Talk:Afrocentrism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages. Administrators: when banning a user from an article, look up this article on the list of active general sanctions, select the relevant Arbitration case, and list the user under the Log of Bans at the page bottom; additionally, make use of {{User article ban arb}}.

	This article is part of WikiProject African diaspora. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles related to topics concerning persons of African descent and their cultures. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora for more information. (See: Category:WikiProject African diaspora for more pages in this project.)
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-Importance within African diaspora.

To-do list for Afrocentrism:

edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do: Include countervailing info on Spencer Wells' genetic research under "Africoid as a term incorporating Oceanic, Dravidian and Australoid peoples." Discuss uses/applications of Afrocentric paradigm in the various professional fields alluded to in the opening paragraphs and limit discussion of its use in history -- which should be addressed at length elsewhere. Citations

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 (2006-Aug 2007) Archive 8 (Sept-Oct 2007) Archive 9 (Nov 2007-Dec 2007) Archive 9 (Dec 2007-Feb 2008)

[edit] Alek Wek as Caucasoid

This would appear to be an error. The Caucasoid North Africans are people who have Middle Eastern/pakistani features and dark skin. It is clear this Mc Wek is not Caucasoid at all. There is an abundant amount of evidence to show what North African caucasoids really look like. I may be putting words in people's mouths here, but it would appear, that be saying that "Eurocentrists claim that Alek Wek is a Caucasoid" it is just a way of showing how stupid "Eurocentrists" are. But the "Pahraohs were caucasoid" idea would definitely not have referred to people with racial features like those of Alek Wek. She is clearly not Caucasoid, and I don't think that anyone even claims that she is. Anyone who watched the recent(as of this time of writing) African Cup of Nations would need only to look at the Egyptian team to see what North African Caucasoids look like. Nothing like Miss Wek. I have not removed the claim that "people say she is caucasoid" yet, but this is clearly an error, and I will likely remove it soon, but would be interested what other people have to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheatum Jr (talk • contribs) 09:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Remove it. It's simply an allegation by whover put it there, as you say, an attempt to make some people look stupid. No references, quotes, etc.--Dougweller (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No its not an allegation. It needs to be put back. I don't have access to the picture. It needs to be reverted because it illustrates the inconsistencies and Eurocentric outlook of your mainstream. Alek Wek is closest phenotypically to the ancient Nubians which some of your mainstream scholars have classed as caucasoid and hamite. This article was beginning to be satisfactory. The Afrocentric Haters are beginning to show their nasty teeth. They want it to reflect their mainstream. Raimhotep (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC) Ah, you use the word 'mainstream' when convenient. Without any references for any Eurocentrists claiming Alek Wek is a 'Caucasoid' it has no place under Wikipedia standards in the article.--Dougweller (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You are beginning to sound silly. I don't have issues using the word mainstream. I have issues using the word mainstream in the context of American, British, and Western mainstream as a position to absolute truth to delete certain positions. Raimhotep (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC) Nothing to do with absolute truth or the issue of Alek Wek.--Dougweller (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non sequitur?

The text says: "Theories of pre-Columbian American-African contact have been contested by others, with some Mesoamericanists charging Van Sertima with "doctoring" and twisting data to fit his conclusions, and with inventing evidence.[4] Subsequent mainstream archaeological evidence, however, in the form of human skeletal remains and rock art was discovered in 1999 and 2005 in Brazil, and has surfaced elsewhere in South America, which strongly suggests a pre-Columbian "Australoid" or "Negroid" presence in the New World. According to BBC News:

The identity of the first Americans is an emotive and controversial question. But the evidence from Brazil, and a handful of people who still live at the very tip of South America, suggests that the Americas have been home to a greater diversity of humans than previously thought - and for much longer.[15]"

The first sentence is correct, that is what has been stated. But from 'Subsequent' on, none of the text contradicts the first sentence or even suggests an African presence in South America -- the BBC News article (and I'd say news articles aren't sufficient for this sort of thing is titled 'First Americans were Australian' and doesn't mention Africa. And if you read other reports it is clear that Lucia is thought to have come over a Siberian route, whether by boat or land. Since none of it supports an African source, can I delete it?--Dougweller (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's nonsense. What Sertima is claiming is completely unrelated to the "paleoamerican" Australoid argument. That's simply the claim that very ancient paleolithic peoples migrated by normal means either through Siberia or by island-hopping, and that their phenotype resembles Australian aborigines. It has nothing to do with migration from Africa except in the trivial sense that all migration is ultimately from Africa. In that sense the Conquistadors were African. It ceratinly is not about "pre-Columbian American-African contact". Paul B (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

pure fringecruft. Pre-Columbian Africa-Americas contact theories needs to be cleaned up asap into something that makes clear this is loopy pseudohistory, not a serious hypothesis. dab (𒁳) 13:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

also, keeping a discussion of this pre-Columbian stuff in this article makes it appear even more kooky than already inherent in the topic. The long-term aim here should be to separate nonsensical "theories" from sentiment and ideology. The claims are without merit, and can be debunked, while the sentiment is of course neither "true" nor "false" on exactly the same grounds as any other racialist ideology. dab (𒁳) 15:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Kooky to you. It is more kooky, comparing a continent with a subregion, just to remain significant. One man's kooky is another man's sanity. Raimhotep (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

And who are you, Dbachmann? For the umpty-ump time, what you think about such theories doen't matter one whit here. The fact is the material is adequately sourced, and those advancing the information are reputable, learned and respected in their respective fields. It doesn't matter in the least what you think of it. National Geographic, Scientific American and the BBC are exceedingly mainstream. User: deeceevoice 03:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC

The BBC is in a sense mainstream, but it presents stuff like programs featuring Graham Hancock, there are some articles on its site that are just plain wrong, etc. It isn't necessarily reliable. It's just part of the media after all.--Dougweller (talk) 06:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph in question doesn't make much sense. Van Sertima is talking about African influence on the Olmecs, who according to the Wikipedia article flourished from about 1200-400 BCE; the Nat'l Geographic and BBC articles are talking about the first inhabitants of the Americas, more than 10000 years ago. I can't access the Scientific American article, but I bet it's about the same thing. These article don't have anything to do with the Afrocentrist pre-Columbian contact theories. As far as I can see, this is a non-sequitur, and we should remove the sentence "However, archaeological finds over the last two decades in South America of rock art and human skeletal remains suggest to some scholars and academicians an ancient, pre-Columbian presence of "Australoid" or "Negroid" peoples in the New World[15] which came from Asia earlier than the arrival of current Asiatic populations."

Are there other authors (not "scholars") who advance pre-Columbian African contact theories? Because as far as I can tell, the section is all about Van Sertima. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Clyde Winters does. I also don't see that particular sentence as having to do with van Sertimas arguments. And they certainly do not improve the level of his scholarhip.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This section was recently added. This is just one of the topics of Afrocentrist, too much has been devoted to it. Clyde Winters is a scholar and an author. With your superior knowledge and learning,you should have been able to render Clyde Winters into an insignificant insect. Your trade off between Clyde Winters revealed to me that you don't have a greater truth. Thought I commend and respect what you do and in acquiring the disciplines that you have, you might be better off keeping an open mind on Van Sertima's theories rather than insulting his scholarship. Personally, I don't think you are on Van Sertima's level and have accomplished enough to criticize his scholarship. The main negation argument is the "mainstream scholarship don't support it." That is all I am hearing. Raimhotep (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

And Clyde Winters is wrong. I've argued with him directly enough to know that. But you are losing the point, which is that an article about Austroloids is not relevant to Afrocentrism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 21:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"One man's kooky is another man's sanity." -- not on Wikipedia. We have standards. See WP:ENC. It does indeed not matter one bit what I think personally. I never claimed it did. Unlike all the lobbyist accounts trolling this page. "mainstream scholarship don't support it" is the only argument that does count around here. Don't like it? Go open your own blog. dab (𒁳) 12:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream scholarship not supporting it doesn't mean it won't necessarily be included in Wikipedia (see, for instance, cold fusion or intelligent design) but it does mean it will be presented clearly as being unsupported by mainstream scholarship and will include relevant facts in regards to it, especially if the idea is contradicted by reality or unsupported by facts. It would be simply wrong of us not to point out facts which support or contradict something - it would be a violation of NPOV. That said, the purpose is not to get into some stupid battle over facts but rather to give the reader an idea of the current status of something, what support it has, and what opposition and criticsm it suffers from, as well as the degree of acceptance it has among relevant communities. Contrast evolution and intelligent design, or fusion and cold fusion. Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

I've reinserted the countervailing material about the possible presence of Africans in the New World. It is disingenuous and flatout incorrect to simply write off Van Sertima's thesis as being universally rejected out of hand by mainstream scholars.

Further, Dbachmann, it is unhelpful and inflammatory to delete material referring to the findings and opinions of mainstream scholars, as presented by "National Geographic," the BBC and Scientific American -- and then describing it as "fringecruft" -- merely because it is consonant with Afrocentrist theories of a pre-Columbian African presence in the New World. Please. Exercise some restraint/self-control. Haven't you learned anything from the ArbCom matter? If you cannot, then I would hope you would stick to your earlier, stated intention of steering clear of this article and move on. Such conduct is not helpful.

I've deleted/shortened much of the criticism section -- just as the section referred to above was shortened. It is in appropriate and blatantly POV to go on and on and on about anti-Afrocentrist opinions, while systematically deleting countervailing information. But more importantly, these changes are preparatory to a rewriting of the article. As has been discussed on this page earlier, the article is far too skewed to a treatment of Afrocentrism and the practice of history. This article should treat Afrocentrism as an overarching phenomenon, with a separate article on Afrocentrism (history). Much of what has been deleted relative to this narrow aspect of Afrocentrism, both pro and con, is perfectly valid and can be reinstated there -- or in articles even more narrowly focused on more specific aspects/fields of Afrocentrism & history -- meso-American studies, Egyptology, China studies, etc. deeceevoice (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The Austroloid stuff is misleading and doesn't belong here. What mainstream archaeologists accept Van Sertima? And BBC web articles can be absolutely dreadful.--Dougweller (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Here we go with the mainstream argument. Whose mainstream? British mainstream? American mainstream? Western mainstream? or Nigerian mainstream? Ghanaian mainstream? African mainstream? The assumption of the gentleman is that his mainstream has the correct and greater truth which historical it hasn,t. Raimhotep (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not my term, it's used frequently on Wikipedia. It's used 47 times on this page before I used it just now, at least once by you. But mainstream archaeologists are the ones who publish in the various national and international archaeologists. I have no idea what your last sentence means.--Dougweller (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Originating from where? It certainly is not international. International would mean all continents and all societies. Archaeology is just one tool, not the only tool of knowing. Its absence does not negate truth. It certainly will solidify truth. Raimhotep (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that anyone's bothering to cite any sources here. Interested editors may wish to look at Gabriel Haslip-Viera, Bernard Ortiz de Montellano, and Warren Barbour, "Robbing Native American Cultures: Van Sertima's Afrocentricity and the Olmecs," Current Anthropology 38 (1997) 419-41. This article clearly establishes that Van Sertima's ideas are not widely discussed by academic anthropologists, and that his ideas are wrong; for example, the abstract states "In 1976, Ivan Van Sertima proposed that New World civilizations were strongly influenced by diffusion from Africa. The first and most important contact, he argued, was between Nubians and Olmecs in 700 B.c., and it was followed by other contacts from Mali in A.D. 1300. This theory has spread widely in the African-American community, both lay and scholarly, but it has never been evaluated at length by Mesoamericanists. This article shows the proposal to be devoid of any foundation..."

Following the main article there are short responses from a number of scholars that further demonstrate the low opinion the field has of Van Sertima's work, e.g. Michael Coe says on p. 432, "The claim by Van Sertima and others that Africans created the Olmec culture of Mesoamerica belongs in the same historical dustbin as previous claims that the high cultures of the New World resulted from the migration of white peoples from Europe (i.e., the Welsh who were supposed to have left the mounds of the U.S. Middle West) or the Near East (i.e., the Mormon belief that the Maya cities were really made by white "Nephites"). Only recently have we been assured in press articles that the Olmec came from China!" That's pretty damning.

There's a reply in the following volume of Current Anthropology by Martin Bernal ("On 'Robbing Native Cultures'," Current Anthropology 39 (1998) 512-514). If Martin Bernal is in favor of something, that's a good sign it's a fringe theory, and indeed, he doesn't think that Van Sertima got a fair shake. But Bernal agrees that Van Sertima's theories are not part of mainstream academic discussion--but he thinks they should be.

It may be worth discussing Van Sertima in this article, if his theories are popular among Afrocentrists; but the article must also make it clear that these are fringe theories and not accepted by Mesoamerican archaeologists, or among scholars in general. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"If Martin Bernal is in favor of something, that's a good sign it's a fringe theory"--So the Western mainstream has disregarded Martin Bernal's work. Fringe to whom? Archaeology is not the only means of knowing. Because archaeologists have not found proof does not mean its not true. We saw this in the viking theory. We recently saw this in pacific islanders reaching America before Columbus theory, using different fields of study. Raimhotep (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Archaeology proved that Vikings visited North America. They did find proof. As for Pacific Islands, if you are talking about the chicken bone found in Chile last year, that was found by archaeologists also. I don't know exactly what your point is, but you've just given two good arguments where archaeology seems to have found vital evidence in a disputed issue. Thanks.--Dougweller (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You are silly. Let me break it down for you. Make it more simple. Before the Viking archaeological data, the Viking contact theory was based on other sources like the Sagas. The Theory was considered "fringe" and "nonsense." In fact, the Saga was used as a source to locate Viking archaeological artifacts in the new world. Before the archaeological data on Pacific contact, the theory was around because boat enthusiast of the West coast noticed that native american boats were similiar in design to those of the Pacific islanders. Van Sertima has far greater non archaeological data than Saga and boats, that is why I don't reject his theory. Because there is no archaeological data does not mean the theory is false. Raimhotep (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC) No, the Viking contact hypothesis was disputed, not considered 'fringe' and I was taught it in school as fact long before the archaeological data. But it only went beyond hypothesis when the archaeological data was found. The boat thing is irrelevant as the relationship hasn't been shown to be correct, unlike the sagas. You can be right for the wrong reasons, that doesn't make the wrong reasons right.--Dougweller (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Since I don't know what non-archaeological data you have in mind (and technically this isn't the place to discuss it), I can't comment. But if you are thinking of plant data, that's been shown to be wrong.

Are we not having a dispute? You and your ilk have never been right. You claim superior knowledge to the Afrocentrist, but your superiority is never seen. On one hand you say, "but you've just given two good arguments where archaeology seems to have found vital evidence in a disputed issue." Next you contradict yourself by saying, "The boat thing is irrelevant as the relationship hasn't been shown to be correct, unlike the sagas." One minute Van Sertima is a dispute. Next minute Van Sertima is not a dispute. You and your ilk must suffer from schizophrenia. After all it has been pointed out that Eurocentrism is a mental disorder. I don't know what plant data you are talking about, having witness your weak and loser pattern, your plant data arguments is most likely and everything you have ever said is wrong. Raimhotep (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, personal insults, how low can you go? Reading back, you seem to resort to these rather than try to make a rational argument or explain yourself. That's the loser pattern. I have no idea where it is been pointed out that Eurocentrims (or logically any centrism} is a mental disorder. ANd I don't claim superior knowledge to the Afrocentrist. Pointing out that one or two of them are wrong is not making a global statement. Anyway, a pox on all the centrists of any sort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 07:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am just stating a fact. You and your ilk seem to have an inability to connect things which is certainly irrational and you contradict yourself too many times, multiple personalities(schizo). You have made many claims which have certainly been proven wrong, over and over(loser). Last I checked the old data was correct on the Pacific/America contact theory, including the eyewitness accounts of chickens being in America before columbus(Pizzaro said it himself), linguistic data, and botanical data. Van Sertima uses all these areas to prove the African contact theory. Thor Heyerdahl was ahead of his time, kudos to Thor. A classical example of Eurocentrism, the Viking contact theory before the archaeological data could be "disputed" but not "fringe." When information makes one look good, one just accepts it without rigor. But if its other peoples, it is "fringe." You and your ilk were quick to reject the China/contact theory but said nothing about the Roman Amphorae or reject it. Raimhotep (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

-) Let's see -- mentally ill, loser, schizo, any other insults? Don't you know what kind of person lumps other people together the way you do and then says they are 'the other', not really human? You don't even know me and you think I've said nothing about the Bay of Jars. Or that I'm not as rigorous with ideas I agree with as those I don't. We all come from Africa, like it or not, so maybe everyone should be an Afrocentrist. But I think any 'centrism' is a form of nationalism and takes you on a slippery downhill slide to somewhere I certainly don't want to go. What I do notice about you is that you are all talk and no substance. Bye.--Dougweller (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That's all well and good, Doug. You have your opinion, and you're welcome to it. However, neither this article nor this talk space is about what you (or anybody else, for that matter) think about Afrocentrism. With all due respect, the average reader -- myself included -- couldn't care less. And it should have no bearing whatsoever on the content of the article. deeceevoice 20:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I shouldn't have allowed myself to get sucked into this discussion, if you look at my first post, it was about the relevance of the stuff about some Native Americans coming from Australia. Raimhotep derailed the discussion and I guess I let him.--Dougweller (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all I did not derail any discussion. My comments were not directed to you in the first place. I was just replying to comments about Afrocentrism made by one of your ilk. You chose to get into the discussion instead of minding your own business. I hope it is permanent. Bye! Raimhotep (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be wrong to exclude the racist theories of Afrocentrism from an Afrocentrism article, but it should also be made clear it is not the mainstream position on the subject - namely, that it is pseudoarcheology at best. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] good article

good article http://www.city-journal.org/article01.php?aid=1426 "afrocentric hustle" by Stanley Crouch —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moobes (talk • contribs) 23:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Linking an article to a right wing conservative, certainly does not make the argument for cultural unity and cohesion. Certainly people who finance Bell Curve studies and want their notion of America or their America to be paramount certainly can't make an argument for cultural cohesion.Raimhotep (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? The article - which I don't think is good - is by Stanley Crouch, a black jazz critic. It never once mentions anything about financing "Bell Curve studies". Paul B (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

People have varying views on Stanley Crouch: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n33_v10/ai_15729692--Dougweller (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I do enjoy your ad hominem attack on him, rather than actually adressing what he raised. Who he is is irrelevant to the actual argument he makes. Generally, if you have to attack the person and can't attack the argument, its a sign you've lost. I think it is a fine article, personally. Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That was a response to Raimhotep, not me, right?--Dougweller (talk) 12:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct, hence the single indent. I try to keep things consistant so it isn't so confusing, but I know it can be a bit hard to follow sometimes. On the whole, though, I don't see anything wrong with the article; that said, I'm not sure how relevant it is to the discussion. There have to be better academic sources criticizing Afrocentrism in similar ways; I've read them, and I don't think some random jazz artist is a better source unless we wanted someone who was specifically black for some reason (or he is more notable than I think, which is entirely plausible - I know very little about jazz). Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Stanley Crouch is considered a cultural critic as well.--Parkwells (talk) 13:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Amusing trying to understand the nuance of culture we did not grow up in. This is the continuation of my "black friend" theme. It was originally uncle tong Dinesh, now an uncle tom. I will not assist thee in understanding the nuance of a society or culture. I will leave you to your paper. Raimhotep (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The lead

The lead is oozing lobbyist weasling once again. How can people submit such stuff to Wikipedia with a straight face? Blather about "collective struggles", "African eyes", "paradigms", "part of a broader, multicultural movement" belongs in a pamphlet, not in a neutral encyclopedia aritcle. This is so much smoke weasling around the straightforward identification of "Afrocentrism" as a racialist ideology of the US "culture wars". Until and unless these terms aren't stated up front in the lead, this article needs to remain tagged with {{NPOV}}. dab (𒁳) 12:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

More of your own personal opinion, Dab. It's really very tiresome. I have no problem leaving hte POV tag on it until the article is fleshed out further. I have time.... User: deeceevoice 22 February 2008

Furthermore, the term "culture wars" is an American/U.S. phenomenon; whereas, Afrocentrism is an international phenomenon (and has been from its earliest beginnings) -- as is the purported scope of Wikipedia. Your comments remind me of the story of the blind men groping an elephant and describing the individual body part they're experiencing. You, Dbachmann, seemingly are intent on looking at only the ass-end of Afrocentrism, the extremism and myth making, and loudly proclaiming you know the truth of the beast; everyone else is benighted. You continue to try to disparage them and their efforts with incivility and condescension. Your continued use of such inflammatory, abrasive language is evidence you've learned absolutely nothing from the recent ArbCom case involving in part your earlier disruption of this article by similar comments in this same space and your edit notes and in edit-warring/wheel-warring in the article itself. Try being more civil and constructive. Now, there's an idea! User: deeceevoice 23 February 2008

In the light of how many different editors have expressed that they share dabs "personal" opinion in these very pages I think it is remarkable that you don't want the article to even mention that viewpoint.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 18:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

News flash: No one's personal opinion belongs in the article. It doesn't matter how many random editors may be in agreement with one side or another. When such viewpoints are expressed as thinly veiled personal opinion, or in POV language in the article, that is inappropriate. What is, unfortunately, un-"remarkable" is that you've utterly misrepresented my approach to the article; you either simply don't have a clue what you're talking about, or the facts just don't matter to you. I've have not deleted, wholesale, appropriate language referring to sources antagonistic to, or critical of, Afrocentrism. Such information remains in the article; it belongs there. What I've objected to is insertion of such language where it is unsubstantiated POV, immaterial or irrelevant, or in detail or volume unmerited by the appropriate focus of the article -- which is Afrocentrism as an overarching paradigm. As it is -- for the umpteenth time -- the article focuses far too specifically and in depth on Afrocentrism in the study and practice of history (pro and con) -- and little else, an approach which is overly narrow and not terribly informative. Subsequent edits, hopefully, will correct this shortcoming and open the article up to include a discussion of Afrocentrism as it is conceived and commonly applied -- by, yes, even mainstream institutions -- across disciplines, with adequately sourced, balanced appraisals where appropriate.

This article should not suffer the same fate as many articles of this type (ones that deal with Black subject matter) on this white-dominated website: become little more than a magnet for a constant stream of editors antagonistic to the concept or phenomenon, who have an axe to grind, who take the opportunity to insert negative after negative, intent upon piling on disparaging opinion after disparaging opinion only, skewing the article to narrow, pop-culture, media-driven preconceptions and/or misconceptions of the subject matter -- without even caring adequately to address or explicate fully the core subject matter under discussion. Such an approach is not encyclopedic and ultimately fails adequately to inform the reader beyond what he or she may already have gleaned from 30-second sound bites on the "culture wars" on the nightly news.

These opinionated "contributors" you write of are so intent on making sure that each and every possible negative appraisal ever uttered or written is included in the article, that they've given absolutely no attention to the broader development of the subject itself, to the examination of Afrocentrism in thought and practice outside the narrow box of historical Afrocentrism. Not one word.

And that also is unencyclopedic and exceedingly POV. User: deeceevoice 23 February 2008

An encyclopedia is supposed to inform. If a viewpoint is shared by enough people then that alone makes it worth mentioning - and worth presenting arguments for and against this viewpoint. I am not saying that afrocentrism is necessarily a "racialist ideology" - I believe that you are probably right that some practicioners of afrocentrism have moved away from the racialist track. But I am saying, and that is what I have been saying all along, a wide public, maybe mostly composed of white people that is really beside the point, hold the notion that afrocentrism is an essentially racialist viewpoint, this is also well documented in the writings by the critics of afrocentrism. Whether or not it is the case that afrocentrism is racialist or not I don't really care - what I do care about is that the article should reflect this by mentioning it. If it is not the case that afrocentrism is always a racialist viewpoint then the article should state that "x, x, x, and x have argued that afrocentrism is an essentially racialist ideology with the same flaws as other such idelogies, but x, x, x and x have argued against that saying that afrocentrism can be/is/should be/ .....". Untill the article begins taking a shape where it argues it points instead of just stating the afrocentrist positions arguments as fact then the article is useless as an encyclopedic source of information. Since as you have repeatedly pointed out I am no expert on afrocentrism I have not edited the article substantially except for adding material relevant to the topics on which I do have some level of expertise. I have only stated here repeatedly what I find to be the problem with this article - and many editors have expressed the same concerns. However you who supposedly know so much about this topic, and therefore have the main responsibility for the articles quality have not taken any steps to improve the article in this respect. That is why I find it hard to believe that you are really interested in a neutral and informative coverage of the topic. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 11:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Your first two statements are completely consonant with what I've already written, and they are consonant with my edits to the article. So, what's your beef?

FYI, my raison d'etre is not to convince you of anything, so it troubles me not one whit what you "find ... hard to believe." The fact is I've done very little serious writing here or elsewhere on Wikipedia lately. I can't stand this place, and I have a life outside it. What I have done here is try to lay a framework for the opening up of the article so that it does, indeed, inform the reader, and try to keep the article from spiralling into simply an examination and drubbing of extremist/crackpot historical Afrocentrism -- which is what you seem to be arguing for with, "Untill the article begins taking a shape where it argues it points instead of just stating the afrocentrist positions...." The fact is the article already addresses this concern under the "Criticism" section. Much of the article that treats Afrocentrism and history could be drastically redacted, with a separate, main article treating the issue. That is where the arguments, pro and con, should be presented. Not here.

When I get some time and a lot more patience, I'll work at fleshing out the first objective, examining Afrocentrism as it is practiced in the practical ways in which it most impacts the majority of people's lives, in mainstream institutions -- since no one else here seems to have the slightest interest in that very important aspect of this subject. User: deeceevoice 23 February

I disagree with the notion that this is not the place to present pros and cons, and I also don't think that an isolated criticism section is enough to achieve compliance with WP:NPOV, but that rather the entire article should have an argumentative structure. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 11:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

(Sigh. This is tedious.) Repeating myself -- again (maybe you'll read what I wrote this time around): this article is not the place for an in-depth examination of any one, particular aspect of Afrocentrism -- history included. Separate articles should treat more complicated aspects of Afrocentrism, with only a relatively expurgated subsection here containing some brief analysis (such as the highly redacted version presented in the "Criticism" section). Clearly, as the article is rewritten along the more inclusive, comprehensive lines which I intend, the information which has been segregated in/relegated to the "Criticism" section (which I also do not particularly like, organizationally) will be moved and included in the relevant section -- that treating Afrocentrism and the practice of history -- just as there will be similar sections treating Afrocentrism in other fields/areas of practice. User: Deeceevoice 23 February 2008

You have said before that this is yor idea of what the article should be like yes, as far as Iknow that interpretation of the articles ideal structure is not written in styone any where - it is you opinion. And my opinion is that I disagree with that structure of the article. This is the talkpage where we discuss how to improve the article you know. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 07:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This article has huge issues with its lead now. First off, the first sentence is not particularly neutral. Second, though, the lead doesn't mention the controversy, which is an enormous issue - afrocentrism is incredibly controversial and problematic, as it claims to be a system of inquiry but actually is considered by many (perhaps most) observers as racist mythology. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

In defining the term up front, what others (largely uneducated on the subject and exposed to only a narrow aspect of it) believe/opine shouldn't concern us one iota. The fact is most people's perception of the phenomenon has been framed by the mass media, in the context of "culture wars" -- again, an American phenomenon -- and even then treating only a narrow -- and often the most extreme/fringe portion of what comprises the Afrocentrist spectrum. This is the same problem we dealt with in AAVE -- people insisting on inserting their narrow ideas of the subject, based largely on ignorance of the subject and focusing on culture-wars-related issues. That is an approach that is neither scholarly nor necessarily informative. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to treat a subject encyclopedically -- that is, in its entirety, beyond common misconceptions/preconceptions/prejudices and often just flat-out ignorance. My approach has been (and remains) to try to define the subject in the broadest, most accurate terms, not focusing on the narrow, often hackneyed issue of Afrocentrism and history up front, but trying to begin to frame the article so that it places that aspect of Afrocentrism in context -- with (to come) an examination of other aspects of the phenomenon as it is practiced -- by the mainstream -- in today's world. User: deeceevoice 05:20, 25 February 2008

The problem is that you are providing one viepoint of what Afrocentrism is and stating that as fact in the lead. As we have been trying to tell you there are several viewpoints, and they should be balanced throughout the article and particularly in the lead. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 07:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

As clarification: it is neither grounded nor informed, and is not grounded nor informed by anything at all, let alone the "africian peoples"; the reason for the prior (somewhat awkward) lead was to avoid the problem the current lead has. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

lol. That's kind of funny. I, frankly, don't see anything wrong with the lead. But if you prefer the earlier version, that's fine. I was trying to rewrite it in a way that readers might find more immediately meaningful/clear without having to read the remainder of the paragraph. I don't know what's wrong with the use of "African peoples," because the term is used and defined (via wiki link) -- and it was used in the earlier version. I was simply trying to get away from using "Black people twice. But if you find that more palatable, then I certainly don't have a problem with the redundancy. Perhaps putting the term in quotes would suit you? I mean that's the whole point -- to start from, ground oneself in an African perspective, rather than a European/Western one at the outset when considering phenomena. And it is blatantly POV/certainly completely incorrect/misguided to claim that it is "nor not grounded nor informed by by anything at all...." Certainly, those in social services who utilize an Afrocentric paradigm would disagree. I'm just wonderng if you, Titanium Dragon, even have any notion of what you're disputing. User: deeceevoice 04:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Among other things, I've been focusing on trying to get a lead that works properly to frame the term in the most general terms. I don't have a problem at all with a nod to the controversy surrounding Afrocentrism in the practice of history as a third paragraph, which has been my intent all along. I simply haven't focused on it, instead working on reworking the first two paragraphs. Is that what's sticking in everybody's craw? One of the first things I learned in writing is to state what something is - and then deal with what it is not and other ancillary issues. But if not dealing with the ancillary issue -- the controversy of Afrocentrism as it relates to a single, narrow discipline, that of history -- is what is making what I consider a fairly value-neutral description of the overall phenomenon unpalatable, then let's get on with writing the third paragraph of the introduction -- since so many of you cannot seem to get beyond that point. Who wants to take a stab it it? Or, shall I? (I'm crunching deadlines at the moment, but I'm perfectly willing to give it a try maybe Tuesday or midweek.) User: deeceevoice 04:59, 25 February 2008

The objections to Afrocentrism are more extensive than a controversy "as it relates to a single, narrow discipline, that of history." If I remember right, Afrocentrism got a lot of attention in the late '80s as a result of efforts by school boards to institute Afrocentric curricula in public schools (this is in the U.S.)--that's not just the "practice of history", that's about primary and secondary schooling. At any rate, I think deeceevoice is right to point out that what's called for is a 3rd paragraph of the lead that covers criticisms of Afrocentrism (with more extensive coverage in the body of the article). --Akhilleus (talk) 05:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I was speaking in terms of the way the article is currently written. It launches into a discussion of Afrocentrism and history and ignores everything else. I haven't read the article in its entirety ever and haven't looked beyond the first paragraph in weeks. (Deadlines.) But I don't recall education or other disciplines even being mentioned beyond the second paragraph, where I introduced it. (I am fully aware of the issue of Afrocentrism in education, and there already has been some discussion in that regard in the talk page space.) Again, if it will help move the article forward, then, by all means, have at a third paragraph that refers to (but doesn't discuss in excrutiating detail) the controversies. Remember, this is an intro, and there's ample time to flesh all that out later to the extent that it is practicable in an article that treats -- or should -- a very broad subject. (But one wouldn't know it from reading this piece.) Also, keep in mind, as I've stated several times before, that it likely will be useful/practical to start separate articles to treat various disciplines in depth later on. User: deeceevoice 25 February 2008

[edit] POV AND INCORRECT INFO

"the Olmecs being an African people,"

Minor edits, Van Sertima never claimed Olmecs to be an "African people". The population had small strata of africans which is the claim. This should be deleted.

"allegations unsupported by the mainstream historical communities, as examples of Afrocentrists attempting to claim black superiority over other races and that blacks were ultimately behind Western civilization."

Minor edits , "the mainstream historical communities" should be replace with "the Western mainstream historical communities" Raimhotep (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

So Japanese and Indian historians also believe that Olmecs were African do they? And Afrocentrists, who are overwhelmingly American, are "non-Western"? Paul B (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, no Japanese or Indian historian would believe that Olmecs were African because Van Sertima never claimed they were African. One is making claims and attributing it to Afrocentrist.Raimhotep (talk) 04:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You are not paying attention Paul. I said Van Sertima(afrocentrism) never claimed that the Olmecs were an African people. Van Sertima claims there was a small segment of the population that was African. The Western mainstream holds that the Egyptians were not black and there is no evidence to prove otherwise. Raimhotep (talk) 06:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the mainstream states that, not the "western" mainstream, as I said. Paul B (talk) 10:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

the mainstream doesn't say "Egyptians were not black". The mainstream rolls its eyes at the very question "were Egyptians black?" and sidles away trying to find somebody else to talk to. I have to agree with Paul that, seeing that Afrocentrism is a thoroughly western (viz., USian) pop culture phenomenon, if there was any "eastern mainsteam", it would probably never even have heard of the concept. dab (𒁳) 13:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all African Americans have their own mainstream, being that America was a segregated society. African Americans( scholars, leaders, individuals) have always had to take a position on issue about them put out by the white dominated intellectual estabishment(your "western" mainstream). The notion of a Black Egypt is widespread in the African American community. In African mainstreams, the notion is also widespread. After all Diop is African. He is not regarded lightly in Africa and by Africans. Of course, the non Black Ancient Egyptian but white Egypt(Jarred Diamond) comes from your "western" mainstream. To Dbachmann, my mainstream would be condescending towards your non black Egypt as whitewash Eurocentric trash, more on the level of feces. If Afrocentrism was a "USian" phenomena, why do we have Dbachmann, English boys, Irish boys, Danish boys, South African boys, possibly Australian/ New Zealander/ Canadian(eh!) boys on the Afrocentric hater Eurocentric tip. If these boys are not "western" mainstream, I don't know what they are. You boys make more spirited arguments than your Euro American counter parts, on a "USian" phenomena.Raimhotep (talk) 08:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "I Can" (Nas song)

I was disappointed to see that my "See also" link to I Can (Nas song) was removed. This song is the anthem of afrocentrism. The hip-hop video depicts ancient Egyptian monuments while the singer credits blacks with their construction. The lyrics chronicle the "empires" of Kush and Timbuktu, their offerings of gold to the Europeans, and eventual destruction at the hands of Persians. It asserts that the ancient Egyptian monuments had "black faces" and that Alexander the Great invaded Egypt and shot off the Sphynx's nose out of resentment, in "what basically still goes on today". References to the Europeans, the Persian military and Alexander the Great (perhaps of dubious historical accuracy) are jumbled together to give the impression that these outsiders were all one and the same from the African perspective. The (perhaps) mythological description of "black teachers" teaching "Greeks, Romans, Asians and Arabs" is classic afrocentrism. As I say, this song is the anthem of afrocentrism and the crediting of Africans for contributing to the prominence others hold in history (a subtle point brought home by the fact that this hip-hop song heavily samples Beethoven's "Fur Elise"). 74.68.123.162 (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Add the relevant content to the I Can article, then the point of the link will be clearer. As it stands the I Can article says nothing about Afrocentrism. Paul B (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree!! Raimhotep (talk) 06:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Todd Carroll

His comments are not reliable, and should not be included in the article. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Skeptic's Dictionary. Yahel Guhan 06:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

He is expressing opinion not stating any con troversial facts - the quote maintains that he has said it and since he wrote the book that should be reliable enough.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 07:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

What makes him reliable? He certianly is no expert in the field of afrocentrism. Yahel Guhan 07:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't need to be "reliable" or an expert in order to express an opinion. He just needs to be sufficiently notable to have is opinion included in the article. His person is notable enough to to have its own article and so is the book in which the statements were made.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 09:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper):

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

His qoute is not by an established expert on the topic. Nor is his quote being presented by reliable third-party publications. Thus his comment doesn't belong in the article. Yahel Guhan 17:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop this nonsense. It is not self published, as you well know. It is published by John Wiley & Sons. Paul B (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semantics...

(soapboxing removed --Akhilleus (talk) 04:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC))

These comments are getting way out of line and are off-topic in terms of making this article better. --Parkwells (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Parkwells, and for that reason I've removed the comments above, which had no apparent relation to improving the content of the article. Everyone, please try to limit your comments to suggestions for editing the article, rather than off-topic politicizing. Remember that this article (and its talkpage) are under ArbCom probation. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

How is it "soapboxing" to suggest that a short section detailing the misuse of the word "African" to mean exclusively "black" people, to the exclusion of Berbers, Copts, Khoikhoi, San etc. is a point of criticism? Also the suggestion that the ethnic/linguistic map of Africa(which appears on various other wikipedia articles) be added to show the vast diversity of African peoples be off-topic politicizing? It was suggested that a section in the "Afrocentrism" article detailing "Afrocentrist" position with regards to people who are African (geographically and historically) but are not "African" (meaning people of the "black race") be added. I don't see how that's off-topic politicizing, and think it is entirely relevant to the discussion of the Afrocentrism article. If you disagree then make comments here as to what you feel is wrong about such an inclusion in the article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.152.206 (talk) 07:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] East Africans

I noticed a study claiming they were a indigenous to africa was removed. Another study showing that ethiopians have a specific form of the haplotype not found in the middle east or europe was also removed. Why is this not here?YVNP (talk) 06:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

What point are you making exactly? In what way would east Africans not be "indigenous to Africa"? I assume you were trying to argue against something, (about Semitic languages, or the 'Caucasian race' maybe), but you have to specify what you think the evidence you mention is supposed to prove. Paul B (talk) 10:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I am arguing that the article simply calls them caucasian and leaves it at that. I saw this article a while ago and there were criticisms of them being called cacausian.YVNP (talk) 08:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that's quite true. There's a section ("views on race") that discusses the DNA evidence, with quotations from Cavalli-Sforza and others. The argument is that the 'Caucasian' phenotype originated in east Africa. Paul B (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

be that as it may, by "east Africans", we usually mean current inhabitants of East Africa, not groups of archaic Homo sapiens. Africa clearly has a much greater genetic, linguistic and ethnic diversity than any other continent, which makes the idea of "Pan-Africanism" in any ethnic sense pretty much pointless outside of its use in US politics. dab (𒁳) 12:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)