Afrocentrism?

[Tony]

I initially thought skepticism was questioning and investigating things to see if they hold up, which is what I'm doing. Maybe I came to the wrong place for that.

Don't get discouraged, this is a great place for skeptical viewpoints and opinions. Asking questions is ALWAYS good. I've learned a lot from coming to JREF.

However, there are some who react to skepticism of right/left wing orthodoxy with hostility. And then there are others who interpret questioning of certain religious ideas/groups and sensitive issues as inherently racist and bigoted. Ignore those people and learn what you can from the genuinely skeptical members.

 

[slingblade]

"White Identities"???

What the hell is that?

I'm so glad that my humanities topics are really restricted...

Nah, restrictions don't expose you to new things. And as mom always said, how do you know you don't like it until you try it?

This is a difficult class to encapsulate in a sentence or two, so my explanation won't do it justice. But I'll try.

It was a sociology class, and in essence, it explored racism and what it means to be white in modern society, especially insofar as race and racism is concerned. I found it quite eye-opening, and found it helped me understand racism much better.

Just a short for instance: I learned that black women in the '60s suffered quite an identity crisis betwen the Women's Movement and the Civil Rights Movement. If they wanted to fight for equal rights for women, they were given flak for not fighting only for civil rights. And in the Feminist camp, they felt as if they didn't belong, because many (most?) of those women were white and upper-class. It was as if they were told, "You can fight for civil rights or women's rights, but not both, even though you're a member of both groups."

It was a fascinating class, and I'm very glad I took it.

 

[Suddenly]

which is a bunch of nice things like "communalistic, matriarchal, holistic,etc".

Whoa.

Jedi Knight flashback.



A class that as advertised more or less as supplying a different viewpoint as to the assumptions that make up the values and norms a society goes by is probably going to, you know, clash with a more conventional viewpoint.

Those that are unable to appreciate a different viewpoint are going to obviously claim it is all gibberish. Yawn.

 

[dudalb]

I strongly recommend Mary Lefkovitz' Not Out of Africa. Well researched, well written.

Afrocentrism is nothing but racist pseudo-history.

I don't know about the racist, but I agree that Afrocentrism is crap history.
I particularly love their insistence about how the Ancient Egyptian ruling classes were black, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
I particularly like the "Cleopatra was black" routine.Hell,she was not even an Egyptian in ancestary. She was Greek.
Same with the "Hannibal was Black" crap. He was a Cathiginian.
"African" and "Black" are not the same thing.
What is scary to me is the number of people in this thread who are defending nonsense like this being taught as a "differing viewpoint". Why not teach the theory that the Sun revolves around the Earth in Astronomy as well since it is a differing viewpoint.
I really expected better from some of the people here. Political Correctness is woo.

 

[dudalb]

And it is amazing how many people will throw critical thinking out the window when it comes to a political ideology.

 

[WildCat]

What is scary to me is the number of people in this thread who are defending nonsense like this being taught as a "differing viewpoint". Why not teach the theory that the Sun revolves around the Earth in Astronomy as well since it is a differing viewpoint.

Exactly! As the saying goes, people are entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts.

I really expected better from some of the people here. Political Correctness is woo.

Same here. I have no problem with hearing different points of view, but teaching those points of view that are demonstrably nonsense as facts is very troublesome.

 

[fuelair]

So, I'm a college student that is finishing up my Intro to Black Studies course.

And my finely-tuned crap detectors have been telling me I've been fed political and racial ideology over the facts. Actually, I'm extremely certain of it; what is scary is that none of my peers seem to know that the class was essentially highly left-wing, perhaps racist indoctrination.

Our book? Karenga's Introduction to Black Studies. Yes, the guy that invented Kwanzaa.

I want to sort the nonsense from fact, if there's anything of value to be gleaned from this class. I feel my mind may be poisoned and I'm hoping someone can help shed some light on this.

First of, the class blatantly speaks negatively of capitalism, individualism, and favors what I assume would be socialism and collectivism. If only I knew what to quote from the book to illustrate it...!?h Obviously, it seems to separate blacks from whites, Karenga's book going so far as to capitalize "Black" and keep "white" lowercase.

Here, we see talk of the "African" and "European" worldviews: http://www.edofolks.com/html/pub9.htm

This is essentially what was discussed in the very beginnings of the class and seems to be what much of this stuff is based on. I suspect this is complete and utter ideological hogwash based on political motivation and racist ideology. Unfortunately, I know very little about the actual developments of European and particularly African culture, but it seems to me that creating a false distinction and a grossly broad view of "European" and "African".

The book is filled with spelling errors and grammatical oddities. In one point, it mentions "bio-socialists", but I'm wondering if it means "sociobiologists" (anyone know???): ..."the bio-socialists who deny cultural differences..."; I am pretty sure there is no such thing as a bio-socialist and this surely either must be as terrible scholarship as I think it is, or I must be a very smart undergraduate student, for finding this (probable) error. I wish I could provide more examples but it's harder to find good single statements when the whole thing seems to be pure propaganda and nonsense at the very premises.

Afrocentrism I can find very little information about. The article on skepdic focuses mainly on the belief that Egyptians were "Black", or something. I'm coming here and hoping someone educated and knowledgeable about this subject can enlighten me over what I may have been told that's pure hogwash--it's really hard to sort fact from fiction in instances such as these.

Since I have not read the book, I cannot speak of it directly - and Kwanzaa is a perfectly reasonable idea based on any number of harvest celebrations. The only major problem with the form of Afrocentrism I have encountered in the past is that it overstates (a lot for some things) the importance of certain African contributions in the development of Western Civ - and sometimes acts/implies that there is a conspiracy to hide their true importance. However, unless known historical records are really wrong/very badly interpreted there is no real evidence of that. It's the equivalent of leaving out the War of Jenkins Ear when discussing the War of 1812 in an American History Class.

 

[fuelair]

Check out what you're being told, but don't bother getting angry. In a college setting, it can sometimes be like teaching a pig to sing: it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

That's why the FSM invented barbecue!!!

My wife had profs like that. In classes we were both taking. I had to prove to her (by writing both our papers on occasion - always giving her the one that should get the higher grade) that some "educators" really did operate that way.

 

[Suddenly]

Same here. I have no problem with hearing different points of view, but teaching those points of view that are demonstrably nonsense as facts is very troublesome.

Which describes most American History as taught in U.S. public schools. It is likewise a political animal used for political purposes, although the problems with US history are more of a matter of omission and obfuscation than good old fashioned "making things up." Although that will pop up here or there in the textbooks to assist in the building of a strong historical mythology where the student is to develop an almost religious reverence for a collection of Great Leaders.. I mean founding fathers... whose influence is to reach through centuries of unimaginable change to determine our basic ideas of justice.

A lot of common factual claims associated with black studies type classes are, when all available evidence is weighed, extremely unlikely, and generally irrelevant to a serious study of history anyway. However, this is largely criticising the whole based on problems with the fringe. Black studies, as a sociological field concentrating on the processes inherent to the development of a historical record and cultural historical mythology and the effect of same as to present day society is one thing. 2AM dorm bull session quality discussions as to Socrates' skin color is quite another.

It is unfortunate that the latter dominates discussion of the matter, but this should probably be expected. There are always those that should know better that will let the ends determine the facts in an attempt to right the sociological effect of centuries of European bias in how we see the past... an attempt to right a wrong with another wrong.

 

[Hokulele]

Regarding the book in question, it has been many years since I read it, but from what I recall, it was mostly an attempt to redefine the black stereotype. Basically, there are three main ways to fight any negative stereotype: 1 - Act as a living counter-example and try to develop as many of these counter-examples as possible (W.E.B. DuBois, for example), 2 - Redefine and embrace a different stereotype (Karenga), or 3 - Embrace the stereotype, often in a defiant or mocking way (as can be seen in the gangsta culture). Of course, these aren't the only ways to do this, but they are the most common.

This can be done for any group, whether it is women, homosexuals, or yes, even white men. Which response to negative stereotyping is the "best"? Your guess is as good as mine.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I don't know about the racist, but I agree that Afrocentrism is crap history.
I particularly love their insistence about how the Ancient Egyptian ruling classes were black, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
I particularly like the "Cleopatra was black" routine.Hell,she was not even an Egyptian in ancestary. She was Greek.
Same with the "Hannibal was Black" crap. He was a Cathiginian.
"African" and "Black" are not the same thing.
What is scary to me is the number of people in this thread who are defending nonsense like this being taught as a "differing viewpoint". Why not teach the theory that the Sun revolves around the Earth in Astronomy as well since it is a differing viewpoint.
I really expected better from some of the people here. Political Correctness is woo.

Shakespeare was black...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKYvDn095Ew

 

[WildCat]

Which describes most American History as taught in U.S. public schools. It is likewise a political animal used for political purposes, although the problems with US history are more of a matter of omission and obfuscation than good old fashioned "making things up." Although that will pop up here or there in the textbooks to assist in the building of a strong historical mythology where the student is to develop an almost religious reverence for a collection of Great Leaders.. I mean founding fathers... whose influence is to reach through centuries of unimaginable change to determine our basic ideas of justice.

I don't know about you, but i had very good history teachers in middle and high school. Problem is, in many places very little actual history is taught past the 9th or 10th grade, and much of that is rolled into "social studies" classes. The result is that most people have what is basically a 5th grade understanding of history, simplified and dumbed down.

A lot of common factual claims associated with black studies type classes are, when all available evidence is weighed, extremely unlikely, and generally irrelevant to a serious study of history anyway. However, this is largely criticising the whole based on problems with the fringe. Black studies, as a sociological field concentrating on the processes inherent to the development of a historical record and cultural historical mythology and the effect of same as to present day society is one thing.

Which is another problem! History, by definition, deals witht he written record. And there is very little written records of sub-Saharan Africa prior to 500 years ago or so, and much of that was written by Europeans. It's not so much that there's a conspiracy afoot to ignore that history, but the fact that it simply doesn't exist. History in the Middle East goes back 4,000 years or so, China and Egypt a little later, Greece a little later than that, and western Europe not until Roman times. That's really all there is to work with, beyond that all we have is archeology and handed-down myths and legends.

 

[LostAngeles]

...
For the longest time, if your tribe or city lost a battle with the neighbors, they killed most men and made slaves or concubines of everybody else. You were a slave because you lost, not because you were inferior. You were just transferred forcibly to the slave class.

With the growing realization that slavery was wrong, people who wanted slaves had to come up with a new reason than just "well, they lost the war" as a reason. Hence "they must be inferior", with it's attendant laws about not teaching slaves to help keep them stupid to help with the facade.

I'm sorry, I misread you this morning. As I was mentally prepping the post and still trying to get out the door, I realized you said precisely what I was going to say.

Nevermind. Getting back to my work now.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Let me ask again: What scholarship is this so-called "European worldview" based on, and why haven't I heard of it before? And it just-so happens to be the opposite of this "African worldview", which is a bunch of nice things like "communalistic, matriarchal, holistic,etc".

Afro woo seems to be of a certain character. A data point contra the "matriarchal" is the King of Swaziland, who is a polygamist.

The head of state is the king or Ngwenyama (lit. Lion), currently King Mswati III, who ascended to the throne in 1986 after the death of his father King Sobhuza II in 1982 and a period of regency. By tradition, the king reigns along with his mother or a ritual substitute, the Ndlovukati (lit. She-Elephant). The former was viewed as the administrative head of state and the latter as a spiritual and national head of state, with real power counter-balancing that of the king, but during the long reign of Sobhuza II the role of the Ndlovukati became largely symbolic. As the monarch, the king not only appoints the prime minister — the head of government — but also appoints a small number of representatives for both chambers of the Libandla (parliament). The Senate consists of 30 members, while the House of Assembly has 82 seats, 55 of which are occupied by elected representatives, (elections are held every five years in November).

The Westminster-style constitution that was adopted in 1968 was suspended by King Sobhuza in 1973 under a royal decree backed by the royalist majority of parliament, in effect a coup by the government against its own constitution. The State of Emergency has since been lifted, or so the government claims even though political activities, especially by pro-democracy movements, are suppressed. In 2001 King Mswati III appointed a committee to draft a new constitution. Drafts were released for comment in May 2003 and November 2004. These were strongly criticized by civil society organizations in Swaziland and human rights organizations elsewhere. In 2005, the constitution was put into effect, though there is still much debate in the country about the constitutional reforms. From the early seventies, there was active resistance to the royal hegemony.

Despite calls for international solidarity against the oppressive royal regime, Swaziland's human rights record remains largely ignored by the international community. The South African trade union COSATU has been the most vocal supporters of the rights of the Swazi people to govern themselves by democratic means.

I note that he rules with his mother, so maybe matriarchal is correct.

The king has 13 wives and 23 children.

Inkhosikati (Queen) LaMatsebula—Ritual wife. Has a degree in Psychology.
Son: HRH Prince Sicalo
Son: Prince Maveletiveni
Inkhosikati LaMotsa—Ritual wife. UNDP Goodwill Ambassador since 1996. [2]
Son: Prince Majahonkhe (1991)
Son: "Prince Buhlebenkhosi"
Son: "Prince Lusuku"
1986 Inkhosikati LaMbikiza—(born 16 June 1969 as Sibonelo Mngomezulu) Daughter of Percy Mngomezulu; an advocate, received her degree from UNISA. LaMbikiza is involved in the Swazi Royal Initiative to Combat AIDS (RICA). The initiative involves the recording of songs by Swazi, South African and international artists and the proceeds of the sales are allocated to programmes aimed at helping people affected by AIDS.
Daughter: Princess Sikhanyiso Dlamini (1987)
Son: Prince Lindaninkosi Dlamini (Lindani) (1989)
Inkhosikati LaNgangaza —(born Carol Dlamini) [Patron of world organisation "Hospice at Home" previously headed by Princess Diana]
Daughter: Princess Temaswati Dlamini (1988)
Daughter: Princess Tiyandza Dlamini (1992)
Daughter: Princess Tebukhosi Dlamini (1994)
Putsoana Hwala—(born 1974 ??) Known as Inkhosikati LaHwala She left the king on June 24, 2004 and moved to South Africa.[3]
Son: Prince Bandzile (1990)
Daughter: Princess Temashayina (1994)
Delisa Magwaza—(born 1974 ??) Known as Inkhosikati LaMagwaza. She also left the king in 2004, after having an affair.[3]
Daughter: Princess Temtsimba Dlamini (1992)
Daughter: Princess Sakhizwe Dlamini (1999)
August 2000 Inkhosikati LaMasango—(born 1981 ?? as Senteni Masango)
Daughter: "Princess Sentelweyinhosi" (2000)
Daughter: "Princess Sibusezweni" (2003)
December 1998 Inkhosikati LaGija—(born Angel Dlamini)
Daughter: "Princess Yenziwe" (2003)
June 2002 Inkhosikati LaMagongo—(born Nontsetselo Magongo) Niece of Chief Mlobokazana Fakudze, Chief at Mgazini.
Son: Prince Mcwasho (2002)
November 2002 Inkhosikati LaMahlangu—(born 1984 as Zena Soraya Mahlangu) (see below)
Son: Prince Saziwangaye (2004)
May 2005 Inkhosikati LaNtentesa (born 1981 Noliqhwa Ayanda Ntentesa), betrothed November 2002, married in a traditional function held at Ludzidzini Royal Residence May 26, 2005.
June 2005 Inkhosikati LaDube (born Nothando Dube) a Miss Teen Swaziland finalist at age 16, chosen at the Umhlanga (Reed Dance) ceremony on August 30, 2004 while she was a grade 9 pupil at Mater Dorolosa High School. Married 11 June 2005.
Daughter: Princess Makhosothando (2005)
Son: "Prince Betive" (2007)
14 April 2007 Inkhosikati LaNkambule (born Phindile Nkambule), chosen at the Umhlanga (Reed Dance) ceremony in 2005.
Daughter: "Princess Buhlebetive" (2007)

It seems that this polygamy is OK with the general Swazi culture, but I am not sure.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'm aware of Dr. Fascism's history. And do not agree with some of the views he expresses.

However, I disagree fundamentally with attacks that are based more on personal dislike, and on carrying over arguments and prejudices from other discussions. Where he says things that we actually disagree with, then we should express our disagreement, and do so vocally.

It's a people thing, I'd hope a cross species rose carrier would understand.

There are people in these forums who dislike me.

Oh?

*Bristles*

Who are they? Let me at 'em!

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

I found this expectation for 'reviews' in the rest of my classes. I was regarded as a monster for not giving in to it.

My hero.

I take it that over time people figured out what it took to meet your standards?

DR

 

[Complexity]

My hero.

I take it that over time people figured out what it took to meet your standards?

DR

Some did, some did not.

Where I'd taught before, I was highly regarded and rated as being able to motivate students and bring them through courses successfully.

Many of the students at this school regarded me and other teachers like me (there were some) as obstacles between them and their degrees.

So many students had been socially passed through grade school and high school and told that they were doing 'A' work when, in fact, they were being taught to tests and regurgitating what would satisfy the sham process.

So many students came to college without knowing how to study and how to learn, and they were told they'd done well.

Once in college, they were told that they were going to be prepared for graduate study (mission of the university). The classes that they would take in college were softened so that pain (and progress) would be minimal, and courses in the pre-med area were taught to the test.

To make matters worse, everyone understood that there were more companies competing for black graduates than there were black graduates, and that everyone (except the non-black students) was pretty much guaranteed a job.

We really were standing between these students and a degree / job.

The main instructional language there was Java. The Intro to Programming sequence was a two-semester course on programming in Pascal. We weren't allowed to introduce pointers until the second term.

In general, each course began with a review of its prerequisites. For example, if the second intro course was taken in the spring semester, the first three-four weeks would be a mandatory review of the fall course's material. If the second intro course was taken in the fall, the review could take six-eight weeks, since they'd had the summer to forget things.

I went to teach at this university because I respected its mission - to prepare black students from educationally impoverished areas (e.g. Louisiana, Mississippi) for graduate study. I wanted to teach, to help.

Instead, I encountered some horrible consequences of affirmative action, reduced my standards below what I could live with, touched only a few lives in positive ways, and gave up teaching, probably for life.

Sadness is all that remains.

 

[John Blonn]

To return to an earlier point in the thread, re:

"Certainly, capitalism, racism, and sexism shape our relationships, but they are systems created by humans and they can be changed and rebuilt by humans."

I think the OP's objection (or skepticism) to this triad lies in the jarring lack of parallel structure.

Racism - discrimination based on race
Sexism - discrimination based on sex/gender
Capitalism - discrimination based on...capital?

Strictly considered, this use of capitalism is incorrect and is not common usage.

Rewrite the sentence to read "...classism, racism, and sexism" and I, and perhaps the OP, would not find the sentence overtly objectionable. The idea that entities like class, race, and gender are social constructs is, for the most part, correct and important to note given the course matter.

The use of capitalism in this sentence is, at best, sloppy scholarship, eliding important distinctions, and, at worst, politically-grounded woo.

ETA: This is not an objection of the notion that capitalism shapes our relationships - clearly it does (a trivial observation). However, the objection I (and the OP?) have is with the rhetorical move of treating capitalism as a form of unfair discrimination.

ETA2: To those who accept the original sentence, you certainly would have no problem rewriting the sentence as follows, no?

"Certainly, liberalism, socialism, racism, and sexism shape our relationships, but they are systems created by humans and they can be changed and rebuilt by humans."

 

[Dr. Fascism]

Finally this topic is on track.

Exactly! As the saying goes, people are entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts.


Same here. I have no problem with hearing different points of view, but teaching those points of view that are demonstrably nonsense as facts is very troublesome.

Naturally--and I also do think, that if you favor a certain point of view, you also need to make sure you give the opposite point of view a fair shake.

 

[Dr. Fascism]

To return to an earlier point in the thread, re:

"Certainly, capitalism, racism, and sexism shape our relationships, but they are systems created by humans and they can be changed and rebuilt by humans."

I think the OP's objection (or skepticism) to this triad lies in the jarring lack of parallel structure.

Racism - discrimination based on race
Sexism - discrimination based on sex/gender
Capitalism - discrimination based on...capital?

Strictly considered, this use of capitalism is incorrect and is not common usage.

Rewrite the sentence to read "...classism, racism, and sexism" and I, and perhaps the OP, would not find the sentence overtly objectionable. The idea that entities like class, race, and gender are social constructs is, for the most part, correct and important to note given the course matter.

The use of capitalism in this sentence is, at best, sloppy scholarship, eliding important distinctions, and, at worst, politically-grounded woo.

ETA: This is not an objection of the notion that capitalism shapes our relationships - clearly it does (a trivial observation). However, the objection I (and the OP?) have is with the rhetorical move of treating capitalism as a form of unfair discrimination.

ETA2: To those who accept the original sentence, you certainly would have no problem rewriting the sentence as follows, no?

"Certainly, liberalism, socialism, racism, and sexism shape our relationships, but they are systems created by humans and they can be changed and rebuilt by humans."

You have it!

Part of the problem is Karenga's book is so poorly written that you simply cannot know what his meaning is, I guess. I'm pretty sure. given the whole Marxist-to-the-extreme bent this class had, that he really does mean "capitalism", as only those who identify as "Marxist" (yes, I'm aware of the objection raised earlier over the term, but popular meaning trumps that here) tend to do that. Look at some actual socialist, communist, or self-labeled "anarchist" message boards and you'll see exactly this.

It is those people that view capitalism as an inherently discriminating system, much like sexism or racism.