate beef w/Afrocentrism. As in any discipline there is always fringe the original purpose of Afrocentrism is to look at the world from an African's or an African descendants perspective..for example if some one was doing a history of mathematics you may want to point out the Ishango bones or Fractal Mathematics the Edwin papyrus or Al-Fulani ... Simply putting on a set of corrective lens to off set Ethnocentrism which is waay more damaging than so-called fringe works of some Africentrics, as a matter of facts more is learn t from the works of so-called Afrocentrics in regards to Africana studies than ever before.
|
|
jari
Scribe
Posts: 289
|
Post by jari on Apr 1, 2010 6:34:12 GMT -5
I don't mind being called an "afrocentrist" although I don't think it defines me. I seek an African perspective on history, society and culture mainly because it is so neglected, ignored, and misrperesented. All said I don't identify with many so called Afrocentric ideas and dogma, White Albnos, Black Olmecs, Egyptian origin of Christianity etc.
I also own book on other civilizations that are not African, Including the Vikings, Greeks, Native Americans, Meso Americans, and Muslims, Christian, Jews/Hebrews..etc.
My next goal is to learn DNA..
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Apr 1, 2010 11:24:14 GMT -5
I don't mind being called an "afrocentrist" although I don't think it defines me. I seek an African perspective on history, society and culture mainly because it is so neglected, ignored, and misrperesented. All said I don't identify with many so called Afrocentric ideas and dogma, White Albnos, Black Olmecs, Egyptian origin of Christianity etc. I also own book on other civilizations that are not African, Including the Vikings, Greeks, Native Americans, Meso Americans, and Muslims, Christian, Jews/Hebrews..etc. My next goal is to learn DNA.. Well some of the more controversial views are not necessarily Afrocentric in origin..take for instance the Black Olmecs, that was the position of the first American scientist Matthew Stirling to who reported on the findings..later to be followed up by a linguist called Leo-warner ..on the possible African influence in the Americas...now were they wrong? ...I for one believe that the case is not closed..however I will not be married to any position but await further info..either way. were they Blacks without being continental Africans entirely possible see Luiza skull from Brazil.Whites as Albinos.??..naaw I as far as I know different genetic trigger..Egyptian Origin of Christianity or as I would say the Kemetic origins of the Abrahamic faith...that's another fight and another thread..brother.. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Bass on Apr 1, 2010 11:46:27 GMT -5
To me personally, being an Afrocentrists is having African centered train of thought where people of any color start to realize the importance of contribution of peoples and cultures of African descent being done truthfully and back up by sound science with a multidisciplinary approach. I don't believe in lying just to be equal to Eurocentrists.
|
|
|
Post by beyoku on Apr 1, 2010 12:26:40 GMT -5
it is pretty simple. Afrocentrism is an extremist fringe. It is not supported by Academia. No reputable domestic or any foreign institution teaches that nonsense. Not even the universities found in sub sahara, will you find this ideology being vigorously promoted, like you find here in Afro-centric circles. The ideology is unique to African American radicals here in the state. It is based pseudo science and history and is reactionary. There is legitimate beef w/Afrocentrism. I think you are going to have to DEFINE the people that you are speaking of. Other than theories of the "super natural powers of Melanin" and things in this league Afrocentrism is not saying anything that any other mainstream science hasn't said already. People talk about the method and critique the author but rarely do they engage in battle with "Afrocentrists" in regards to the actual CONTENT that is in their publications.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Bass on Apr 1, 2010 12:51:35 GMT -5
it is pretty simple. Afrocentrism is an extremist fringe. It is not supported by Academia. No reputable domestic or any foreign institution teaches that nonsense. Not even the universities found in sub sahara, will you find this ideology being vigorously promoted, like you find here in Afro-centric circles. The ideology is unique to African American radicals here in the state. It is based pseudo science and history and is reactionary. There is legitimate beef w/Afrocentrism. I think you are going to have to DEFINE the people that you are speaking of. Other than theories of the "super natural powers of Melanin" and things in this league Afrocentrism is not saying anything that any other mainstream science hasn't said already. People talk about the method and critique the author but rarely do they engage in battle with "Afrocentrists" in regards to the actual CONTENT that is in their publications. People like truth are relying on straw arguments to discredit African-centered approaches to studies. It is the equivalent to saying all African Americans are criminals based on the few who are incarcerated. Its much easier to do that than try to confront the real issues head on.
|
|
|
Post by truth on Apr 1, 2010 13:23:44 GMT -5
I think you are going to have to DEFINE the people that you are speaking of. Other than theories of the "super natural powers of Melanin" and things in this league Afrocentrism is not saying anything that any other mainstream science hasn't said already. show me a mainstream university in China, as matter of fact, show me any college in China that teaches the original Chinese were "Black." It's ludicrous and ridiculous claims like that, which makes Afrocentrism a laughingstock. Ask yourself this question, why is not what is purported by Afrocentrists taught in mainstream colleges and universities around the world. Have you ever wondered why?
|
|
|
Post by beyoku on Apr 1, 2010 14:41:58 GMT -5
I think you are going to have to DEFINE the people that you are speaking of. Other than theories of the "super natural powers of Melanin" and things in this league Afrocentrism is not saying anything that any other mainstream science hasn't said already. show me a mainstream university in China, as matter of fact, show me any college in China that teaches the original Chinese were "Black." It's ludicrous and ridiculous claims like that, which makes Afrocentrism a laughingstock. Ask yourself this question, why is not what is purported by Afrocentrists taught in mainstream colleges and universities around the world. Have you ever wondered why? Show me Author who has written this in his text? The burden of Proof is on YOU not me.
|
|
|
Post by truth on Apr 1, 2010 14:58:04 GMT -5
Are you kidding me? The onus is on you to prove this Afrocentrist innovation. By default what you say is not true, since it is not taught in mainstream. The burden of proof is on you buddy. Remember, you people are the ones introducing some new ish to which, the academic world is not privy. Show me Author who has written this in his text? The burden of Proof is on YOU not me.
|
|
|
Post by sundiata on Apr 1, 2010 17:30:09 GMT -5
^This guy is obviously confused. The burden has always been on you "truth", to provide valid sourced citations which states that "Black China" is an official Afrocentric position and that "Afrocentrism" its self, isn't an approach to history as opposed to an actual methodology, hence prove that there is an official "Afrocentric" school as opposed to Afrocentrism being a group collective which has the same goal, but through diverse aims (propaganda, scholarship [flawed or sound], media messages, organization and protests, etc.). I'm considering writing an overview on here tracing the history of racism and Eurocentric bias in academia as well as the black response to it. It is painfully apparent that Eurocentric biases under the guise of consensus has filtered into our modern mainstream discourse, hence Eurocentric scholars in general resort to some of the most fallacious reasoning I've ever heard in denying African history merely because such misconceptions are oft repeated, while some Afrocentrists go much too far in their exaggerations, thereby exposing an easy target which concentrates only on a few minority views among unthoughtful Afrocentrists who simply overcompensate. Most Afrocentrists for example, hold the same views as mainstream scholars such as S. Keita, Chris Ehret, Bruce Trigger, etc.. Yet they are not attacked as are the extreme minority Afrocentrists because they (the extremist Afrocentrists) don't compile evidence in the same manner to support a similar case. So what these Euronuts are always attacking is the methodology of the extreme Afrocentrists and not their view point, since they can't soundly refute it, only the argument on which it is based.
The difference between Afrocentrism and Eurocentrism is that Afrocentrism's base is in a small social community while Eurocentrism's base is an entire institution, laden with covert messages, controlling of stereotypes and perceptions, control over publishing and what views are acceptable. None of this of course has any bearing on the universal and absolute truth of a statement, claim or view of which Eurocentric academics will never have property of.
|
|
|
Post by truth on Apr 1, 2010 18:31:03 GMT -5
Listen fool, go speak to your resident Afrocentric scholar, Dr. Clyde Winters. He's the Afrocentric scholar promulgating that crap. ^This guy is obviously confused. The burden has always been on you "truth", to provide valid sourced citations which states that "Black China" is an official Afrocentric position and that "Afrocentrism" its self, isn't an approach to history as opposed to an actual methodology, hence prove that there is an official "Afrocentric" school as opposed to Afrocentrism being a group collective which has the same goal, but through diverse aims (propaganda, scholarship [flawed or sound], media messages, organization and protests, etc.). I'm considering writing an overview on here tracing the history of racism and Eurocentric bias in academia as well as the black response to it. It is painfully apparent that Eurocentric biases under the guise of consensus has filtered into our modern mainstream discourse, hence Eurocentric scholars in general resort to some of the most fallacious reasoning I've ever heard in denying African history merely because such misconceptions are oft repeated, while some Afrocentrists go much too far in their exaggerations, thereby exposing an easy target which concentrates only on a few minority views among unthoughtful Afrocentrists who simply overcompensate. Most Afrocentrists for example, hold the same views as mainstream scholars such as S. Keita, Chris Ehret, Bruce Trigger, etc.. Yet they are not attacked as are the extreme minority Afrocentrists because they (the extremist Afrocentrists) don't compile evidence in the same manner to support a similar case. So what these Euronuts are always attacking is the methodology of the extreme Afrocentrists and not their view point, since they can't soundly refute it, only the argument on which it is based. The difference between Afrocentrism and Eurocentrism is that Afrocentrism's base is in a small social community while Eurocentrism's base is an entire institution, laden with covert messages, controlling of stereotypes and perceptions, control over publishing and what views are acceptable. None of this of course has any bearing on the universal and absolute truth of a statement, claim or view of which Eurocentric academics will never have property of.
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Apr 1, 2010 23:24:20 GMT -5
|
|