Talk:Afrocentrism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Afrocentrism:


There are no active tasks for this page
  • 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

Critique[edit]

Wiki prefers for all critique to be written into the article and not stand alone (as is happening here) as a way to discredit Afrocentrism. In other words the critique should be mered into the natural flow of the content which gives greater balance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Halaqah (talkcontribs)

Clean it up please[edit]

Very messy, not only a massive criticism section which I am guilt of adding to. But it speaks to the politics behind this article. Where the criticism is almost as large as any serious content. The tone, the sweeping range of topics doesn't flow. Almost like a haters dumping ground. Not to mention a lack of reply from reliable Afrocentrics such as Asante.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the article has again been butchered by Afrocentrist editors. "A reading of world history" indeed. It is full of weasel words and hilariously bizarre statements. A deep revert or radical cleanup is needed, dumping all the apologetics and primary sources, basing it on encyclopedic secondary literature.

While it is very easy to keep white racism out of Wikipedia, black counter-racism is perpetually allowed to creep back in, no matter how many times we clean it up. This is of course the US doctrine of positive discrimination, which basically states that racism and pseudohistory is ok as long as you are a miniority. Needless to say, this may be permissible in US society, but it certainly isn't so on Wikipeida, which is an encyclopedia project with international scope and dedication to neutrality. --dab (𒁳) 11:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Strange considering as an African editor i find it impossible to keep the white supremacy out of wikipedia. You can read a section on Africa and never see an African opinion. Like they are discussing a people who have not learned to write and speak. So I am not sure how much "counter racism" exist in this little tiny insignificant article" The problem is what is "OKAY" to the white is certainly not OKAY to the Black (still fighting for freedom). With an critique section larger than the rest of the content clearly Afrocentrics are not doing a good job of reverse racism.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 12:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact that African opinions are not included is good, not bad. Wikipedia isn't meant to include opinions. 64.79.43.109 (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

This article concept seems to be very important for the readers but it consists of many major problems which is little hard to figure out. Firstly, as mentioned above it is very messy, confused and all the data is dropped and it needs clean up. Lizia7 (talk) 11:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia's current polices it is impossible for this article to be unbiased. The Afrocentric movement is dominated by genocidal madmen but that's not something we are allowed to talk about. 75.93.51.156 (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

First issue is a failure to understand Afrocentricity[edit]

The first problem is the white view of what Afrocentricity is. In their eyes Afrocentrism means not agreeing with the white assertions on Africa. So ANYONE who says Egypt is an African civilization is the bases for being Afrocentric or not. Now with the lack of media power you would have to believe me when I say Most Black people hold this position. Mummy Return does not change this. You can hold many positive views of Africa and not be Afrocentric (like me). So the first issue with this article is "What is Afrocentricity" it certainly is not identity politics because every white historical study is at its root identity politics. So i guess we see the racism again. Whites do identity politics and it is history, Africans do it and it is revisionism. What is Afrocentrism as a distinctive ideology is the first place to start this article.

a lot of this article is also confusing the personalities of people called Afrocentric with Afrocentricity. As if every last thing Karenga does is an aspect of his Afrocentric ideology. So it is incapable of understanding Karenga can be an Afrocentric but also something else when dealing with Kawida etc. This habit of condensing people into boxes is evident here. i have no idea why Kwanzaa is all mixed up in the history section. Or is Pan-African and Afrocentric now the same thing? --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "white assertions on Africa", any more than there are "brown assertions" or "black assertions". We don't judge the reliability sources in that way, surprisingly. Paul B (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


Halqh states "Whites do identity politics and it is history, Africans do it and it is revisionism."

That's a bit of a broad statement when "identity politics" encompasses so many different things and scenarios. That's not to say that White revisionism has never happened or never does happen; it certainly happens quite a bit with regards to US history (for example), which tends to overemphasize political markers (the Revolution, presidents, Constitution, even the Civil War -although slavery was a central cause- is a political marker), while under-emphasizing ethnocultural developments, including the massive contributions that African-Americans have made to American society and culture. But it's also difficult to argue that some of the more extreme elements of Afrocentrism are not also revisionist to the nth degree (such as, for example, the bold -and whimsical- assertion that Greek civilization plagiarized African civilizations). Revisionism happens on both sides; the fact that it occurs on the White side (and -unfortunately- often goes unnoticed) doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't be able to identify revisionism when it occurs on the Black side.

Having said that, you bring up a very important question: what exactly is Afrocentrism? And what are its geographic parameters? Yes, Egypt is in Africa, but I always understood Afrocentrism to consist of pride and nationalism for Sub-Saharan African peoples and civilizations and the diaspora Black cultures of the Americas (which are not located in Africa). In other words, the Black diaspora, which is not conterminous with the African continent. Maybe this can be clarified in the article? Are there different strands of Afrocentrism? What about contemporary Egypt? Given that modern-day Egyptians do identify with ancient Egypt, and genetic testing has backed this up by proving a solid link between modern-day Egyptians and ancient Egyptians (despite the fact that the Arabic language has replaced Egyptian during the Islamic era); it would certainly be an interesting angle to examine whether or not Afrocentrism has any following in Egypt, or if Egyptians -rather- lean towards pan-Arabism or maybe some sort of pan-Semitism. Like I said, I always understood Afrocentrism to be a Black/sub-Saharan nationalist consciousness that excluded Semitic North Africa, and included the Black diaspora populations of the Americas (African-Americans, Afro-Brazilians, Afro-Caribbeans, etc). That's not to say that my understanding of Afrocentrism is "the correct one". I'm simply asking the question: are there different strands of Afrocentrism, some of which might include Egypt and North Africa, and others that might exclude it? And where does the Black diaspora of the Americas fit in?

Another angle that should be explored in this article is whether or not there is some sort of spectrum of Afrocentrism? Just by reading the posts in the talk page (including the archived posts), it seems that there's a bit of a heated controversy over whether or not to include (within "Afrocentrism") some of the more extremist beliefs, such as the discredited Greek-Africa plagiarism theory I mentioned above. Because this theory has been associated with Afrocentrism, it would certainly be valuable if the article mentions that such extreme theories only exist within fringe elements of Afrocentrism, if that is in fact the case. Is there a different, more mainstream Afrocentrism? One that chronicles ethnocultural and historic events that are undeniably African and/or Black/Sub-Saharan, such as the Mali Empire, the Songhai Empire, the advanced Swahili trading culture in East Africa and Black diaspora cultural movements from Jazz to Capoeira to Reggae to Candomblé? Is there a more uncontroversial Afrocentric mainstream that focuses on these things? And are discredited theories such as Black Aristotle limited to a fringe? Skyduster (talk) 06:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

To repeat a critique in the article "Afrocentrism has never sat still long enough to be defined nor critiqued" The objection I am having is about mentioning Du Bois and other great scholars in this morass. They are not Afrocentric by the modern understanding. Afrocentrism (now it is my turn since Skyduster had a shot). Is a academic cult. It is purist history. The history of a certain type of African vs. the world. It is also a "religion" as it hates anything not jet black. So if Allah is Arabic, it rejects it as not pure enough. If something came from Yemen, like a language or a stone, it rejects it as not black enough. Its the history in reaction to Eurocentrism using all the same bad tools. I emphasis with it because it has legitimacy in challenging a very racist world. The issue is how it does it. Anyway I want to remove suggestions that greats like Du Bois and even Garvey were Afrocentric, although they paved the way for Afrocentrism they certainly were not talking like some of these other guys. Moreover Afrocentrics are almost never Muslim or Christian. Thats why I said it behaves like a religion or a cult. --Inayity (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Title of criticism section[edit]

The criticism section was titled "Attacks on Afrocentrism", so I revised it to "Criticism of Afrocentrism". The word "attacks" sounds hostile and implies that criticisms of Afrocentrism stem solely from bias, rather than legitimate critical analysis and dialogue. Ironically, usage of the word "attacks" is itself a biased intent on the part of the author who titled it so. Skyduster (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Afrocentric =/= African Centered[edit]

Back to the problem raised by editors in the above threads. Afrocentric =/= African centered. Although there is a serious relationship. I suspect Afrocentricity is a very specific kind of "academia". So Gates is 100% no fan of Afrocentrism and it no fan of his. But that encyclopedia is African Centered. Unesco work stresses an emphasis on the African worldview -- No one disagrees b/cuz worldviews are influenced by cultural and ethnic orientation -- we do not see the world the same. But Afrocentrism is a lot more than a African opinion on African history, or even an African "bias". It also has an attitude (like Eurocentrism) of Negation. So I do not think African centered education belongs here. Carter Wodson might have inspired today's Afrocentrics but did he call himself Afrocentric? I think this term should only apply to people who identify with the ideology. Like in Israel you have the "New Historians" but you cannot just call someone that, unless they identify with it. --Inayity (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

By definition, the Nation of Islam is an Afrocentric group. The fact that a group is a black supremacist group as well does not negate the fact that it can also be Afrocentrist. Your logic is therefore flawed. Furthermore, the source cited for the opening paragraph in contention (Yaacov Shavit, History in Black: African-Americans in Search of an Ancient Past, Frank Cass Publishers, 2001) is both reliable and accurate. Any changes to the article in the future without talk page consensus or proof of unreliable sources will be met with immediate reversion. Thank you. Malik Zulu Shabazz Jr (talk) 05:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
You need to respect the talk page and the rules of Wikipedia. And try and make sense, All of my edits have references so what exactly are you on about? What consensus? When did you get here? By what definition of Afrocentrism? Afrocentrism doesnt equal Black supremacy, two different things. While I am sure some Afrocentrics are racist (like everyone else) that doesn't mean Afrocentrism is racist. What is the definition in Molefi Asante's book that allows NOI to be included? Where in Any Afrocentric book have they included NOI? When people cant even define the thing how can NOI be Afrocentric. Please state the rule of wikipedia which discusses you being the consensus maker? One ref doesn't make an entire group Afrocentric. It is not how references work. Now in the entire Wikipedia article of NOI, in major books on NOI by many scholars NO ONE, calls them an Afrocentric group. No one. You will be reported for you unproductive editing habits if you persist. It is very POV oriented. Username Malik Shabazz Zulu to insert Israeli Historians as authority on Afrocentrism is worrying. Utter nonsense. See Christina M Sabee How can they be Afrocentric when most Afrocentrics have issue with NOI? So hold the threats, newbie. --Inayity (talk) 08:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

POV agenda Edits - Point by point[edit]

Let us look at the unreferenced material Zulu Shabazz, Jr is adding in:

  • Furthermore, Afrocentrism regularly denies, outright ignores, or reinterprets certain negative aspects of black Africans, most notably the selling of African slaves by other Africans to the Europeans, the Rwandan Genocide, and the ongoing struggles against rape and violence in many African nations today, generally placing blame for these atrocities directly or indirectly on the Europeans and denying any serious culpability on part of black Africa. (Excuse me? All Afrocentrics do this? Where is the reference? Asante Book on Africa did not ignore or minimize the Mfecane or Rwanda, so how is this true. It needs to be re-written with some NPOV references" It is a terrible violation of NPOV. Again Where is the consensus and the R.S? So why is it there? The entire tone is not Wiki standard, it is an editors opinionand agenda driven.
  • "Black supremacist groups like the New Black Panther Party or the Nation of Islam are examples of extreme Afrocentrism" Nation of Islam is not Afrocentric. No search results apart from the Israeli historian admit to this. No where in their article is a reference to Afrocentrism. Molefi and other Afrocentric never called them Afrocentric. THEY do not call themselves Afrocentric. It is a opinion of one person. R.S but it fails WP:WEIGHT and is a reliable opinion WP:RSOPINION not an establish fact, it contradicts every other source.
  • In general, Afrocentrism is usually manifested in a focus on African American culture and the history of black Africa (sub-Saharan Africa), and involves a refashioning of that history and culture to portray the achievements and development of a race of people (Negroid) independently from other races. (Is this NPOV?) is not the opinion of editors rather than references? Where is the ref, then why is it in the lead? This issue is already discussed in the lede no need for it again.

Strange that you accuse me of POV. Yet have not shown it. --Inayity (talk) 09:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Not strange at all- you've removed cited, accurate information, and in doing so have demonstrated that you have an Afrocentrist bias. Do not continue to edit this page if you cannot be impartial. Furthermore, I've reported you for defacing my talk page. Malik Zulu Shabazz Jr (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Are you aware of wikipedia rules? Then this is the talk page, above are the issues, none of which you have replied to, deal with them and less with the editing of this editor, Please no advice about where to edit.So passionate have you edited, you deleted your own edits. --Inayity (talk)

16:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I've replied to all your points. The passages in question are reliably sourced. The only one "passionate" here is you in your effort to insert Afrocentrist bias in the articleMalik Zulu Shabazz Jr (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Malik, Inayity has listed three bulleted items above that he believes are unsourced. Can you rebut this? Do you have the sources? Part of Yaacov Shavit's book is available online through Google Books, but in the portion which is visible I can't see any mention of the issues you are sourcing to it in this edit. If Shavit says something about the New Black Panther Party or the Nation of Islam can you quote what we actually says, and give us the page numbers? You stated "Black supremacist groups like the New Black Panther Party or the Nation of Islam are examples of extreme Afrocentrism" and cited this to Shavit. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Allow one clarification WRT Shavit, even if he said it, it is contradictory to every fact known. NOI might be Black supremacist, (many ref can be found to that) but they are certainly not Afrocentric. Doesn't make sense, it is like saying "they are racist so they are KKK", Afrocentrics are never radical Muslims. The two ideologies are at odds. No one else calls them Afrocentric. So at best Shavit is an Opinion WP:RSOPINION,(his and his alone) and not lead worthy. Not sure who put it in the article originally. --Inayity (talk) 11:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Throwing Tags around does not help anyone[edit]

Per WP:TAGGING Tagging has to be constructive. The fact that a section has a tag, means that section has an issue. Not necessarily the entire article. Tags do not stay on indefinitely. You must justify the tags you place. It means : Even if the problem seems obvious, it's useful to leave a short note on the talk page describing the issue, and suggesting an approach to fixing it if you know how. Some editors feel this should be mandatory and "drive-by" tagging should be prohibited. The talk page is therefore key in explaining why tags are necessary for the entire article. It is like beating a child but not explaining what the lashes are for. Section tags are enough for violating sections. Other areas have already been re-written. --Inayity (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

A Couple of Disingenuous Statements: Making It Clear[edit]

1) "Afrocentrics have been accused of regularly denying, mitigating, or outright ignoring, or reinterprets certain negative aspects of Africans; most notably the selling of African slaves by other Africans to the Europeans, the Rwandan Genocide, and the ongoing struggles against rape and violence in many African nations today, generally placing blame for these atrocities directly or indirectly on the Europeans and Arabs, and denying any serious culpability on part of Africans.[18]"

Afrocentrics have indeed recognized the selling of Africans by Africans to Europeans. Tribal lifestyle all across Africa, West Africa in particular, was disrupted by the infiltration of Europeans. Many Tribal leaders were desperate and had to consider the well being of the community over individuals. Therefore, the decision to sell fellow Africans was an economic one based upon survival. Most of these were servants or people deemed as not contributing to the community, such as transgressors of Tribal Law. In addition, many of the 'Africans' selling Africans were of Arab descent. All cultures all over the world have some form of human trafficking for various services from sex to domestic work. Africans were not alone in this yet the European aspect of the trade was based on pure greed and assumed that the African people were animals. Slaves from Africa were stripped of language, culture, cosmology and even their Tribal names which in Africa have a Divine Spiritual purpose based on Sacred Mathematics and other Esoteric connotations. They were bound, shackled, muzzled and whipped. People in African households employed as servants were not treated in this manner.

The behaviors found in many African nations such as Rwanda are recent. The kind of violence found in Africa today developed AFTER European infiltration. The codependent, neurotic relationship between European 'masters' and African servants/slaves and the stripping of language, culture and cosmology by missionaries has been studied by many scholars like Yosef Ben-Jochannan and Cheikh Anta Diop. The stress put on the minds, bodies and spirits of Africans: being made slaves in their own land and deprived of the archetypical belief systems that make all people human has resulted in identity confusion, disassociation and other personality disorders which have been the direct result of the vestiges of chattel slavery. 'Acting out' would be the expected response, according to the The American Psychiatric Association's DSM IV. Dr. Joy DeGroy's dissertation on Post Traumatic Slavery Syndrome (PTSS) is a timely and scholarly look at the trauma of slavery being passed down to subsequent generations. This same phenomenon was proven to be valid in the case of the progeny of Holocaust survivors.

2) "Van Sertima said that the Olmec civilization was a hybrid one of Africans and Native Americans. His theory of pre-Columbian American-African contact has since met with considerable and detailed opposition by scholars of Mesoamerica. Van Sertima has been accused of "doctoring" and twisting data to fit his conclusions, inventing evidence, and ignoring the work of respected Central and South American scholars in the advance of his own theory,[37] and his claims are not taken seriously by mainstream scholars."

Dr. Van Sertima proved his assertions using the the standard 12-criteria format, that is required for archaeological studies, by Oxford University. He presented his findings to a panel of Oxford Scholars and his work could not be disputed by them because he used their very criteria to prove it. In addition, the last statement is untrue. There are several archaeologists and scholars on Ancient Cultures, such as David Hatcher Childress, who have said that the Olmecs were a multi-cultural society that included Asian, African, Eastern European and Indigenous peoples.

Nibiru60 (talk) 06:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

David Hatcher Childress is not an archaeologist nor is he a legitimate scholar on any American cultures or civilizations. And because he attended a university for about 1 year (and whether it was ten yrs), he has to provide [legitimate] evidence for his claims. He is basically a story teller. Van Sertima was a professor but his claims were just as absurd as Pierre Honore (scientist and diplomat) and his "Quest of the White God." http://www.amazon.com/Quest-White-God-pierre-honore/dp/B000H4MQS8

Also: "Robbing Native American Cultures: Van Sertima's Afrocentricity"www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/vansertima.pdf‎

And especially see http://statigr.am/native_faces JohnLinehan (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid you only confirm the first point. Direct and indirect assigning culpability outside of Africa. Because this is all that they are describing. Everything bad that happens in Africa is because of someone else (even if removed) like Rwanda. Van Sertima section seems a little biased and you can provide ref to balance the claims of his detractors. The article does need work. In some places you can see no fan of Afrocentrism wrote it, and it is my belief no good article should ever expose the politics of its editors --Inayity (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Right about the first point about Childress? Wrong about Van Sertima? Not sure I understand your point. Van Sertima's claims were as absurd as Honore's. So your point about politics is also unclear, if not absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.135.106.74 (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Why does this article describe Afrocentrism as a "fringe theory?"[edit]

I noticed that this article has been placed in Category:Fringe theories, even though this assertion is not supported by the article's text. Why is the article categorized this way? Jarble (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It is true, although parts (large parts) of Afrocentrism is fringe it certainly cannot be used on the entire thing. B/c it is not a clarified ideology to pin such a tag on it.--Inayity (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

See also Rationale is not a shopping list[edit]

Edit this article and not the editor. See Also is for is not a shopping list of anything with centrism in the end. What is the rationale, what is the relationship. If an edit is reverted take it to the talk page. [1] So see also is not a dust bin. Eurocentrism and Afrocentrism share a history of antagonism. That is the rationale. The burden of inclusion is on you to bring the argument here. Not interested in Ownership interested in your rationale and compliance with the Talk Page. --Inayity (talk) 08:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I did bring a "rationale" that you just ignored[edit]

it went beyond just you don't own...but if you bothered to read the whole thing, you would have seen...I said...

Of course it has a relation.

They're both continental "centrisms". How is that totally irrelevant? It's not like I put "Germans in the Civil War" or something, that has nothing to do with anything, out of left field. But this here is a continental or regional "centrist" view article. Obviously there's relation. So I will not put up with front excuses that are not really valid, to cover your real reason for removing, which obviously is you just "don't like".

I mean, how exactly is there "no relation"?

There's Eurocentrism, Afrocentrism, and Asiocentrism. (Yes, such a thing does exist.)

You never bothered to address any of that, but simply edit-warred again, with nonsense excuses of your own, reverted, and removed the comment from your page. I'm done trying to reason with you, as you proved (I kinda knew it from the beginning actually) that you simply can't be reasoned with. There doesn't seem to be much of a point. You have uptight over-scrupulous NON-Wikipedia ideas and notions here.

Check it...

Or look up what "See also" articles are allowed to be. They don't have to always 100% "directly related" to the main article, in the sense you're thinking. They can have some relation or commonality. It's whatever. I don't have time or patience for uptight nonsense or bullying disrespectful dishonest junk. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 08:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you are new, but you are the one refusing to use the talk page and you are the one failing to explain a direct relationship between Afrocentrism and Assiocentrism. I do not care if it exist or not. See Also is not a shopping list of things ending in centrism. That would be for the ethnocentrism article. What is the relationship!!!! simple question sense you are driven to add it.--Inayity (talk) 08:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
In all the books on Afrocentrism you will find the word Eurocentrism, where is the book on Afrocentrism that see also it to Asiocentrism? It is then POV poshing. You created that page, and now are pushing it as some MAJOR race centric theory. We need some criteria or else we will get a list so long it becomes useless. Should we link Afrocentrism to Pan-Africanism? Yes, because there is a strong relationship. What about Civil rights, what about maafa, what about on and on. How does it end?--Inayity (talk) 08:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I already stated that I'm not really bothering with this anymore. I'm not saying that the thing would not be better in as you said "Ethnocentrism", but it could arguably (it would not have been so terrible or out-of-left-field) have been in the See also for the Afrocentrism article also. I agreed (somewhat) with some of your OTHER removals of wikilinks that were in the See also section, I just think you went a bit overboard, and became over-scrupulous much, for something that could have gone either way.
Meaning, again, there is "Eurocentrism", "Afrocentrism", and "Asiocentrism" as far as the THREE MAIN CONTINENTAL ONES. The relation is the "continent" aspect. As being one of the major three. And also that it's a worldview of superiority or presumed advantage, in history etc. But the continental issue. That was the point. And they relate as to Asia's supposed advantage over Africa, in history, or vice versa. It's whatever now, though.
And no...I was not "POV pushing" either, but simply was following a tag about orphaned links. I don't really care THAT much about this stuff; this topic is not a major concern of mine really. WP was lacking an article on this, the concept does definitely exist, (you even know what some in China or Japan or India actually have believed and said and thought on this stuff? Many have a centrist view of Asia...) There was no article on this topic, so I created one. So? But it actually was NOT something I had so big an interest in. Imputing bad motives is against WP policy, by the way. I'd be curious what other editors (if any even care about this) might say. If they agree with you though, that doesn't technically make them right, but could have similar hang-ups too. But I do respect consensus. But for now, I'm not really bothering anymore with this. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 09:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Minor edits[edit]

Can't edit myself because locked. External link to page on Clarence E. Walker is broken, correct URL is http://history.ucdavis.edu/people/cewalker. 82.2.125.203 (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I c no broken link. --Inayity (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Please reply Here: Arabs and Europeans[edit]

One of the most consistent things in the Afrocentric ideology is the external impact of Arabs and Europeans on Africa. True or false. I do not think Chancellor Williams is talking about marginalized by other Africans. The entire "Blame" is placed outside of Africa. This is something very peculiar about Afrocentrism, so much so that this is what its detractors accuse it of doing. --Inayity (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)--Inayity (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Genovese[edit]

The quote by Genovese has nothing to do with Afrocentrism and should be removed. 216.8.148.134 (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Paul B (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Afrocentric Websites[edit]

I am looking at Real history www. I need clarification on why it was removed as an Afrocentric EL. See this page which uses copyrighted material in what I believe is a . Fair use capacity under copyright law. As we can see we have very few Afrocentric sites to link to, I think it is better we have some. I am not afraid of information, because if it is in error let it be seen for what it is. This page is about Afrocentrism, and that seems to be a very Afrocentric typical site. --Inayity (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Inayity It has pages and pages of copyright material. We can't link to it. Stuff from newspapers, the BBC website, etc. Even if Fair Use was part of our policy, which it isn't, it goes way beyond that. Besides being an anonymous and evidently personal website. But the copyvio thing is clear and we can't link. Dougweller (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Obsession with Moors - include?[edit]

From what I have seen (just look at the talk page on this encyclopedia's article on them!), Afrocentrists have an obsession that the Moors from North Africa were all 100% black (in a time where the America-style white-or-black system did not exist), citing a few paintings of blacks when the majority of the paintings by the Moors (and even their contemporary enemies) showed them as not dissimilar to modern North Africans. Of course, the great irony is that these few blacks were slaves of the majority Berbers and Arabs.

Maybe this pseudohistory comes from modern websites and is based on the average American's assumption that everybody in Africa is black, but I think in the 1920s there was a black secret society called the Moors so I assume there were books written on the subject. Could those writers - and more importantly, the rebuttal of their propaganda - be included in this article? '''tAD''' (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

(I find the whole Afrocentric Moors ideal very strange, as certainly in Europe the same civilisation is used as a supremacist battering ram of "we ruled you, we taught you" by Islamists. It's like how everybody claims they were the first in the Americas, I suppose)

I am not sure how Afrocentrics are anymore obsessed with anything that anyone else. THe people of Africa are called Africans not blacks. And as stated above, blackness is a modern concept, and while it did exist in some form back then, it is not a perfect match. As for the irony, I see none. You can visit the Moor page and read all about the full evidence of inclusion in the society, to the point where some rulers were "black". Also read the talk page of that article. And there is no denying Islamic contributions to European culture, the same European culture that is imposed on people the world over as the highest standard for anyone. --Inayity (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The black secret society was the Moorish Science Temple of America, and yes, there was a tendency to equate 'Moor' with black among some groups in America. See also Yakub (Nation of Islam) and Hamitic. Paul B (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Just note none of those groups are Afrocentric.--Inayity (talk) 12:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hyperdiffusionism in archaeology[edit]

If Hyperdiffusionism in archaeology is relevant to this article (per the tag) then it should have been heavily discussed in Academic circles and esp on the ancillary page if it is a notable characteristic of Afrocentrism. I think it is true of Afrocentrism but I see no mention of it hence why I am asking about the connection. --Inayity (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Categories are navigational aids to help readers find related articles. As you know, some Afrocentrism involves claims of Africans exploring the globe before anyone else, Moors being the first Americans, Olmec heads, etc. Dougweller (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Quick google books search.[2] Dougweller (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Owen 'Alik Shahadah[edit]

A discussion thread about the reliability and notability of this author and his pages is taking place at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Owen 'Alik Shahadah, please comment there so we can get a final consensus. Rupert Loup (talk) 12:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Akbar, Dr. Na'im (1998)[edit]

NobleFrog had challenge a reference which is not full. The reference says "Akbar, Dr. Na'im (1998)" which probably refers to "Akbar, Na'im (1998). Know Thyself. Mind Productions & Associates. ISBN 978-0-935257-06-9.", I can't verify the source, someone is interested in give it a look? Rupert Loup (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rupert loup: Yes, it refers to "Know Thyself". The source isn't needed as there are two fully cited references in the article. Unfortunately we don't know the page, however I'll see if I can find it.NobleFrog (talk) 11:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Text removed too quickly[edit]

I see that material fact-tagged in the last few weeks has been removed. Unless it's very contentious I usually leave it longer than that if I can't source it (which is the best thing to do). Here it is if others can source it:

"Afrocentrics have been accused of regularly denying, mitigating, or outright ignoring, or reinterprets certain negative aspects of Africans; most notably the selling of African slaves by other Africans to the Europeans, the Rwandan Genocide, and the ongoing struggles against rape and violence in many African nations today, generally placing blame for these atrocities directly or indirectly on the Europeans and Arabs, and denying any serious culpability on part of Africans.[citation needed] Some observe that this trend is not unique to Afrocentrics but many national or ethnocentric-based ideologies.[citation needed]" Doug Weller (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

That material is very contentious, I made a quick search but I can't find sources that suport it. Maybe others editors could have more luck. Rupert Loup (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
How is it contentious? What is it that you can't find support for? That these acts occurred or that they are denied??El cid, el campeador (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Afrocentrism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Afrocentrism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

This article is a hoot![edit]

Portraying Afrocentrism as this mostly benign movement...are you f-cking kidding me?! Afrocentrism is nothing more than repackaged euocentric racism! Black people who are proud of their true cultural heritage do not go around calling themselves "afrocentrists"! Afrocentrists are racists who try to claim that every great civilization of Ancient times were black civilizations...and no, I am NOT talking about Egypt - these clowns going around claiming the Chinese, Celts & Native Americans were black! Even if they were black, they certainly weren't by the time their recorded cultural history came around! And with the "out of Africa" theory, EVERY race was once black. This article completely whitewashes afrocentrism and conflates it with black African pride when they are NOT the same thing! --86.191.199.111 (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The first sentence is meaningless[edit]

It says "Afrocentrism...is an approach to the study of world history that focuses on the history of people of African descent." Given that almost all sensible modern science says that all humans are of African descent, that seems a pretty pointless perspective. I've just discovered this article, so I don't know what it's trying to tell me, but I'm sure that could be written a little more meaningfully.

What DOES it actually mean? HiLo48 (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Bias[edit]

NON-ADMIN CLOSURE
User Blocked for Disruptive Editing, nothing to see here
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This page is severly biased and reads like anti white propaganda... — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorectingYourInfo (talkcontribs) 12:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

No, it is not. Please stop this spree of article vandalism. Simonm223 (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

It is biased against white people... it's not neutral and is full of anti white undrtones — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorectingYourInfo (talkcontribs) 13:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

No, it's really not. And please indent and sign your statements. Simonm223 (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
You wouldn't know bias if I smack you over the head with it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorectingYourInfo (talkcontribs) 13:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Please be careful about WP:NPA. Simonm223 (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
It's biased and if you can't see it you need to pull your head out of your ass — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorectingYourInfo (talkcontribs) 13:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Please find reliable sources supporting your assertions and cease the personal attacks. Simonm223 (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article misses the point of Afrocentrism[edit]

Afrocentrism, in common usage (such as the google dictionary definition, and even the root of the word), is defined as the idea that people of black or African descent were responsible for most or all of the achievements of ancient cultures. However, this article reads like something entirely different, that people of African descent seek to correct mistakes created by white or European historians. Simply changing the name of this article (and creating a new one about the classic definition of Afrocentrism) would perfectly resolve the issue, in my opinion.

[3]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.164.25 (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Common usage? Who is using it this way, and how common is it? We need reliable sources for this, not firsthand experience. Google results are not reliable for this specific definition. If you know of a reliable source which specifically supports this view, present it here. Likewise, the article currently has dozens of sources, so if you know of a specific way in which these sources are not properly summarized, or think these sources are not reliable, feel free to explain it. Grayfell (talk) 03:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
You are going by the first 3 lines of the lead, which is very politely expressed, shall we say. The rest of the article does adequately cover the ideas you mention, which are indeed central. Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Typo[edit]

Please change "enthnocentric" -> "ethnocentric"

 Done. El_C 01:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)