Talk:Afrocentrism

Talk:Afrocentrism Archive1
Talk:Afrocentrism Archive2
Talk:Afrocentrism Archive3

Reasons for Eurocentrism

Anyone want to begin a 'Reasons for Eurocentrism' article? The idea that since 800 BC Europe has dominated everything deserves some explanation. Europe has conquered the entire World, Europe rules the World, Europe for Europeans, Proud to be European.

EUROPEAN PRIDE!--86.137.173.9 20:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC

Europe has not dominated since 800 B.C. It was not until 55 B.C that the Romans first wrote of Europe. There are no writings from Europeans. The word Romans first called Britain was albion meaning white. The word Albino now! They did not come back until 46 B.C. and conquer. The other words they used we're Barbarians, Celts, Gauls. As we know Egypt is very ancient. And the Bible mentions Kush(Ethiopia) before Eygpt! Whites are the children of albino blacks. Also Europe did not start conquering until 1030AD That's 4000 years after Egypt started!

02:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)~~

Your posts are terrible. You can't even articulate a coherent argument [1]. Do you have any substantiation for your claims? --Jugbo 23:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Egypt didn't call itself Egypt either. Almost all culture, from music, to painting to manufacturing is European in origin. Even Wallce D. Muhammad, head of the Black Muslims acknowledged the civilization of Europe as the root of all modern civilization. This childish, unscholarly article has no business on Wikipedia and should be removed immediately. It detracts from the reliability of other, valid articles.

Observation

Isn't it interesting of how much work has been done to debate Afrocentrism, yet the Eurocentrism article is so light. I find it interesting that those that oppose Afrocentrism put their energy in debunking it, yet Eurocentrism receives very little attention.

While on the other hand, the Caucasoid article has been extraordinary strong in debate about placing Ethiopians into the definition of "caucasoids", yet the Negroid article shows very little content except the offensively exaggerated skull.

That to me is why Afrocentrism is so important. It does not impose it's will onto the minds of unbiased people, where as Eurocentrism tries to impose their will onto the minds of everyone. Europe isn't even a continent, yet it's seperated as such to seperate the whites from the non-white.

I just wanted to know if anyone else in here can see the forest through the trees.

Afrocentrism may not be so keen to impose its ideas (and I doubt it) because of the dubious value of many of them (such as that phony theory on the African "origins" of Olmec civilisation, to which I would be happy to see an Eurocentric counterpoint that is not dismissed by Eurocentrists as pseudoarchaeology). D,

Interesting.. that someone trying so hard to sound smart, would misspell civilization

Interesting that someone trying to sound so smart does not know that it isn't a misspelling. It's the correct UK spelling. Paul B 14:28 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, as many Eurocentric ideas are equally dubious but have received widespread acclaim throughout the ages. The Curse of Ham, and the scientific parallel of African intelligence inferiority. The use of skulls to conclude that Africans are less intelligent. The dubious theory that Africans never ventured out of Africa in historic times unless a white or asian owner brought them is widely accepted in academia even now. The dubious theory that black "caucasoids" in Ethiopia(a paradox) are more closely related to white europeans than to Black africans in Kenya is widely appreciated in Eurocentric and scholarly circles. The dubious theory that everyone with round eyes and skin color lighter than jet black is a "caucasoid" by default is accepted. The theory that white people have a virtue of human insight that is lacking in asians (which translates to Asians being more technically adept but less insightful and balanced than a white) is also widely accepted. And so on and so on and so on...

The Afrocentric article is of particular interest to me and many other African scholars of the 21st century because the recent shift is towards Afrisecal movement rather than Afrocentricity. The reason is not too far to see; the purview of the structure of Afrocentric theory creates room for arguements revolving on racism. The Afrisecal mindset is one of acceptance that Africa is a continent in transition with strong desire to find the way forward from our past and post-colonial experience. Writers like Samson Omayewa , Tunde Akondu and others have tried to look beyond the themes revolving round exponential nihilism of the negroid experience and anthropological cache of Nilo-Egyptian mythology and causes of the "African Fall". They rather look towards the voices of Ohanyido and Chinweizu for visions of African Renaissance.

 Aturiama 17:54 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Recent changes

• National Geographic: Corrected incorrect caption - the National Geographic shows the reconstruction of the French team, not the Egyptian reconstruction. Now, which one is the "controversial" reconstruction? The French? Or the Egyptian?

• Drusilla Houston: Corrected incomplete and out of context quotation. Drusilla Houston distinguishes between ancient Egyptian, Ethiopian, Nubian and Cushites. She argues in her book that in early ages Egypt was under Nubian domination, and NOT that Egyptians ARE Nubians. [2]

• • What? No one ever said that Eygptians and Nubians were the same. They were two distinct kingdoms, often sharing peoples in common. deeceevoice 15:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Australoid people: Completed quotation, eventhough I don't see why it was included into the article first place, since Huxley differentiates between "Australoid" and "Negroid". [3]

• • Truncated overly long quote back to the way it was. Huxley refers to "Australoids," describing them as essentially "Negroids"/Africoids -- with the only difference being their relatively straight hair -- meaning those peoples we commonly refer to today as (some) Nubians, Ethiopians, Sudanese, Eritreans -- in a word, (many) Nilotics -- etc., and the Tamils/Dravidians of the Indian subcontinent, Australia. Check the distribution map. All the other verbiage about Australia and the eye sockets, etc., is superflous and simply makes the block quote intolerably long. The point is he describes and identifies the Australoids as also populating the Nile Valley. deeceevoice 15:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Additional note:

Studies in craniometry are dismissed as scientific racism, that should be mentioned in the article. [4] [5] Pharlap 14:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

This is not "craniometry" as it has been used to justify trumped-up, silly contentions about inherent inferiority or superiority of certain groups of humankind. The article mentions well-known and widely accepted "racial"/ethnic facio-cranial characteristics in the context of forensic science and forensic anthropology -- areas of scientific inquiry and professional practice where they remain in use today as highly accurate indicators of ethnic identity. Witness Anton's dead-on conclusions -- absent any geographic context whatsoever. You're grasping at straws, and your complaint simply does not hold up. deeceevoice 10:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Seeing as nobody here seems capable of reaching agreement on the content or nature of this article, and that emotions and opinions seem to be far more prevelant than actual facts, might i suggest people try the following: split the page into two parts- for and against the afrocentrist position, and give both equal space, like in a debate or a trial. Then reader can look at all points of view and form their own opinion. This would probably be a good idea for other controversial topics and would prevent all the childlike a abuse and squabbling which seems to be taking up a lot of time and space and providing very little real insight or information. --Roger ramjet 01:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Highly miscegnated?

At 2 points, the article says that Afrocentrists would use the term "highly miscegnated" to describe the modern Egyptian population. It is not reasonable or acceptable to use this term to describe any population, this is offensive to the modern Egyptians. This confirms my suspicions that Afrocentrism, at least in the form put forward here, is a form of racism by a section of the population of the main imperialist power against the population of a 3rd world country. The article should be edited to take account of these issues. PatGallacher 11:29, 2005 July 24 (UTC)

Also, Niger and Nigeria do not derive from the Latin for black, they derive from a Tuareg word for river (and so are unrelated to the word we all want to avoid). The Hyksos did bring the chariot to Ancient Egypt. I find all this stuff with diagrams of skull types rather disturbing, reminiscent of material from the Third Reich, I am not sure it has any place in a Wikipedia article. PatGallacher 14:31, 2005 July 24 (UTC)

How do we know that the origin of "niger" and "nigeria" come from the Tuareg word and not the European (the ones who colonized and delineated the countries)? There are very few if any Tuareg in Nigeria. And the mouth of the Niger river is in a non-Tuareg region of Africa. --68.60.55.162 10:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

See the article on the Niger river for the derivation. The Taureg word is a possibility. I agree with you about skull types and the stuff about 'misecegenation'. This aspect of the content is courtesy of User:Deeceevoice, whose insult-laden methods of debate and POV I find so uncongenial (to put it mildly) that I have withdrawn from involvement. However the article needs a big overhaul. As it is, it has drifted unpleasantly close to the kind of 'racial theory' that should have died out half a century ago. Paul B 15:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Now, now. Just because something is blatant 19th-century style racism doesn't mean we can't have an encyclopedia article about it. — Phil Welch 01:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

What? The Niger River? I never wrote anything about the derivation of "Niger" or "Nigeria." U b trippin', PB. deeceevoice 22:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I wonder, what other articles on here use the word "miscegnation" to describe "objectively" a group of people? Shall we be offended also for those?--68.60.55.162 10:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

OH and I'm glad DeeCeeVoice is still keeping you all in check. It's funny when someone concludes something as fact when its not conclusive, and then gets offended when one of us negroes go off on them. It's called lying, Pat, and yes we get offended by it.

Clean up

I have added the "clean up" flag because, although the article is important and large parts are OK, in places it gets bogged down in discussion of the minutiae of ancient Egyptian skulls, and does not properly address the assumptions which might lie behind such a discussion, see some of my earlier comments. PatGallacher 15:32, 2005 July 24 (UTC)

• I've removed the cleanup flag, which gives the impression the article is sloppily written. If you disagree about the content of the piece and you think something is included which is superfluous, then this is where such matters should be hashed out. I happen to think the discussion is entirely on point. deeceevoice 15:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

It sure the heck needs some work to be half-way respectable from any scientific point of view... AnonMoos 23:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I have restored the cleanup flag because I think the article is sloppily written, see my previous comments. I support the proposal to shift some stuff to "Egypt and black identity" or something along these lines. I will look at Eurocentrism to see if there are any problems. PatGallacher 16:57, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

Photo Great Sphinx

The proposition that the Sphinx could be up to 10,000 years old is a so called theory advanced by Graham Hancock and several others of his ilk. It isn't accepted at all by main stream archaeologists. It is obvious that deeceevoice is a proponent of the Afrocentrism theory that suggests that Egypt was a black African culture and that the Hellenic civilization which followed robbed from them. Judging by the more academic links on the page, this is ill accepted by the most notable Egyptologists.

The issue and objecvitity of this article "Afrocentricism" is that it disputes the most notable Egyptologists, because their conclusions are said to be biased by Afrocentric scholars. For example, the MET has two busts (reserve heads) of old kingdom people. One looks very semetic/caucasoid while the other looks very black/negroid. The negroid bust WAS assumed to be the nubian wife of the tomb owner (i.e. they assumed someone from nubia traveled from their non-egyptian native ground to giza). BUT, they subsequently concluded... once they put their bias/assumption/default-white mentality aside that the bust was the tomb owner.

http://www.metmuseum.org/explore/new_pyramid/PYRAMIDS/HTML/el_pyramid_head2.htm

"Although each reserve head has characteristics that make it unique, this example stands out from the group. It is one of the largest and is the most perfectly preserved, exhibiting none of the intentional damage found on others. Excavated in a shaft with another head, this one was originally identified as the Nubian wife of the tomb owner. Recent study, however, suggests that it probably represents the male owner of the tomb. Although the face has affinities with later depictions of Nubians, it also bears a striking resemblance to statues of Fourth Dynasty kings and undoubtedly represents an Egyptian. The variations among reserve heads probably reflect the diversity in Egypt's population."

This is why there is Afrocentricism, without it, the mentality of the notable Egyptologists would not be checked and people would be assuming this is a slave or something other than the actual original owner of the tomb way up in the north.

Now the only problem left is that people will assume, no doubt, that this is an isolated example of Black Africans in the north. Which again is why Afrocentricism is so concentrated on Egypt.

It would be great if Afrocentrism was just an attempt to introduce more fairness into Egyptology or whatever. But it isn't. It's swinging the pendulum in the other direction, and in many ways it's less defensible, because we know more now than they did when they were claiming that the Egyptians were white and so forth. Correcting one falsehood with another won't cause the truth to show up. Afrocentrism is based on identity politics and the like, it isn't based on taking a good and balanced look at everything. The argument of "Oh the mainstream Egyptologists just believe that because they're white" is amazingly disingenous, is it supposed to be plausible that in a matter that in many ways pits black vs white, that blacks are going to be any more honest?

And the excuses for Afrocentrism along the lines of "Well the racist white Egyptologists used to believe this" sees a trip into a childish land where it's all about paying back past wrongs, not about trying to get things right. It is impossible to solve inequalities against one group, or against one scientific theory, or whatever by inequalities against another group or theory or whatever. Yet the idea that this is possible seems rather common, even though it's basically the belief that the best way to solve a wrong is to commit the opposite wrong. --Edward Wakelin 20:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Afrocentricity

Afrocentricity covers the same ground. If the terminology is used differently or by different people, this can be explained in the intro or a subsection on terminology. Rd232 13:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, I see no particular value in a separate article on Afrocentricity. Perhaps the contributor Spence, who initiated the piece, can elucidate. Frankly, I object to the narrow approach to the subject in that piece. It refers to "the Afrocentric project" as though there is some central council or authority over afrocentric scholarship with a singular direction and aim -- which is simply not the case. Nor did the Afrocentric approach begin with Asante. Some of the most important scholarship in Afrocentric thought predates Asante by several decades. Indeed, one of the foremost so-called "afrocentric" historians alive today, Ivan van Sertima, rejects the term completely. I certainly do not think Afrocentrism should be merged into it. If anything, it should be the converse. The common form of the word is "Afrocentrism," just as its counterpart is commonly called "Eurocentrism" -- not "Eurocentricity." In fact, a search of this website reveals an article on the former -- but none on the latter. deeceevoice 14:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I attempted to participate in the Afrocentrism entry earlier. I stopped because I realized that there was a distinct difference between the entry I was participating in--Afrocentrism--and the concept as used by scholars actively engaging in the literature in the field. To wit, the entry "Afrocentrism" deals largely with the race of the Ancient Egyptians, and the counter-claims of scholars such as Mary Lefkowitz or the late Allan Bloom as well as the work of historians writing in the early 20th Century. These are very contentious arguments, with strong supporters on both sides. But these arguments do not reflect the type of arguments scholars are actually dealing with "in the academy". Furthermore, there is a lack of precision in the Afrocentrism entry that is problematic. Ivan Van Sertima for example is NOT an Afrocentric scholar. Neither is Martin Bernal. People outside of the academy may lump them with scholars such as Theophile Obenga and Maulana Karenga for a number of reasons...but scholars within the academy would not consider them Afrocentric scholars. More importantly, neither Bernal nor Van Sertima consider themselves Afrocentric scholars. Similarly no scholars currently publishing academic work are interested in the "race" of the Ancient Egyptians. Rather than fight these battles within the Afrocentrism entry I thought it important to create a separate entry that reflects the difference between the academic understaning and the non-academic understanding. --Lester Spence 02:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Because as a movement Eurocentrism doesn't currently exist, as it can only exist as how Afrocentrism exists: Misguided attempts by scholars among a victim-group to create a positive mythology: It is far easier to say "Things were great for us before we got ripped off" than to actually sit down and try to make plans for the future. --Edward Wakelin 22:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

What's your hack philosophizing got to do with the price of rice? Eurocentrism need not exist as a "movement"; it's already arrived. It's been the status quo for centuries. Further, correcting the historic record is preparing the way for the future -- and it's far blacker and brighter than the past. :p deeceevoice 23:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Eurocentrism should fall because of objective re-analysis of the past. It shouldn't fall because it's been replaced with more subjectivity. And what hack philosophising? I am pointing out that Afrocentrism is the easy way out, appealing to imaginary good old days rather than to try and make good new days: That is hardly an uncommon thing, it is seen every time somebody whintes about how public schools suck now and used to be better, instead of saying "gee maybe we should put more money in the public school system". --Edward Wakelin 03:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

To put it a different way: How is it a substantial improvement to replace incorrect, skewed history by whites, with incorrect, skewed history by blacks? --Edward Wakelin 03:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess it depends on whom you're reading and whom you believe. As an African-American, I think the history of my people and of blacks, in general, stands on its own. There's no need to appropriate the history of others. But am I an Afrocentrist? I suppose you could call me that. But, first and foremost, I'm a student of history. Judging from your posts, we likely come down on different sides of certain issues -- but that has nothing to do with a desire to embrace that which is not true. I traded e-mails with Susan Anton and spoke directly to the fellow on the French team. And based on those contacts, I am more convinced than ever (though I wasn't in doubt, based on considerable reading I'd done before) that King Tut was a black African. So, don't assume less than honorable motives simply because someone doesn't see eye to eye with you. deeceevoice 03:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I get what you're saying. I think the problem is that when the mindset is "claiming" King Tut or Cleopatra or some other Egyptian figure as being black or white or whatever will not really create the proper atmosphere for objectivity to flourish. Then of course is the fact that the population of Africa is quite varied. Plus: Do we really know enough about Egypt to talk about its ethnic makeup? People spend way too much time pointing at skin colours on old murals: The Egyptian style of drawing people was very stylised, how are we to know if they tried 100% recreation of reality with skin colour? . And it isn't helped by the fact that the modern population of Egypt is very different in terms of ethnic makeup than Egypt was back in the day. And recreating ethnicity or race through facial measurements and the like is quite imprecise: There was an article about this in Harper's (I think) specifically about bodies that might be Aboriginal or might be European: It pointed out that variation between individuals, or over time, could explain a lot of difference of things like facial measurements. --Edward Wakelin 04:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Isn't there a theory, by the way, that many ancient Egyptians were in fact members of an ethnic group that doesn't really exist any more? --Edward Wakelin 04:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

God. I really don't want to rehash old arguments. I think the information I've presented in the article is compelling enough. (I've written the majority of the piece, particularly from "Egypt and black identity" to the end.) They were (and remain) predominantly black Africans. With regard to your last question, there are also theories that aliens came to Earth in spaceships and built the pyramids. The theory you write of is sheer hogwash. There's absolutely no evidence that would point to some mass extinction of the ancient Egyptians. Their progeny are alive and well today. Peace. deeceevoice 04:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Just sayin' there's a theory, no idea as to its validity. I don't know if the Egyptians were black, they're certainly not white, though. Light-skinned Africans I can buy, probably with some degree or other mixing from the Middle East, which is right next door.

The Eurocentric Egyptologists basically based their "they must be white!" theory on the idea that anybody not white couldn't have done what the Egyptians had. This is the same reason, basically, as the "aliens did it" theory: They have a hard time coming to grips with the fact that people thousands of years ago could do some really nifty things with stone. So the Eurocentrists were wrong. This doesn't make the Afrocentrists right: Even if Egyptians were Africans of one type or another, it still doesn't prove the theory that the Greeks just ripped off the Egyptians, for one thing. And I don't think that who "owns" the Egyptians matters: European culture doesn't depend on King Tut or Cleopatra being white.--Edward Wakelin 05:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Everything I have to say on the matter I've said in the article. I have no intention of rehashing things here:

"Afrocentrists, however, contend that race as a social and political construct still exists. They argue that the racist untruths propounded for centuries– that blacks had no civilization, no written language, no culture and no history of any note before coming into contact with Europeans– make the racial identity of ancient Egypt an important issue. Further, such lies have been applied to a particular, broad category of humanity based on the same "racial" phenotype and lineages used by Afrocentrists in refuting such myths. However artificial and discredited a construct, the matter of race became an important and enduring issue, Afrocentrists argue, when whites and others pronounced an entire segment of humanity inherently inferior on the basis of it. Further, such biases still exist today. As a result, Afrocentrists contend, it is important to set the historical record straight within the context in which the history of human civilizations heretofore has been framed, taught and studied--and that is the context of race." I'm done. deeceevoice 07:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Anyhoo: If there's gonna be any merging, it should be afrocenticity into afrocentrism, instead of vice versa, if only beccause "afrocentrism" sounds better, and more regular when it comes to ideologies (who, after all, is a believer in feminicity?, or Communicity?)--Edward Wakelin 04:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Read the entire discussion above, then read the Afrocentricity entry. Afrocentrism can be referred to as an ideology...and the battles around this entry are as fierce as those around Neo-Conservatism. Afrocentricity? A different bag. What we--and when i say "we" here I mean people who actually perform research and publish in Black Studies--are interested in is a very simple question. What is the best way to study black subjects? The more I read the arguments around Afrocentrism (battling about race, rants about victimology) the more I am convinced that a simple entry differentiating the academic component from the ideological one is necessary. I would not want Afrocentrism merged into Afrocentricity...and I would not want the reverse either. --Lester Spence 02:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

As the idea seems to have died, I'm removing the merge request from this article, suggesting instead that Afrocentrism be merged with African American studies. Wesley 04:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Afrocentrism and African-American studies are VERY different subjects. Afrocentricity, seems like one editor's way of escaping the mess on this page. Rather than clean it up, he invented a new term! It should be merged in or just plain deleted. -71.112.11.220 05:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Afrocentricity represents an approach to data, an approach that was created within African American/Black Studies. "Afrocentricity" as a term actually PREDATES "Afrocentrism", as an aside. I understand that this is a very contentious item. I would urge contributors (either to the entry, or to the discussion) to actually READ the work. I would support merging Afrocentricity with African American Studies as the two are related.Lester Spence 13:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Then go do it! You're the one that created the article in the first place and no one else seems to see its worth. -155.91.28.231 01:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Egyptians

Maybe some of the Egypt is / was black advocates should actually spend some time in Egypt, and do some serious reading, without looking at everything in the context of race. The Egyptions are a proud and ancient people, and the people who live there now, are largely the same as the people who inhabited the region 5,ooo years ago. The Egyptions are a Semitic people, and always have been. Saying they are / were black, is the same as saying the German people are / were Aryan. Misinformed, and blinkered.

About 50% of this article treats the relatively obscure question of the skin colour of the Ancient Egyptians. Shouldn't that be exported to its own article? I understand that the question is of some importance to Afrocentrists, but to treat it in such detail here seems like a red herring. The actual question of genetics/history/archaeology should be treated elsewhere, and its importance for agendas of black superiority can be examined here (the role of the "black Egyptians" meme in this context seems clear, regardless of the veracity of the individual claims). dab (ᛏ) 13:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Who the hell said anything here about "black superiority"? The article treats the subject in depth, because it the black identity of ancient dynastic Egypt is a central issue in Afrocentrist historiography. I like it here it is. Other articles can -- and do -- link to it. deeceevoice 18:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

How much Afrocentrist stuff is non-Egyptian in focus? --Edward Wakelin 20:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The vast majority of contemporary Afrocentric scholarship ignores the racial question. Some are interested in studying the relationship between ancient African civilizations--including Egypt. But most deal with contemporary problems in Black Studies. How exactly did various African loan words travel across the Atlantic? What are the components of a contemporary African composite culture, if any? How do Afro-Brazilians use the language of race to mobilize against poverty? --Lester Spence 02:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

that would be "Misrocentrism" then. Seriously, Egypt does not exactly equal Africa, does it? I suggest exporting the section to Egypt and Black Identity, leaving behind a summary, but sparing this article the more intricate details of the debate. dab (ᛏ) 16:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes of course it should be moved to a new page. I suggested the same thing back in May [6]. Even back in March it was obvious it was getting so long that it seriously overweighted the article,[7] creating a text that has now become a travesty of a discussion of the pros and cons of Afrocentrist thought. It was because kspense despaired of getting in any discussion of Asante's thinking and its modern offshoots that he created Afrocentricity, though there are some arguments for keeping a separate page. The obsessive concentration on discussing the "blackness" of Egyptians is down to one editor's relentless fixation on the subject. One reason for creating a separate page is that the race issue is starting to affect other Egypt-related articles. It seems silly to have sections on various pharaohs debating what their skin-colour was – we'd be recapitulating the glory days of the worst kind of "race theory". Any such discussion could be directed to the newc article. Paul B 20:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Think what you will. You're not black. Black folks generally don't see it as a "fixation." We see it as an important correction of the much sinned-against historical record. Further, it's not my "fixation." The topic has been treated fairly and thoroughly. YOu can bet if any editor had any credible comeback for the information presented, it would be there. The thing is they don't. The truth is the truth. :D deeceevoice 22:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Why is the newly added genetic information racist, I don't understand. Clearly molecular and cladistic analyses have suggested that ancient Egyptians were of sub-Saharan in origin. If they proved otherwise, maybe it's racist with regard to Afrocentrist view, the reversion to original article does not make any sense. If you want sources, go to Pubmed or any anthropology journals. I am compiling a list right now. G.C.RTW

The language about chimps, etc., reads like something from Stormfront. Yes, by all means provide your sources. But it may be moot. The scientific material, if verified by reputable sources, actually belongs in another article treating the debate about the racial identity of ancient Egypt. I haven't visited it yet, but it was separated from this one a week or two ago. deeceevoice 12:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Deeceevoice, first of all, I hate when people imply that someone is racist, because I am not. If we cannot bring about a fair scientific discussion to the table without angering people who are offended by certain words or phrases, then I think we can do no science at all. Remember, I do believe in the social construct of race (and class), but there are genetic evidence that show the difference in allelic forms of many genes among races. And the expression of these genes then result in phenotype, or the features that you can see from the outside. My addition to the article is purely from a scientific point of view, therefore, if you think I belong to Stormfront or whatever that is, you are clearly mistaken. However, I do wish that you give some constructive criticisms, such that we know that genetic tracing and molecular clocking puts sub-Saharan blacks nearer the common ancestor of all primates, then how can we put the abovementioned fact into more moderate words without mentioning specific primate species (such as chimp). If you don't look at the scientific evidence, and just outright label it as racist if you don't think it fits your agenda, then you are a racist and bigot yourself. G.C.RTW

Blunders

Egypt is most definitely NOT "located squarely within the African continent" -- it's in the northeastern corner. And I think it would be valuable to include a list of certain of the Afrocentric "urban legends" or egregious blunders, which continually keep resurfacing, despite being objectively factually ascertainably simply wrong -- such as when Cleopatra (basically of exclusive Macedonian/Greek ancestry) is claimed to be "black"(!?) -- AnonMoos 23:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you see anywhere in this article where there is any claim that Cleopatra was black? And, yes, Egypt is a part of the continent of Africa, though geopolitically and in the minds of many, it is part of the "Middle East." deeceevoice 03:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Just as it is also partly Asian, as the Sinai was traditionally part of Asia. Therefore, I too would consider squarely to be inappropriate. Snapdragonfly

Darlin', if you wanna niggle about an adverb and wanna remove it, be my guest. It doesn't change the fact that ancient dynastic Egypt was BLACK. :p deeceevoice 09:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

You're cherry-picking just as much as those who would claim Egypt to be all white. Moreso, all your darlings get frankly tiresome. Finally, I would like to note that an article on Afrocentrism doesn't mention even ONCE Zimbabwe or Axum, and Nubia hardly more than in passing; this is just an Egypt obsession; what more, modifying an adverb is not niggling, since these words have a slight tendency to modify sense (of course I should assume you knew it, right). Snapdragonfly

Sorry, darlin', if you find me tiresome. My raison d'etre is to keep you entertained. :p This article addresses the blackness of ancient dynastic Egypt, an ongoing subject of major debate vis-a-vis Afrocentrism. Fortunately, there are no great debates about the blackness of Timbuktu, the racist (and ridiculous) myth about it having been built by some lost, wandering tribe of white people having been tossed into the dustbin of Eurocentric bullsh*t lies long ago. I call yours a "niggling" change, because with all the other stuff I've contributed that die-hard dynastic critics of Afrocentrism try to debunk has remained essentially intact -- because the information is correct and irrefutable. Your tweaking is inconsequential. Ancient dynastic Egypt was no more Semitic or Middle Eastern because its territory at one time extended into the Sinai than ancient Rome was English because it once occupied portions of Britain. And, no. I never claimed ancient dynastic Egypt was all anything, black, white, Semitic, Asian or purple. deeceevoice 08:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

But this article is NOT Demographics of Ancient Egypt or Blackness in Ancient Civilisations, it is Afrocentrism, and should not avoid mention of such things as the other African civilisations. And if you never claimed it so, why do you insist on its blackness as a defining characteristic. Surely you must be aware of the existence of Coptic, an afro-asiatic language, therefore related to Berberic and Semitic languages, which is the current day descendant of Egyptian.

he original Berbers are black, Nilotic, (East) Africans -- not the Berbers of the Maghreb. And, again, the discussion -- of the essential black identity of dynastic Egypt is a fundamental, and certainly one of the most hotly contested issues/questions in debates regarding Afrocentrism. It is appropriate that it be included here. This piece is not meant to be an overview of black/African history. And Semites are nothing but the result of Africans and Asiatics (some of them already Afro-Asiatic, like the Semangs and other aboriginal blacks once found throughout Asia), mixing and, later, Caucasoid peoples. After all, even W.E.B. Dubois wrote that the "Asian" influence/presence in Egypt was also likely to some significant degree Africoid. deeceevoice 16:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

um, not to nitpick with the actual content, but can we move the section to Egypt and Black Identity now, or are there objections? Regarding your statement, isn't Nilotic really a linguistic term (i.e. Nilotic should redirect to Nilotic languages)? Of course the vast majority of Nilotic speakers will be black; it is still not correct to identify linguistic and genetic classification; that would be like saying "English people are white", meaning speakers of the English language. That may have been mostly true up to 1600 AD or so, but certainly isn't true any longer. dab (ᛏ) 14:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

No. "Nilotic" has become, and has been for a very long time, associated with a particular ethnic phenotype: dark skin; long, very slender limbs; etc., etc., like Watutsi, Dinka, etc.). It's no different from the way "Semitic" is used, which originally referred to a language group, but which commonly is used to refer to essentially Jewish (and sometimes Arab) people. deeceevoice 18:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

And, actually, I have no real problem with there being a separate article on "Egypt and black identity." However, I'd like to see what of the language is to remain in this article before the change is made. deeceevoice 18:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

far from "commonly is used to refer to essentially Jewish (and sometimes Arab) peoples", Semitic is still a purely linguistic term. It is only "Anti-Semitism" that has acquired a narrowed cultural meaning. "Anti-Semitism" by convention refers to "Anti-Judaism", while "Semitic" remains a purely linguistic term. This is related to the crackpot ariosophy usage for which "Semitic" was a sort of occult/spiritual term. I am unaware of any similar development of the term "Nilotic" as meaning 'dark skin; long, very slender limbs' or similar. That would be just as bad as using "Semitic" to refer to "crooked nose, red hair, large feet" or similar. dab (ᛏ) 15:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

No. I use the term in that manner, and I hear all the time people referring to "Semites" and "Semitic peoples" as a kind of an in-between "racial" group -- meaning non-black, Middle Eastern peoples. I'm amazed to hear you make such a contention. If you're in the U.S., you must be in Alaska, or Kansas, or somewhere. Kansans, Alaskans, don't start excoriating me. It's just, uh ... weird/kinda provincial. deeceevoice 18:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Egyptians are black as far as anybody is concerned. Why must we argue about this trivial point. You go look the mummies, they look pretty black to me. Have you ever seen a white mummie? Neither have I. If they ain't white, they must be black. No shit about it. Plus, since the Egyptians are so old, their DNAs are reverted back to primal state, which is black, no matter if they are white now. By this reasoning, they are black thousands of years ago, so this proves the argument that Egyptians who built the pyramids were blacks. No shit about thjis power

"... the Egyptians are so old, their DNA reverted back to primal state...." What on earth does that mean? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. That's got to be one of the silliest, most nonsensical things I've ever read on this website -- and that's goin' some. Further, repeatedly inserting "No shit about this" in the article is idiotic and just plain vandalism. deeceevoice 02:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just tired of people claiming that ancient Egyptians were whites, and I want to say that they were in fact, blacks like coal tar. Sorry if I used no shit about it, I just hate it when white establishment putting us down. Blackpower 03:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

There is a discussion of the distinction between "Afrocentricity" and "Afrocentrism" in Maulana Karenga's "Introduction to Black Studies" (2002) that should clear up the confusion about what is meant between the two concepts.

Naming stuff

All stuff about Afrocentrism being right or wrong or whatever aside, maybe it would be best to cut it up between Afrocentrism, and Afrocentric (ist?) Egyptology? Which could include black-Egyptian stuff? Or perhaps just shove it all into Egyptology and have a section on Egyptian racial issues? --Edward Wakelin 00:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Akhenaten

Not "Akhenaton".

(Petrograd 22:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC))

Miscegnated

This is not just a question of terminology, it is the whole concept which many would now object to. The term "highly miscegnated" occurs at 2 points slightly earlier. What alternative term would anyone suggest? PatGallacher 09:32, 2005 September 9 (UTC)

I wrote the passage(s?), so I obviously have no problem with the term. You do. What would you suggest? deeceevoice 10:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

And I have removed the passage AGAIN, because it is a commentary on the use of a particular word -- and not of the content itself. Such discussions belong here -- and NOT in the body of an article. "Miscegenation" is a perfectly valid word and does not mean a corruption of "racial purity."

miscegenation: a mixture of races; especially : marriage or cohabitation between a white person and a member of another race; - mis·ce·ge·na·tion·al /-shn&l, -sh&-n&l/ adjective

Matters of race and ethnicity are treated regularly on Wikipedia. Regardless of whether or not the notion of race has scientific validity, it exists as a social and political construct. deeceevoice 10:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I quote the Wikipedia entry on miscegnation:-

"Miscegenation is a pejorative describing sexual/romantic relations, intermarriage, and/or the production of offspring between members of different races (sometimes religion). As such it necessarily involves controversial assumptions about race and sexuality."

Also, do we know that the racial composition of the Egyptian population has changed all that much over the centuries? Maybe the Ancient Egyptians would have looked a bit like Arabs.

I will consider how to deal with these issues, I would prefer not to get into a revert war. I have decided to raise an NPOV flag for the time being. PatGallacher 13:50, 2005 September 9 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't authoritative -- far from it. And I've consulted numerous references, and there is absolutely nothing in any of them which identifies the word as a pejorative. Not in Merriam-Webster, not in American Heritage, not in Encarta. Yes, the word often has been used by racists, but so, too, do racists, presumably use words like "ignorant," "presumptuous," and "idiot." But that doesn't necessarily make them pejorative, now, does it? The POV tag is removed -- unless you can point to an authoritative source that identifies the word -- which you seem sufficiently unfamiliar with that you've misspelled it repeatedly -- as inherently pejorative. I am an African American and a student of the history of my people. I am thoroughly familiar with the word and am not at all aware that the word is considered inherently pejorative. You have voiced the objection. You have been invited to change the word to something more to your liking, yet you've refused. From where I sit, you have absolutely no cause to place a POV tag on something which some people may erroneously believe to be pejorative. It's gone. Change the word to something of your liking -- or stop bellyaching. Far too many people have worked very hard on this article for you to slap a POV tag on it on so flimsy a pretense and on such a wrongheaded assumption. deeceevoice 16:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, it is generally and widely accepted by authorities of all stripes that skin tone of the general Egyptian population has lightened and darkened over time due to miscegenation and historical events. Only the degree to which that is the case from one dynastic period to the next is in question. About ancient Egyptians looking like Arabs? Not even remotely likely. See the information regarding the Book of Gates. The Arabs are the "Namu," the "people who travel the sands." They didn't arrive in Egypt in significant numbers until almost 4,000 years after the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt. deeceevoice 16:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I can only answer some of these questions briefly, I may respond in some detail later:-

1. Yes, I did misspell it, maybe that's because the word has fallen out of favour these days, as a result of e.g. the struggle of Afro-Americans, that people are not familiar with the correct spelling.

2. English words beginning in mis- generally do have negative connotations e.g. misleadership, mismanagement.

3. It's not just the word, it's the underlying concept, that on the eve of civilization there were "pure" races, which have since become mixed, and where they have this is a bad thing, rejecting the idea that racial diversity without clear divisions has been with us since the year dot.

4. "Generally and widely accepted by authorities of all stripes" can you give us chapter and verse on that, not just that this might have been accepted by some authorities.

5. I am aware that the Arabs only conquered Egypt in the 7th century BCE, but this could be collapsing racial and linguistic issues together. Most Afro-Americans speak English, it does not mean they are of white European ancestry.

6. I feel that this section should be substantially rewritten, I have offered a form of words which would deal with some immediate problems.

7. I continue to detect an attempt to impose an American paradigm on the Old World (i.e. sharp division between blacks and whites) and a streak of racism towards the modern Egyptians. PatGallacher 21:35, 2005 September 9 (UTC)

Your points 2 and 3 are ludicrous on their face. Please, spare me your ill-informed etymological attempts at an explanation of the term. The root of the word is the Latin "misc," which means to mix -- as in "miscellaneous" and "miscellany." Further, words in the English language which are pejorative, as you have charged, have explicit notes to this effect which accompany their definitions in the English-language dictionaries. I have been unable to find a single such reference that labels "miscegenation" as pejorative. And unless you can produce an authoritative source that says as much, your "argument" is specious and exceedingly flimsy. It just won't fly.

That you would even question the commonly, virtually universally accepted notion that the color and ethnic mix of Egypt changed over time is ludicrous. Even white supremacists who swear that ancient dynastic Egypt was a Caucasian/white civilzation at its inception will admit to that.

Your "detection" of a "streak of racism towards the modern Egyptians" is about as on-target/accurate as your grasp of etymology. Furthermore, as I pointed out in an earlier edit note, "racism" relates to bias against "racial" or ethnic groups -- not nations. deeceevoice 21:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

It appears to me to be bad practice to remove NPOV flags without giving people reasonable time to resolve or address these issues, I will reply in more detail later, but I will ask for this page to be protected. PatGallacher 07:50, 2005 September 10 (UTC)

I quote the Wikipedia article on Racial purity:-"Miscegenation is a term for people of different human races producing offspring; it is used almost exclusively by those who believe such "race mixing" is inherently bad." PatGallacher 08:09, 2005 September 10 (UTC)

The article is incorrect if it characterizes the word as pejorative. I and others use the term because it is convenient shorthand for "people of different ethnicities/'races' screwing and producing offspring." People used to use the word "intermarriage"; however, that is completely inaccurate, because it implies, most importantly, a consensual pairing and also a legal one, when, particularly in an American, black-white context, such a thing most frequently occurred as the result of rape and nowadays, even when obviously consensual, continues to occur absent a husband-wife relationship. Like I said, got a better word? Feel free to use it. deeceevoice 09:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an authoritative source and cannot be used to verify its own information

You're like a dog chasing its tail. Again, Wikipedia is not authoritative. The information (or dis/misinformation) it provides can be edited by any ignorant hack or crackpot with a computer and an ISP. Wikipedia is not to be used to verify its own information. I have checked authoritative sources. Again, there is absolutely no mention of "miscegenation" being inherently pejorative, and it has no relation to the words you cited: "misleadership" (if that even is a word; if it is, it's an ugly/clumsy one) or "mismanagement." Check your dictionary. "Misc" refers to mixture; "gen" to "gen" to "people." It's a mixing of different peoples. Your entire argument is completely groundless and utterly without merit.

IMO, no reasonable administrator would protect this page or honor the POV label. Far too many editors have parsed and negotiated and reconsidered and researched to make this article as accurate and objective as possible for you to slap a POV tag on it behind some crap that easily could be cleared up if you would just crack a dictionary. deeceevoice 08:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

No, I think Wikipedia is authoratative, depending on your perspective. If you want to verify any information, go read a book regarding Afrocentrism, or do google search. blackpower

Distorted picture

deeceevoice, if you're going to revert my changes, plese say something in the talk page or at least in your comments as to why. Jim Apple 11:00, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

With regard to claims of possible image "distortion," I draw your attention to the fact that the photo is provided as an example of Tut's facial features -- not his ears, or anything else peripheral to the face. (I've changed the caption -- which I thought I had already done -- to conform with that in Tutankhamun.) Note that the same characteristics of the nose and mouth of the mask, as well as the prominent alveolar prognathism, are also visible here[8] and [9], as well as in numerous other photos -- including the one you provided. Quite clearly, they are not all extremely close-angle shots. It can be argued that the secondary image of the mask you have provided in juxtaposition to the National Geographic shot doesn't look anything like the images of the mask on these pages, either. Again, it's all about lighting. Any experienced photographer knows that the brighter the light, the flatter the image. If you really want to see the contours of an object, then you use a filtered or dimmer light source. These potographs show the actual contours of the mask much more accurately -- as, again, does the photo you took the time to find and, which, incidentally, I prefer because it shows the buzzard/cobra crown and is simply a more beautiful, very moving photograph. Further, it also does not have the Freeman Institute copyright information superimposed on it, which makes for a "cleaner" image. It cannot be charged that the "wallpaper" shots are on the website of a "radical Afrocentrist cult," either. (Freeman is a Jewish professor specializing in cultural diversity training.) Further, here's a link to a photo of the mask on the Discovery Channel website.[10] The image looks very black African -- and not at all like the image you inserted. Note that the ears are not flattened, and the lighting is such that the contours of the mask are clearly visible. I'm really not very familiar w/Wikipedia image use policy, but if there is some way this image could be inserted in place of the Freeman Institute image under "fair use," then I would be amenable to that -- this one or your really cool, dramatic pic.deeceevoice 11:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Fuck, I think King Tut don't represent the true Africans. I think we should put up picture of Michael Jordan or OJ Simpson or Michael Jackson. I think all three pictures should be placed side by side to show diversity of skin color.

NPOV

Ludicrous? Moi? I have restored the NPOV flag for various reasons, among them:-

1. Wikipedia should not be treated as an authoritative source? This is highly POV, and will come as a surprise to many Wikipedians. I cautiously suggest that Deeceevoice should raise this on the relevant pages.

2. Deeceevoice quoting white supremacists to back his case is quite a good example of the problems here. A POV which they may share is still a POV. That is like saying that because Hitler and Stalin did not agree on very much, but they did agree in 1939 that Poland should not be an independent country, therefore they must have been right.

3. The idea that we can automatically assume that the racial composition of the Egyptian population has changed substantially over the centuries is not one which I found in a couple of books on Egyptology I had a look at earlier today, not one I have come across much before, and not found in the Wikipedia articles on History of Ancient Egypt, Egyptology, or Unsolved problems in Egyptology, so this is definitely POV.

4. The Oxford English Dictionary may not say in so many words that miscegenation is pejorative, but most of the quotes have negative or problematic connotations.

5. A word may be etymologically unobjectionable, but it may still acquire negative connotations, e.g. the "n-word" ultimately derives from the Latin for "black". PatGallacher 21:24, 2005 September 10 (UTC)

No. Few people would be surprised that Wikipedia is not to be treated as an authority. A case in point. I can log on to Wikipedia any day of the week and click on any number of articles pertaining to my own people and read things like, "The only good nigger is a dead nigger," "All niggers should be slaves," or, "Nigger is any black person who can't speak English nor pay the electric bill and cares more about having expensive clothing than the necesities of life." My first encounter with Wikipedia which caused me to become involved in this project was some ridiculous contention that the slaves used to call their white, rapist fathers "motherfucker" instead of "daddy." Anyone who treats any open-content website like Wikipedia as an authoritative source, which anyone can edit at any time and say anything ought to have his or head examined.

You're merely being obtuse. Your characterization of "miscegenation" as pejorative doesn't hold water. Virtually any dictionary will include, along with a proper definition, the informaton that "nigger" is pejorative. The same cannot be said of miscegenation, which essentially means "race mixing." Why? Because it isn't inherently pejorative. You have absolutely nothing to lend credence to your claims.

By way of illiustration, this from an online article on the Houghton-Mifflin website, "Reader's Companion to Women's History: Miscegenation":

"The word 'miscegenation' was invented during the 1864 presidential campaign (from the Latin miscere, "to mix," and genus, race) when Democrats claimed that Lincoln's Republican Party advocated sex and marriage across the color line. Like 'mulatto,' probably derived from the concept of mules and hybridity, 'miscegenation' was pejorative in its historical context.'

As I said, racists have used the word.

However, at the end of the article, Houghton-Mifflin uses the word outside the historical context of racism to mean, essentially "people of different races screwing and producing offspring" in a neutral fashion:

"The ongoing legacies of the legal and social history of miscegenation are apparent in issues ranging from the influence of racist ideology in sex crimes or alleged sex crimes, to ambivalence or antagonism on the part of both white and Black communities toward marriages and relationships across the color line."

Another online article in "Christianity Today" is titled "Books & Culture Corner: In Praise of Miscegenation. Racial categories don't mean what they used to. Hallelujah." And at slate.com: "Miscegenation -- an official trend: The Atlanta Journal Constitution has a seemingly important taboo-busting story on the increase in black women dating white men. The evidence of this trend is not only anecdotal -- AJC's John Blake says."

Simply because you and others may be unfamiliar with the use of the word outside of its racist context does not mean it is not used frequently and without negative connotations by others. Time for a reality check. Drop it. deeceevoice 23:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

My POV objections are by no means confined to this one term. If some of the quotes above ever did appear on Wikipedia then I would assume they were removed pretty quickly, it would be a bit of an insult to Afro-American Wikipedians to suggest that they were not. This may raise some questions about the whole Wikipedia project. I am aware that Wikipedia articles are not always reliable. However if Deeceevoice (or anybody else) objects to the content of the miscegenation article (or any other article) then this should be raised under that article not here. Until then, any challenge to the content of that article must, at the very least, be regarded as POV. PatGallacher 09:24, 2005 September 11 (UTC)

There is all kinds of misinformation on Wikipedia. I just made a change to the cultural appropriation exhibited in Janis Joplin, but if someone had visited that article before I did so and taken it as authoritative, they would have been misled. Again, any hack with a computer and an ISP can edit here. That fact in and of itself should be enough to give any sensible person pause about the reliability of information on this website. If you've spent any time as an editor, you must know that. Further, you must be aware that vandalism is not always detected immediately. And certainly the same can be said for erroneous information. No one in any kind of position of authority on Wikipedia would ever suggest that it is an authoritative source. And, no. You've challenged this article's NPOV status on the basis of my use of the word miscegenation, so it was wholly appropriate for the matter to be discussed here -- as we both have been discussing it. It was you, in fact, who brought the flawed article into this dicussion in the first place. It is quite clear you were in error with regard to the purported inherently pejorative nature of the term. And, yes, I already have deleted the erroneous information in miscegenation. And, no. A challenge to content is of an article is not POV if it is supported by authoritative sources. And, clearly -- as herein demonstrated by documentation -- the content of that article was certainly incorrect. I only skimmed it -- but from what I saw, the article actually did NOT say the term was inherently pejorative. It seems you were incorrect about that, too. deeceevoice 11:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

"Any hack with a computer and an ISP can edit here." Indeed. As Wikipedia is supposed to be a single encyclopedia, not a collection of stand-alone articles, I suggest it would be sensible for any challenges to the content of the Miscegenation article to be dealt with there, not here. By the way, if people are concerned about Afro-American issues, what do they think of the article on The Confessions of Nat Turner? PatGallacher 18:21, 2005 September 11 (UTC)

About changes to miscegenation: as I said, I've already been there, done that. deeceevoice 20:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I've had another look at miscegenation and I still don't see any recent relevant changes by deeceevoice or anybody else. The most recent change was 8 September and not relevant to these issues. PatGallacher 22:06, 2005 September 12 (UTC)

Are you blind? Take another look. My first changes were minimal, but substantive. I removed the language that identified the word as a pejorative. After your post, which I'm just reading, I later returned and did some further editing of the first few paragraphs -- but haven't bothered to read the entire article. I see that at least one other person raised the issue before me of the fact that the term is not inherently pejorative. deeceevoice 01:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Highly POV article

The NPOV tag is not only necessary for the reasons in the section immediately above but because the article completely is written in an attempt to advance the viewpoints of Afrocentrists at the cost of ignoring facts, expert oppinion and so forth. The "close up" Tut photo is extremely misleading, the claims about racial charactersitics of Egyptians are mostly nonsense, there is no list of objections to Afrocentrism, nor list of false claims they make (like Cleopatra mentioned above), nor the highly important mention that mainstream experts in all the various areas reject the views of Afrocentrists as being advanced by social identity concerns over using facts. This is one messed up article. DreamGuy 03:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to be overly opinionated

...but, I have just peeked around a bit and I have seen that an editor (i.e. Deeceevoice) has been confronted by other WikiEditors not appreciative of her work. I personally think the article addressed very significant topics, and would be better if people would let DC finish the damn thing before all this crisis builds up. Yeah, I back deeceevoice on this one. Molotov (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I concur, SqueakBox 19:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

What utter rubbish. Deecee is not the owner of this article. It makes no sense to talk about her "finishing" it. She has no more right of to claim it than anyone else does. If you bother to check through the archives you will see how deecee has bullied and verbally abused other editors from her very first appearence here. Paul B 22:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the topic is important, but that does not absolve ourselves of responsibility to make sure it is handled in a way that follows NPOV policy, and this article is not even close. "Finishing the damn thing" is not a criteria for allowing blatantly highly opinionated side-taking in an encyclopedia. Lots of editors are "not appreciative of her work" because it doesn't add any encyclopedic content but only is being used to advance an editorial view that the author holds, supporting this viewpoint and ignoring the large amount of criticism. This article is just the same as if a member of Scientology took over that article, claimed it was correct and uncontroversial and then did not allow a more accurate and fair (i.e. encyclopedic) overview of the topic. Deeceevoice has a clear agenda here, with edit comments here and elsewhere clearly indicating that she is a true believer that Egyptians were black and etc. This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. DreamGuy 21:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

DreamGuy, please assume good faith,SqueakBox 00:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Assuming good faith does not mean that when you see an editor post comments specifically indicating in no uncertain terms that he/she is adding certain things to articles to advance a clear agenda (in this case, that Ancient Egyptians were black, etc.) that you can just ignore it. A large number of editors have noted deeceevoice's bias here and especially on Ancient Egypt and Tutankhamun, while this article is a pure distillation of all the POV pushing he/she was trying to get away with there. If you would bother to go look at these conversations you would see this. I get that feeling that you and Molotov just showed up because you two have a history of false complaints against me. It's a shame that your bias would get in the way of looking clearly at what's going on here. Take a good hard look at the comments above, Talk:Ancient Egypt and Talk:Tutankhamun and then try to say what you are saying. Assuming good faith does not mean turning a blind eye to clear violations of NPOV policy, and frankly your comment is a llittle bizarre. Maybe you should assume good faith about my comments here. DreamGuy 04:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Thinking I am here because of you is both arrogant conceit and shows bad faith. I have had this article on my watchlistr for 5 months, and I have hardly been stalking you all over wikipedia, SqueakBox 04:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

BTW I have never made a false complaint against you, SqueakBox 05:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Therein lies the misconception that deecevoice carries with her with all the articles she "writes." That she has to "finish" them and other people are "getting in her way."

Wikipedia is a group effort. She doesn't want it to be. She wants the group effort to be minions sweeping up after her.

Trying to contribute to an article in and of itself is not a bad thing. Dancing all over the place with words because you're afrocentric is another.

Lockeownzj00 09:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Just because you say I operate in a particular manner, Lockjaws, does not make it so. If you didn't have such a bug up your azz about the truth and were not such a relative newcomer to this article, you would know that I have worked with contributors with differing viewpoints and even edited/clarified/improved portions of this piece that specifically address positions at odds with what I know to be the truth. It's called balance. Why don't you stop b*tching like some petulant child and behave like an adult? This is not about me. I have no power here. I am not an administrator. I am not a sysop -- or any of the other people with special positions or privileges on this website. I am simply an editor. And this piece is no different from any other article on Wikipedia. So, stop farting in the wind and come up off it. State precisely what your objections are to the article, and on what grounds you base them -- or shut the f*** up and move on. Your "afrocentrist" mantra is beyond tiresome. And you're beyond boring. As I repeatedly have done with other articles, I will attempt to address your specific concerns. I'm really busy at the moment, so if and when you come up with something substantive, don't expect an immediate reply. But this is an open invitation -- since you seem to think you need one.

So, shut up, bwoi, or come own widdit. Jes' brang it, dammit. deeceevoice 10:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

This whole argument is pointless. If DreamGuy or Lock have a problem with the article they should (and freely can) edit it. This vague criticisms of alleged behaviour by one editor is thoroughly unpleasant and does not in any way contribute to bettering the article. The way these 2 non contributing editors have framed their arguments is little short of trolling. Breaking POV policy (if occurred) is not an excuse to launch an attack on another editor. DreamGuy seems to imply we must attack anyone who violates said NPOV policy, though I would like to see where that is policy, SqueakBox 16:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

No, that's not what I am saying at all. I am saying that this article is horribly biased and needs a thorough looking at, one that I do not have the time to adequately do. I was putting my support behind those editors who said that the article is extremely messed up. It's unfortunate that we have editors falsely trying to depict this as an effort against a person as compared to an effort against bad articles. In fact I think your actions here would far more accurately be described as trolling as the other comments, as you jumped in to protect some editor without knowing the facts and ignoring a very real problem with the article just because you have a personal problem with me. DreamGuy 17:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I have been following this article for 5 months. Your assertions are ridiculous, so let me state it clearly; my being here has nothing to do with our spat over the Girlvinyl Rfc. Please don't keep insinuating the rubbish that my being here has anything to do with that. To claim I am trolling for trying to protect an editor from unnecessary personal attacks is ridiculous. This has nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of the article and everything to do with not tolerating vague personal attacks against an experienced and good faith editor who has suffered racial abuse on this talk page in the past (why I put it on my watchlist). Stop thinking wikipedia or my contributions to it revolve around you, and do so now, SqueakBox 18:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

SqueakBox, I have been involved with this article for a long time (actually I created it in the first place, not that that means anything), but the emotional stress of trying to engage productively with Deecee given her ultra-aggressive manner and unrelenting POV has made every single editor who has attempted to involve themselves in the article withdraw. Racial abuse has been her stock in trade from the beginning. Check it. If you can find any contributors who have been as offensive as her in comments on this page, please feel free to find them. Paul B 22:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The tags were absurd in the first place -- and I've simply removed them. This article has remained virtually completely unchanged since the so-called "clean-up" tag was affixed to it a month ago. Why? Because the article is a quality one. It was sour grapes, to begin with -- as was w/Pat Gallagher's POV tag. And a glance at the talk page of Afrocentricity reveals substantial sentiment that the two articles should remain separate. There's been absolutely no credible challenge to any of the substantive information presented therein. Why? Because it's dead-on accurate. Poof. They're gone. deeceevoice 21:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Just more deeceevoice disinfoming POV. Any MINOR change is reverted by deeceevoice almost immediately. Who would come in here and rewrite this things just to have it wiped out...over...and...over...again. Case in point, the fish-eye/macro lens King Tut Death mask. I hate to get into finger pointing, but deeceevoice was informed *numerous* times that it was not only POV (photographed to accentuate lips and nose and various proganthisms), but that it was copyrighted and therefore not allowed on wikipedia. Yet, deeceevoice continued to willfully post it, again, and again, and again, on more than one article, with repeated justifications that had already been proven illegitimate. So please, spare us the self righteousness. This is POV-pushing by perhaps the most prolific POV-pusher on wiki and is appropriately labeled. --155.91.19.73 01:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Nothing but excuses

I offered other images of Tut for comparison which showed precisely the same features of the now absent Freeman Institute image and, later, the image offered by another editor, but ultimately accepted the image which now appears in the article. It is, after all, still clearly that of a blackman. :p And who made the change? Check the edit history, jerk. I did. And still no substantive changes to the article? Just some foolish attempts to change "pale" to "medium-tone," when, clearly, if the range of skin tones of indigenes for the region is from blue-black to dark brown to red-brown, brown and then to, possibly, tan and dark olive-toned (if they're mixed with outsiders), "medium-tone" would be -- and I'm being extremely generous here at least tan. Your remark in an edit note was precisely on point: this is the part of the "world where Charles Barkley is pale." And Charles Barkley is considerably darker than the pale Tut reconstruction. And guess what? I'm not the only one reverting such silly changes. Again, check the edit history.

For the last time: put up or shut up. Your infantile whining, your weak excuses, your groundless complaints and silly assertions are wasting our time. *x*deeceevoice 08:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Living in Honduras my perspective on skin tones has substantially changed from what it was living in White England. As we are an international encyclopedia dealing with an African issue we should keep the different perspectives of different communities in mind in our descriptions. We are not substantially writing for white Americans and Europeans, so I agree with Deecee on this point, SqueakBox 17:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The issue here is not whether the skin tone is 'middle' in some absolute sense in terms of world populations, but the fact that the creators of the image chose a "mid tone" in terms of the Egyptian population, as determined by experts in the field. You are not such an expert. Neither am I. Neither is Deeceevoice. Instead of trying to disprove the decision of the experts we should present the conclusions of those who are best qualified to judge what is a mid-tone in this context. If other experts disagree, we should report on that fact too. Paul B 22:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in to this argument, but I have been looking at the articles of king tut and still don't see how any picture of tut's death mask helps the people who complain about deeceevoice. It still looks like a black guy and people who say the Afrocentrism article is wrong than put what you think is right. The problem is that you can't refute truth and deeceevoice only speaks the truth otherwise people who think ancient egyptians were white would of refuted her long ago. You need to stop being a baby dream guy. You say what she put in the article is wrong than put something that is right. I have watched from the sidelines of people attacking deeceevoice from the king tut article to afrocentrism article and I realize that people who speak truth that people don't like to hear will be targeted by people like dream guy who are to stuck in what they believe to see the truth. Wikipedia needs more people like deeceevoice who puts nothing but truth forward. I see now the tags on afrocentrism have been removed and not any changes have been made except to put up a diffrent King Tut picture. Why complain so much about the article and then only change the picture, it seems that since you can't change what the article says people will grasp at anything just to feel good about themselves and complain about the picture. Just so people know any picture of the death mask looks like a black guy so if the people who think ancient egyptians were white feel more comfortable with that picture good for you, but it still looks like a black guy. When is people going to realize that you cannot argue the ancient egyptians were white using the 18th dynatsies as proof. Everything about this dynasty is black. The whole argument against deeceevoice is that she is pushing an agenda, well if pushing truth is wrong than I don't know what to say. Like I said before their is more evidence pointing to a black egypt than to a white egypt.

Flags

Flags like NPOV or Cleanup should not be lightly removed, I would remind all parties of the 3-revert rule, I may apply for this page to be protected. See comments from a while back for explanation of Cleanup flag. I will go into this in more detail later. PatGallacher 21:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you go into detail now about the clean-up tag. I can see no reason to include, and whereas there clearly is a dispute going the article is not clearly in need of a cleanup. In the midst of an edit war it seems somewhat provocative to place it there, SqueakBox 21:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

You've tried with the clean-up flag, and it was removed. The flag was there for weeks, and no substantive changes to the article occurred -- because it doesn't need "cleaning up." The NPOV tag is equally groundless. Absolutely no one has come up with any substantive challenge to the fact presented therein. No one. You wanna call in an impartial admin to take a look? Be my guest. But as far as page protection? Protection of WHAT? There's no edit war going on. Just some sour-grapes grumbling and a totally unsubstantiated NPOV tag -- -- which I, yes, have removed again. There should be a penalty for its gratuitous use. You can't in good faith slap a clean-up or an NPOV tag on something because someone is saying the world is round and you think it's flat and have absolutely nothing to back it up and will not cannot provide an argument to support your views. The whiners have been invited repeatedly to come to the table with other, hard information that refutes the information provided in this piece. And they've come up with nothing but more whining and ad hominem attacks. Again, put up or shut up. Don't abuse/trivialize the wiki process. *x* deeceevoice 22:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I just asked for protection to stop the endless reverts. It would give those who believe there is a genuine conflict to give details of their problems (disliking another editor is not enough) and those detailed objections can be answered, or if there are none the tag can be removed, SqueakBox 22:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately both DreamGuy and Deeceevoice are blocked over the 3RR. I have withdrawn my protection request. Please can we only put the NPOV flag on if we have substantial reasons for doing so, and express those reasons here on the talk page. I agre with Deecee that there don't appear to be any substantial debates about content going on that would justify an NPOV tag, SqueakBox 22:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

This article is anything but quality. It's full of factual errors which I have not involved myself in trying to correct because of the sheer hassle of trying to get anything past. It also gives a completely distorted view of Afrocentrism, since it is almost wholly obsessed by the Black Egyptian concept to the exclusion of discussion of anything else. These points have all been raised here. Paul B 22:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

To deal with the various issues here in what may be order of importance. I note that both Deeceevoice and DreamGuy have broken the 3RR within the past 24 hours. If either of them breaks it again then I will report this at the appropriate place and call for this article to be protected. As for the cleanup flag, it was me who placed this, as I did a few weeks ago. The reason was that in my view the biggest problem with this article is taking up a large amount of space raking over e.g. the details of Egyptian mummies is unbalancing what is overall a useful article. I suggest that we split this off into a seperate article "Controversy over race of Ancient Egyptians" or something like that. I realise that this is a fairly drastic step, which is why I did not want to take it without general agreement, although if this step is taken I would be prepared to remove the cleanup flag, I am open to persuasion about how we proceed. As for the NPOV flag, I don't like to see this flag being removed lightly, it seems to me that other Wikipedians have put forward reasons for this, but I will study this dispute more carefully. PatGallacher 00:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Just because you disagree with the structure of an article is not a reason to put a cleanup tag on it. That is a misuse of what a cleanup tag is for, SqueakBox 00:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

BTW Deecee is blocked and DreamGuy didn't break the 3RR rule. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:DreamGuy, SqueakBox 00:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Nubian wig

OK, I apologise for saying that Deecee made up the concept of the Nubian wig. It clearly is a term used to describe a common type of wig. However, I don't think it is correct to say that Tiye is depicted wearing one. As I already wrote - quite a while back - the brown colour that appears on the surface of the "hair" is in fact a glue that was used to keep a series of blue tiles on. In other words it is not a wig in a conventional sense, since it was intended to be a blue-coloured head-dress. Only a few of the tiles survive on the head-dress today, at the back. Paul B 22:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

If you google it, you'll find that particular bust of Tiye has been referred to on the Egypt tourism website as Tiye in a "Nubian wig." They wore great, big AFRO wigs. There are also paintings on walls of everyday Egyptians wearing afros. In fact, there was even a Discovery Channel documentary about three years ago in which the people portraying the ancient Egyptian royalty were wearing some huge ones. And they were absolutely dead on. Bet the viewers who believe the lies practically choked. :p deeceevoice 02:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

in response to current events

deecee, you are in repeated violations of wiki policies. statements like For the last time: put up or shut up. and characterizations as infantile do not belong here any more than your previous comments about asian genitalia. now i see you have violated the 3R policy. please follow wiki policies if you'd like to contribute. your statements above should close any debate about the civility of your behavior.

to an earlier anonymouse editor, i am not pushing the view that tut was white -- i don't really CARE what race some teenager 3000 years ago was. egyptians had amazing technology, art and engineering, and there's no question they weren't lily-white. sub-saharan africans, europeans, asians, and meso and south americans also had amazing cultures, and, have ALL contributed to each other and everyone here knows that (australians didn't really come up with much other than the boomerang and didgeridoo) beyond that, I haven't done enough research to be confident in saying that he was one color or another, or if it is even possible to come to a conclusion on his skin tone. this area of wiki is especially helpless in this regard. deecee pushes her pov to such an extent it is hard to sort through what facts there are. you seem pretty confident that tut was black (as in sudanese), but that's really just a point of view. The wiki process is to state all POVs within reason, not silence dissent. within reason could be argued, but the typical example of things that are *not* within reason are people that believe the earth is flat.

the points about the death mask -- and you'll have to read the history and discussions to see this, not the article as it stands -- are that 1) it was POV-pushing. A *distorted* photo was used to emphasize features. The original mask may look like a sudanese man, or not, but if using a fisheye lens makes the nose and lips become larger, etc. It's common sense that undistorted images should be used. No one denies this image was distorted, but deecee continued to advocate its use, claiming many other photos that exist are distortions. In the process, she smeared photographers she knows little about that were probably taking the best photographs they could. 2) the distorted photo was copyrighted. wikipedia does not allow copyrighted material, that is indisputable. the point of this is so wikipedia content can be used by all sorts of organizations, including for-profit and print-media, without complications involving copyrights. deecee claimed the author allowed it on wiki, and maybe he did, but he wanted to maintain copyrights to it. when informed, deecee continued to post the image several times. i believe the image was finally deleted for copyright reasons. 1) alone should be enough to make you reconsider your statement about deecee only pushing truth.

as to this article being clean -- heck no it isn't clean. its all about egypt, from the sphynx at the top to the complaints about national geographic. there's more to afrocentrism than that.

why is it just the mask photo that has been getting attention? to me it was just the most obviously POV-pushing thing on the page. i thought it would be a pretty straightforward change to make -- the picture was *copyrighted*, for jimbo's sake -- but even this simple changed required a substantial, no TREMENDOUS, effort. deecee's pugnaciousness makes improvements nearly impossible.

i hope this makes sense. objections to deecee are not based on claiming that tut was white, but that she is pushing her POV, not facts, and stomping on wiki policies in the progress. specifically, posting copyrighted images *repeatedly* and acting in an uncivil manner towards anyone who opposes that POV. i expect many editors -- outside a core afrocentrist team whose identities are not difficult to discern -- feel the same way

--71.112.11.220 06:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Bullshyt. My responses are in the context of endless whining, ad hominem attacks and utterly groundless accusations of POV this and POV that. People impugn my motives and engage in such behavior, and I'm supposed to play nice? Ha! In ya dreams.

Get off the personal tip and deal with the article. You got anything substantive to add or change? We're all still waiting. And waiting. So far, again, you got nuthin'. deeceevoice 00:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, deecee, please keep with the spirit of wikipedia. I don't believe that "you got nuthin" really applies here -- engaging in revert wars (recent 3R), attacking editors (numerous), racism (wareware exchange), use of profanity (above post), posting copyrighted images (copyrighted death mask), pov pushing (distorted death mask image) are all clearly out of bounds, whether this behavior is a response to an attack or not. I hope you can see the damage negative behaviour causes to wikipedia and encourage you to review the wikipedia policies. A lot of thought was gone into them. --155.91.19.73 01:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

"Racism"? The charge is ludicrous on its face. And as far as the Freeman Institute image, I assumed all that was required was that permission be obtained to use the image from the copyright holder -- which is clear from my comments on the image page. And, again, ultimately, WHO changed the image? I' did. Still rehashing old ground and still nothing about why the POV tag remains. Why? 'Cause you still got nothin'. I've stopped asking, because it's clear you've got absolutely nothing to back up your empty charges that the article is POV. :p deeceevoice 02:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

If you did not know of the copyright policy, I am glad you now understand. It is a good idea to read the wiki policies and engage in "good faith" discssion to prevent this sort of confusion. No one wants to be called a racist. I'll avoid the specifics to keep the tone down, but lets just say from some of your comments i don't get the feeling you are open to white and asian people as individuals. I apologize if this is a misunderstanding on my part. If, in the interest of avoiding these problems in the future, you'd like to know specifically which comments are offensive, we can take this offline. --71.112.11.220 15:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Not my experience of Deecee, SqueakBox 16:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The article is clean. It may not be how you like ity (there is an NPOPV trag) but to claim it needs cleaning up would mean it needed to conform to wiki layout, needed linkinhg properly, or something of the sort. If there is more to be added about Afrocentrism (and there may well be) that is a POV dispute, it is not a sign that the article needs a clean up tag, the only effect of wehich will be to asttract some poor editor who thinks the article needcds cleaning up, and will have to waste theior precious time until discovering that the cleanup notice is entirely bogus, SqueakBox 15:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Wiki formatting does not make a clean article. Organization and relevancy are equally important. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanup --71.112.11.220 15:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The "something of the sort" in this case is that a large amount of the article is taken up raking over the details of e.g. Ancient Egyptian mummies, which is unbalancing what is on the whole a useful article. For example, if the "History of Spain" article devoted an unduly large amount of space to the life of General Franco, I think most Wikipedians would accept that the best approach would be to give General Franco his own article. I propose to create a new article "Controversy over race of Ancient Egyptians" or something similar, and shift the bulk of the relevant material there. If this step is taken then I am prepared to remove the cleanup flag. I realise that this is a fairly drastic step to take, so I will not do so immediately, but leave a week or so for people to consider this. However if we get into a revert war then I will call for this page to be protected. I notice a number of people have recently broken the 3 revert rule, I will raise this if they do it again. PatGallacher 23:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I see the POV flag is back. Where is the bias? Where is the specific language that is in question, and what is the complaint? Let's hear it? Speak up! deeceevoice 00:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I put the NPOV flag back because I don't like to see people getting into revert wars removing and inserting these flags, there should be a presumption in favour of retaining flags until the issues have been resolved. However I will look into this further. I suspect Wells' findings may have undergone some mangling. However I realise I ought to look into this further, also Caucasoid and Negroid. PatGallacher 10:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

What issues? I repeatedly have asked for specific details about which passages are considered POV and for what reason. There's been no substantive response. And unless such information is forthcoming, the POV tag will be removed. Again. deeceevoice 13:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

POV appraisal of Spencer Wells

I have deleted the following passage, and an anonymous "editor" insists on inserting it.

"Wells was, at the least, mistaken in his understanding of human genetics. As DNA is replicated continuously, in living organisms there is no such thing as "old" DNA. That said, among mainstream scholars, there is a fairly broad consensus that humamity originated in Africa, though the details remain open to study. In any case, this biologicalism is not Afrocentrism's core thesis. It is, rather, that black Africans contributed much more to the culture of the world than is generally acknowledged."

This is an utterly wrong-headed and almost ridiculously literal interpretation of Wells' comments. By "oldest DNA," Wells is referring to the fact that the San bushmen are the oldest known intact human population of record. All humankind can be traced back to them via Y chromosomnal DNA analysis. Unless the anonymous poster can point to a geneticist or other authoritative source who has made such a wrong-headed appraisal of Wells' comments with regard to the San having the "oldest DNA on earth," this should be excised. It is, in a word, "absurd." Further, the thesis of Afrocentrism is already stated. It was long ago generally agreed -- and I myself concurred -- that the section on "Egypt and black identity" would be split from the main article. This commentary is gratuitous. deeceevoice 02:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

certainly, the DNA in question is not "old"er than DNA in any other person on the planet, its only as old as the person being genotyped. this should be removed on that basis until an accurate description is put there. the likely approach taken by wells was to survey mitochondrial DNA, which is inhertied only maternally. He probably found more diversity in the San bushmen than in others surveyed, though this is too scientific a description (perhaps an article describing the research and techniques is warranted or exists already(?)). To leave this there as is a disservice to wikipedia and afrocentrism. anyway, the research is beside the point. as far as i can tell from this article, afrocentrism is not about human evolution, it is about culture. in that respect, this is irreleant. the article could be changed to include evolution/prehistory as important to afrocentrists if that is the case. the "interestingly" moniker is just plain silly and notes about how the bushmen are different than other Afrian populations just confuses the matter further. --155.91.19.73 19:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism and an incitement to an edit war

An anonymous editor deleted the offending passage with the, IMO, rather presumptuous misinterpretation of Wells -- given that he's an acknowledged expert in the field of genetics and understands fully the very rudimentary point the poster was trying to make. However, the preceding paragraph was also excised -- which I have restored. If there is a question about the accompanying edit note regarding my restoration of the text, I invite discussion here. The same is true of my restoration of the quotations under the "worldview" subhead. deeceevoice 13:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

An anonymous editor repeatedly has changed the text under "A different world-view" (whatever that subhead is), deleting, wholesale, the block of quotes and fiddling with the wording. I have reverted this information with an edit note informing them that future reverts will be considered vandalism, because they have refused to offer any notation in their edit notes and have refused to explain the rationale for their edits on the discussion page. The changes are completely unjustified. And given that the user is also unregistered, my only conclusion is that this is someone intent on causing disruption and starting an edit war. deeceevoice 19:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The user should explain his actions, but those quotes do look a little dated to me. We're in the 21st century, one of those is from the 1700's. The state of archaeology, communications and publishing technology, and racial tolerance has improved dramatically since that time. Some note indicating that these were mainstream historians CENTURIES AGO seems called for. The need for afrocentrism is diminished if modern scholars are less likely to propound such views. There is a need to clean up any faulty research from the past, but that's far less sexy work to do.

By the way, whether they were even mainstream is questionable: Hume was a "radical", Toynbee has had little influence, and John Burgess isn't even famous enough to have a wikipedia page. Most info about him, seems, circularly, to be quotes in afrocentrist works! --155.91.19.73 19:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The quotes are presented as indicative of the mind-set of historians and "scholars" who have propounded the notion that blacks had no civilization worthy of note, no written language and made no contributions of value to world civilization. Such ideas were prevalent in academia and very much mainstream thought up to even the late 1950s, when I heard such swill in the classroom. There are plenty of people still around today who were schooled in such lies, which have helped shore up the foundation of ongoing anti-black bias/racism. As such, they are certainly worth mentioning. Further, Toynbee has considerable stature in lay and academic circles. Just a quick Google produced these lines from a review of, perhaps, his most well known work, A Study of History, which is still in print today:

Arnold Toynbee's A Study of History has been acknowledged as one of the greatest achievements of modern scholarship. A ten-volume analysis of the rise and fall of human civilizations, it is a work of breath-taking breadth and vision.... Originally published in 1947 and 1957, these two....

Further, he was not a "19th century historian," insofar as some of his most important work was not published until the 20th century, and is still in print and utilized as reference works today. The same can be said of noted political scientist John Burgess, who died in the 1930s, some of whose works were reprinted posthumously. And since when did having a page on Wikipedia become an indicator of one's significance/importance? That's absolutely ridiculous.

Here's a blurb on David Hume, who also cannot be so easily dismissed as some insignificant, "radical" hack:

Generally regarded as the most important philosopher ever to write in English, David Hume (1711-1776) -- the last of the great triumvirate of "British empiricists" -- was also noted as an historian and essayist. A master stylist in any genre, Hume's major philosophical works -- A Treatise of Human Nature (1739-1740), the Enquiries concerning Human Understanding (1748) and concerning the Principles of Morals (1751), as well as the posthumously published Dialogues concerning Natural Religion (1779) -- remain widely and deeply influential, despite their being denounced by many of his contemporaries as works of scepticism and atheism.

deeceevoice 22:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I still think something indicating these are long dead scholars belongs there, but we are free to disagree. As to your point of when they were published, I did not know that -- if you attatch dates to their quotes their significance would be magnified.

Based on your quote, I'd say Hume was not mainstream ("...being denounced by many of his contemporaries...").

Likewise, Toynbees article says right at the top: "...Toynbee articulated a general theory of history and civilization to which professional historians have objected. Toynbee's work has found little response in the discipline of comparative history that most occupied him....". No one has ever said he wasn't racist, and I don't believe that is why his quote was removed.

As for the third "scholar", spare us the remarks about it being ridiculous to use wikipedia as a measure of importance. You know well the scope of this project and how difficult it is to find an article about an influential individual that doesn't exist here, but which does exist in some other encyclopedia.

You're deluding yourself. It's been my experience that there are scads of significant people and important topics who/which do not have article entries on Wikipedia. A glance at the articles list will verify that fact. It amazes me that people actually think Wikipedia is some sort of metric of comprehensiveness or reliability in terms of the quality of information it provides. The demographics of the average Wiki member (heavily white, male -- and probably around 18-35/40) skew not only the subject matter, its content and treatment, as well. deeceevoice 09:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

If this racist stuff was taught in the 50's, noting that in the article would be worthwhile (though it would be hard to verify). A lot of the disagreements that erupt are probably based on different perceptions of the way history is presented. In the 90's the schools I attended went to great lengths to emphasize the contribution of various societies and individuals of various ethnicities. Setting the record straight on education in the 50s won't get people on TV the way that making radical claims about current scholars will, but it is important work nontheless.

The anonymous user should state his points here. It's common courtesy. But his edits are not wikipedia vandalism. If you'd take the time to read wiki policies to avoid confusion Wikipedia:Vandalism My guess is someone has stepped on his toes somewhere along the way and now he's here to return the favor. Calling legitimate (though unsupported) edits vandalism eventually sets people off. --155.91.19.73 23:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry deeceevoice, but labeling those edits uou object to as "vandalism" is a biased interpretation solely intended to support edits promoting your POV. The version you restored includes the extremely inappropriate phrase "Afrocentrists argue that the ignorance and blatant racism of such mainstream scholars and historians" -- I don't think it's possible to have a more overtly biased and NPOV-violating phrase, as it makes the article straight out claim that mainstream scholars are actually demonstrated to be racist and ignorant and that Afrocentrists are just commenting on it. This whole article is filled with such kinds of phrases, but that's certainly the most ridiculous one, and it's bizarre that you think you fan get away with it. You don;t seem to understand the concept of objectivity in the slightest. DreamGuy 20:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

My intent was to force an explanation of the changes. And while that entity did not do so, at least someone came forward with a rationale -- to which I've responded. The quotes are clearly racist. Further, Afrocentrist scholars are not the only academicians who find Toynbee racist. You gotta be kidding me. And, again, DreamGuy, stop making broad, sweeping generalizations. Unless you have a specific comment about a specific passage and can state why you object to it, button it. Your endless whining is beyond tiresome and contributes absolutely nothing of value. deeceevoice 22:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Controversy page started

Controversy_over_race_of_Ancient_Egyptians contains the section formerly on the Afrocentrism page.

A different world-view -- recent reverts

• I've removed the "radical" from the characterization of Hume, because it is entirely misleading. The sense in which Hume was considered radical had absolutely nothing to do with his racist views, which is the point of the quote's inclusion. Unfortunately, his racism was right on par with that of others of his time -- and afterwards. Indeed, there are those who tend to downplay Hume's so-called "radicalism" altogether. (See David Hume.) Further, in such a context, this characterization is gratuitous and misleading. Hume had considerable influence. Again, this from the Internet on Hume: "Generally regarded as the most important philosopher ever to write in English, David Hume (1711-1776) -- the last of the great triumvirate of "British empiricists" -- was also noted as an historian and essayist. The entirely appropriate and indisputable "noted" has been restored."

• The curiously wordy and very off-the-mark "who has had little influence" clause appended to the Toynbee reference has been removed. What follows is an excerpt from an editorial book review at amazon.com of Toybee's A Study of History, in which the racist text appears. This ten-volume magnum opus is still being hailed today as a great work with no mention whatsoever of Toynbee's racism. This does not sound like a work with "little influence."

Arnold Toynbee's ten-volume analysis of the rise and fall of civilizations, A Study of History, is acknowledged as one of the greatest achievements of modern scholarship. "Of all the books published so far in this century," Clifton Fadiman once said, "the one most assured of being read a hundred years from now is A Study of History." The Los Angeles Times called it "a veritable masterpiece of erudition and one of the most suggestive, stimulating and inspiring studies of this age."

In The Study, Toynbee revolutionized the writing of history. By encompassing virtually all civilizations--the Egyptian, the Sumeric, the Mayan, the Iranian, the Japanese, the Hellenic, and the West, to name only a few--within the scope of his monumental work, he achieved the first all-embracing synthesis of world history. Before Toynbee, world histories were histories of the West, and only specialists wrote Babylonian, Arabian, or Aztec history. But Toynbee's scheme includes all nations and, more remarkably, by his emphasis on general patterns--on the genesis, growth and breakdown of civilizations--he was able to give a shape to this incredibly diverse material, making it comprehendable to the general reader.

• John Burgess was active well into the 20th century, having died in the 1930s. Reverted to "20th century." I thought to put "19th and 20th century," but that's simply TMI and clutter. As with all three of the individuals cited, those wishing additional information can either consult Wikipedia or Google them.

• I deleted the appositional clause "Although the individuals quoted above were born in earlier centuries," because that much is obvious. I also removed "though rare in modern settings," because there are many who would argue that the underlying racist presumptions inherent in the conclusions reached by the three individuals quoted are still in evidence today. Further, it reads as though Afrocentrist scholars contend it is "rare in modern settings," and I'm not certain that's the case. I think many of them would argue the opposite -- hence, the need for new scholarship.

• Deleted the "claim they," because it is not necessary. The framers of this article long ago decided to treat the serious study of history and deal with Afrocentric scholarship -- not fringe hacks. A good deal of history has always been, and remains today, largely interpretive. While there are those in the mainstream who agree and disagree with certain conclusions of various Afrocentrist scholars, there is no question that rigorous research and study have gone into their work. While the war of ideas continues, the scholars listed in the article are highly respected historians and authors, widely published, widely read -- as well as hotly debated.

• Melanin Theory? "Afrocentric"? Totally wrong, totally irrelevant! deeceevoice 06:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

uncited additions

dear editors,

Arguments advancing the notion of racial similarities between a Nubian and a Dravidian, both classified as Negroid, Afrocentrists contend, are far more credible than those of beween, say, a Swede and a modern-day Turk, both classified as Caucasian. Traditional racial classifications, after all, are not based on genetics, but on phenotype

this is an uncited addition and seems like it may be "original research". I won't remove it, the editor that added it may have just forgotten to put a reference and it seems fairly believable, but there is a lot like this in the article and it is eventually going to be removed for lack of verifiability. your time would be better spent adding citations or cited material than adding even *more* uncited material.

please make sure you've read the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR ("no original research") http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

--155.91.28.231 02:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

This is bull. There are all sorts of anonymous contentions inserted to counter Afrocentrist notions, but then the Afrocentrist argument is expected to cite everything? (Note to self: http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/diop.html and http://www.stewartsynopsis.com/black_egyptians_are_the_original.htm) deeceevoice 19:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

deeceevoice, remember to "act in good faith". that means if someone says they believe something is original research, assume that they mean it as such, not that they have a political agenda. use of profanity and near-profanity is also frowned upon. -71.112.11.220 14:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Seeing as nobody here seems capable of reaching agreement on the content or nature of this article, and that emotions and opinions seem to be far more prevelant than actual facts, might i suggest people try the following: split the page into two parts- for and against the afrocentrist position, and give both equal space, like in a debate or a trial. Then the reader can look at all points of view and form their own opinion. This would probably be a good idea for other controversial topics and would prevent all the childlike a abuse and squabbling which seems to be taking up a lot of time and space and providing very little real insight or information. --Roger ramjet 01:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that it's a good idea, roger. The afrocentrism page won't have two parts, one that try to convince you that egyptians were black, another to convince you they were not, I don't think it's the encyclopedian mindstate. This article, is supposed to describe in a purely neutral way, afrocentrism. Apparently, people who wrote most of this article are unable of doing so without trying to convince us. It's so simple, we aren't trying to find out what color egyptians were, but what afrocentrism consists in, period. --SuperBleda 02:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

wiki guidelines recommend against splitting into pro and con sections. -71.112.11.220 14:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Black Jesus?

I thought a relatively important part of afrocentrism was that Jesus Christ was black (I have heard that from many american afrocentrists) but this article doesn't seem to talk about it. Indeed, it's pretty much all about egypt.

and then, this : "It is the examination and analysis of existing scholarship, as well as the study of the original historical record itself, grounded in scholarly inquiry and rigorous research."

Sounds too pro-afrocentrist, not encyclopedical. it's just an example.

And then, what's all the arguing in this talk page about? This article should just describe this ideology, without trying to convince anyone.Most of this article just looks like it's been written by an afrocentrist who wants to make me believe that egyptians are black. --SuperBleda 02:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The sentence you've reproduced here is simple fact. This article treats the approach taken by/perspective of Afrocentric scholars -- who deserve as much respect as those with another perspective. They are highly educated, trained and respected academicians and historians who do, indeed, approach their profession with seriousness of intent and using accepted and time-honored tools and practices of their profession. (Ask UNESCO.) It's time ignorant laypeople stopped treating them as though they were hacks.

With regard to the Jesus thing -- that's not a central subject of debate among Afrocentrists. The identity of a single person in history is in and of itself relatively unimportant. The debate over the racial identity of Tutankhamun is important because it is emblematic of the ethnic identity of an extremely powerful civilization.

In fact, this article has had input from a wide range of individuals -- and substantively only one, perhaps two, people who might be categorized as "afrocentrist." What you read is reflective of what has resulted from give and take and constant editing/negotiation. If you don't like it, that's a shame. A lot of people have worked very hard to produce a piece with substance. Still, of course, you're welcome -- as is anyone else -- to edit accordingly. Before/if you do, however, it might be useful to peruse the archived discussion. Debate has been spirited and interesting. It might help us avoid covering ground we've already tread. deeceevoice 09:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

the first statement is too pro-afrocentrist, you're right blenda. we need a neutral point of view and certainly many do not agree that afrocentrism is always grounded in what is typical of scholarly research.

as far as the ethnicity of black jesus it is definitely an afrocentrist claim (whether or not the previous editor agrees) and belongs on this page too. as with all of wikipedia, you should be "bold" and add this information! it works better than making comments on talk pages -71.112.11.220 14:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

well, i'd like to write somthing about Black Jesus in this page, but what could I say besides "Many afrocentrists believe that Jesus Christ and people from the bible were black" --SuperBleda 00:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Every serious endeavor has its fringe hacks. If you'll read the archived discussion, this ground has been covered before ad nauseam. Do you think you are the first contributors to raise such issues? Have you even bothered to review the discussion archive? Many people of different viewpoints have worked long and hard on this piece. It was decided long ago that this article would confine itself to the discipline of scholarly Afrocentrist historical study, period. It is in this context, of the article itself, that the statement is presented. Note the list of authors. Nearly all have Ph.D.s and are/were highly respected in their fields of inquiry. History is an interpretive enterprise. Well-educated, principled scholars can and have disagreed on many aspects of ancient history; such is the nature of the field. That does not mean that one (or more) of possibly many sides is, ipso facto suspect, unprofessional, or advanced by crackpots. There is no room here for comments on melanin theory, black supremacy, and all the other extraneous, completely unrelated garbage which others have sought to interject. deeceevoice 14:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

times change, deeceevoice. articles are not static. "was jesus black" gets numerous hits on google and a comment on it here would be an improvement, even if only to state that academic afrocentrists don't think so but hack pop afrocentrists do. if this article were truly scholarly i don't think we'd have seen the fork of afrocentricity. kspence describes his reason for departure above. the archives are extensive and i found little about jesus there, what is there is that from the very inception of the article *numerous* editors have implored you to follow wiki policies. as far as i can tell, most of the other editors have departed due to dissatisfaction with the tone of the discussion on this article. Every serious endeavor has its fringe hacks indeed. -71.112.11.220 17:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I still disagree. The argument over whether Jesus was black or not is not one under serious consideration in Afrocentric circles, and it has no implications beyond the fact that most Afrocentrist scholars -- indeed, most serious scholars of history -- readily admit that the man known as Jesus was not blue-eyed and blond, as many Western religious icons portray him. In fact, the mainstream media, actually, seems more concerned with it than Afrocentrist scholars. It is not central to the Afrocentrist paradigm. And, no. I wasn't referring to the suggestion that we include Jesus in the article when I referred the person to the archives, but to the fact that the article treats "mainstream," academic Afrocentrism -- and not any of the various and sundry issues that certain people, in their ignorance, or out of sheer contentiousness, try to associate with it.

Further, with regard to following wiki policies, I certainly have adhered to wiki policy far more faithfully than have many of the contributors to this piece -- including yourself -- who've engaged in ad hominem attacks, rather than argue their positions. Particularly near the end, there were a relative handful who carped and whined constantly about my presumed Afrocentrist bias -- but when asked repeatedly for substantive contributions or specific criticisms they offered none. All they could do was complain, but brought nothing of substance to the table. I've held my tongue for the most part and refrained from making personal attacks -- a practice which I see you've already begun. I've done no more than advance the viewpoints of respected Afrocentrist scholars in an article on the subject, providing numerous citations and authoritative sources, and worked with other writers of differing viewpoints to help craft an article of quality. "Fringe hacks"? Reads like another cheap ad hominem attack. And you presume to lecture me about wiki policy? Tsk. Tsk. Hardly one to lecture -- are you, now? By your snide insinuation, you now have put yourself in the position of having absolutely no credibility at all in that regard. You've merely joined the whining, sniping pack. *x* deeceevoice 18:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

deeceevoice, please assume good faith and do not engage in personal attacks, as is wiki policy. you seem to be accusing many of the editors here of being a "sniping pack" and in attacking you. there is no conspiracy here to attack you. a simple, valid, question about black jesus was raised. i went on a wild goosechase through many pages of archives, many of which involved deeceevoice conflicts, and did not cover black jesus. not including black jesus is a real violation of NPOV. afrocentrism definitely involves black jesus, whether some inappropriate agreement (which i did not notice in my goosechase) was made months ago to keep black jesus out or not

if you havne't noticed, this article is in shambles. its a shame to wikipedia and afrocentrism. and those other editors that worked so hard at it? where are y'all?.....(sound of wind rustling through the leaves)...... 71.112.11.220 02:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

"The argument over whether Jesus was black or not is not one under serious consideration in Afrocentric circles"

lol, you sound as an authority about what's being said in serious afrocentric circles you are (right?) a part of. Just to take an example, have you ever heard of KRS-One's song "Why Is That?"? It kind of demonstrates how all the people in the Bible was black, I mean, I don't support the idea that Jesus Christ and people in the Bible were black (since i'm a mythist atheist, I don't believe Jesus existed and consider it all mythology), but, that's something quite serious, and alot of people believe in it, and as KRS-One, have relatively serious arguments in favor of their theory. So yeah, it has it's place in this article, and I also heard that it was believed by afrocentrists that Paris was founded by (black) africans, but I don't know if it's really an issue. Because right now, this whole article looks like afrocentrism is ALL about the "race" of ancient egyptians, and i hope you will agree that it's not ALL about that? I mean, it sounds like you don't want to see something about Black Jesus in this article because you don't PERSONALLY believe that jesus was black, but so many people believe in it, it MUST be included, that's only objectiveness --SuperBleda 00:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Too late. You can't erase what you wrote. I addressed the issue of Jesus separately from your snide comment. They are not one and the same. And you ask me to refrain from personal attacks? Clearly, I am not the one in need of a crash course on wiki etiquette here. Only when your house is in order, can you credibly presume to instruct others in comportment. Right now, you have none.

Again, the issue of whether or not Jesus was black is not germane to an article on Afrocentrism. You can call my position whatever you wish, but the fact is the entire issue is certainly off-the-mark. You say the article is in "shambles" and a "shame"? You're entitled to your opinion. And you're of course entitled to improve it as you see fit. I welcome good writing and good scholarship. However, inclusion of the black Jesus debate will be resisted -- for the reasons I've already stated -- and there are others who certainly will support my position. deeceevoice 08:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

"inclusion of the Black Jesus debate will be resisted" damn, as I said before, there is no resisting to do, alot, if not the majority of christian afrocentrists believe that Jesus was black, pretty much all of the afrocentrists i've talked to, afrocentrist rappers/singers (for example KRS-One or 2Pac, and presumably Nas), and even that dead guy who used to manage www.templeofblackjesus.com, damn that site was fun --SuperBleda 00:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Tired of the dispute and critical flags

I am tired of articles describing Black points of view, (which are not written by white contributors favoring a white point of view) being flagged with all of the low-quality flags (flagged for neutrality, flagged for low quality).

Here is something that the white wikipedians putting these flags need to understand:

discrimination in our society affects how black kids are educated and that causes the racial-economic gap in our communitites low self esteem generates ignoranceignorance causes failure. If kids think their people are worthless or sub-human in any way, it subconscously creates an artifical limitation in their minds, which comes out as "lower intelligence" on IQ tests, and what not. If they start off believing subconsciously that they are only capable of certain limits, then they will over time live that way the frustration with that belief comes out with anti-social behavior and desperation and unrealistic hope in an alternative like sports stars, rap videos, drugs, cynical outlook in life.

The reason I say this is because here in Wikipedia, the status-quo attitude is to maintain those ideas Sub-saharan Africa (the "sub" in Sub-saharan africa is part of the mental picture that is created in young minds, its one of MANY examples, that together create the artificially generated educational and intelligence gaps. Afrocentricsm is not a perspective that is created for the convenience of white sensibilities, and is not a reflection of Eurocentricsm.

I will review this article and edit it. I will REMOVE the silly dispute flag and if anyone has a problem with it, we can discuss it here. I do not see the dispute flag in the Eurocentrism article, and Eurocentrism has received much less critical analysis than the Afrocentrism article, even though Eurocentrism does more damage to our educational system, social structure and our country than Afrocentrism ever could.

(All of this commentary by none other than Zaphnathpaaneah)

Zaphnathpaaneah, please remember that wiki policy is to have a neutral point of view and to assume good faith on the part of others. This article does not call anyone less than human or worthless as far as I know, and I don't know how anyone can determine the skin color of another editor. There are flags about neutrality and article quality on this article -- the assumption should be they were placed in good faith, by someone who thought the article was non-neutral or low-quality. Take the following:

Honest investigation into history by Black scholars without the assumption and predisponitions of white scholarship, is the motivation of Afrocentric study

This is uncited and, in my opinion, biased. As far as I can tell Afrocentrism is largely based on the predisposition that earlier scholarship was false. This really is one point of view, whether it is accurate or not.

Black jesus, above, is another example of lack of neutrality. There are lengthy passages in the article without citations, and, worst of all, you can read the article and come to just the smallest of understanding of what Afrocentrism is. -71.112.11.220 15:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

\ User 71 - I never said that the article CALLS anyone anything. I say that the article reinforces a biased point of view, through the clever use of adjectives and redirected statements. For example, you mentioned that the article does not call anyone less than human. The readers will therefore believe that I am making an accusation that I am not making. Then we spend... waste... time discussing THAT. Let us discuss the matter. Firstly you ask for a citation on a statement "honest investigation into history by Black scholars..." Your attitude is that we should assume that Afrocentric study is not honest in it's regard, and that anyone who disagrees should cite their resources. Firstly, it is not an issue if earlier scholarship on Egypt and Africa is false. During the time of Diop, Egyptologists were stating that there was a master dynastic race from Europe that colonized Egypt and made slaves of the black egyptian population. Egyptologists were (and still are) saying that all the variations of Egyptians in antiquity are largely Caucasian, and any "black" aspects are due to foreign settlements after the fact. Archaeological studies of the Badarian, Nubian C, and Naqada cultures prove that Egyptian society came from peoples further south and east (Sudan and Uganda).

The issue with Black Jesus, and many other passages that i have NOT addressed yet (as you see further down I showed you where I left off) will not be commented on until after I get to them. The Afrocentricity of Jesus and other Classical period figures is another matter. Afrocentric scholarship (when done BY scholars, not by laymen) does honestly investigate. Take Jesus for example. Again, Jesus has been portrayed invariably as a White Nordic skulled shaped Caucasian, with blonde wavy-straight hair. The earliest representations of Jesus (as the shephard in the Roman catacombs for example) show him with short knappy hair. Also, straight long hair was against the Jewish law, and Jesus, not being one to encourage that (he also did not encourage permarital sex, adultery, etc) would not have likely worn long hair. Afrocentric scholars, seeing this obvious contradiction, take an opposing viewpoint. How likely would Jesus come across as a Black man? That's debatable. WOuld he be mistaken for a Black man (whether middle complexioned or not) in America? It's pretty likely. Did he look like Shaka Zulu, probably not.

So what you are doing, is EXACTLY what I am saying you should not do. You are presenting examples of Afrocentric ideology, and debating those examples instead of acknowledging their Afrocentricity. This article isn't called "Debating Afrocentricism" or "Debunking Afrocentricism". It's called "Afrocentricism". You let the readers decide how valid or invalid Afrocentricity is. \

In a nutshell, you are flagging the article for it's afrocentric examples, (which is not the right thing to do) because you dont feel there is enough opposition to debunk them (which is a P.O.V. wrong thing to do). You are supposed to address WHY Afrocentricity has the position it has, not why it "shouldn't" have those positions. - Zaph.\

I just read up a section, and it seems that DeeCeeVoice is the only one that gets it. "Again, the issue of whether or not Jesus was black is not germane to an article on Afrocentrism." This is not called "Debating Afrocentricism" this is called "Afrocentricism". - Zaph.\

And yet again, as before, I will use the hypocritical positions in the Eurocentric article. So now we have another Eurocentric example...the "white" Jesus. And now that I think about it, we have other examples. THe British-Israelite theories... et cetera. - Zaph.

NPOV does include the whole "minority position: Minority representation" clause... As such, Afrocentrist Egyptology should be presented in the minority against the modern Egyptologist viewpoint, instead of the viewpoints of Egyptologists in the older Eurocentric Egyptologist tradition (Which is a bit of a straw man, isn't it?). Of course, the purpose of the article isn't to say whether Afrocentrism, Afrocentrist Egyptology, whatever is right or wrong, it's to present it. And of course another question is: What about the rest of Afrocentrism? There's more Africa than just Egypt, after all.

Isn't bringing the whole "white Jesus" thing into this sort of unfair, though? European painters tended to paint Jesus as European. This sort of thing is common worldwide: For instance, East Asian Buddhists make statues and pictures of an Asian Buddha, even though Buddha was Indian. I've also seen Renaissance-era paintings of Jesus being Crucified where the Roman soldiers are standing around in full-on Gothic plate mail. Michelangelo's David, strangely enough, is an idealised, muscular figure, instead of some scrawny guy. And he's uncircumcised, which is rather odd. But it's not hypocritical or sneaky or anything: These are religious figures, or figures of myth and legend, or both, and their depiction is going to change based on who's doing the depiction. --Edward Wakelin 01:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

hey zaph, this is too lengthy for me to respond to or i'd be up all night. the idea is to be NPOV, verifiable and avoid original research, while maintaining civility.

If there are two or three or four sides to an idea each needs to be presented. no parts of afrocentrism should be left out whether they be from the scholars, the radicals, or the laiety. Of course, stuff that belongs in other articles should be in other articles. If my message came across that I wanted to deny that something is afrocentrist that is, I apologize. My impression is that this article is short on details of afrocentrism.

If folks don't agree that a certain statement represents true afrocentrism, the statement shouldn't be obliterated, it should be qualified with something like "radical afrocentrist ron karenga says ...." followed by a reference.

If something is uncited and an editor objects, it needs a citation (to avoid original research).

As I see it, the article has not been NPOV because some editors have failed to hold to these basic ideas.

Jesus has been portrayed invariably as a White Nordic skulled shaped Caucasian

A good example of a statement that might need some qualification -71.112.11.220 04:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

"I am tired of articles describing Black points of view, (which are not written by white contributors favoring a white point of view)" lol, I smell conspiracy theorism in the air. Zaphnathpaaneah, does your commentary means that black americans can appropriate themselves the glorious past egyptian history so black americans can feel less inferior? because that's how it seems to me. and lol, the "sub" in sub-saharan african is supposed to make you feel inferior??

"Egyptologists were (and still are) saying that all the variations of Egyptians in antiquity are largely Caucasian", bloke, even the Kabyles are considered caucasians, it don't mean shit!

"You let the readers decide how valid or invalid Afrocentricity is" sorry for quoting you again, but personally, I think we all can get to agree on a description of Afrocentricity, and the readers wouldn't have to decide anything, we would just describe what is afrocentricity, sounds simple and doable to me. "You are supposed to address WHY Afrocentricity has the position it has" I don't think we should tell the WHY of anything, just describe, not analyse, because if we do what you say, one will wanna say that afrocentricty has the position it has because complex decents of slaves want to get themselves a more glorious history, as someone else will say that it is because it's the white consiracy against blacks etc.. and we'll never get to agree on anything.

ditto Edward Wakelin's post. You sound like a mythist too, kinda ;). --SuperBleda 01:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

So some POV-pusher is upset that an article trying to push a bias that he supports are labeled as POV pushing and interefered with? So what? If you want an advocacy article, go to some website for editorials, not a website for making an encyclopedia. Follow the policies that this site uses or go away, stop talking about white versus black and low self esteem, as that has no relevance here. DreamGuy 08:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

"ditto Edward Wakelin's post. You sound like a mythist too, kinda ;)." What the heck does that mean? What's a "mythist"? If what's being said is that I'm endorsing myths, I really have no idea how that conclusion could have been reached. --216.191.209.118 15:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC) (This is Edward Wakelin, I'm just too lazy to log on, and am on a public computer).

On the subject of explaining Afrocentrism, isn't there a place for that in Wikipedia? The causes of movements of whatever point are often just as important, if not more, than what the movements actually are. --216.191.209.118 15:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC) (Again, Eddy W)

Zaph's Changes with explanations so we can remove silly dispute flag

Afrocentrism focuses (not shifts) the study and evaluation of world history and civilization from a traditionally Western, Eurocentric paradigm.

• because Afrocentrism is not dependant on Eurocentrism. Afrocentrism is a total re-evaluation of history and society and views history and society from the perspective of Black-Africans. The reason why whites would use the word "shift" is because they believe that their point of view is the "default" and we are "shifting" from an established default. We are not shifting, we are focusing.

The first paragraph overlooked the fact that Black people think independantly. Afrocentrism is not designed or created as a mere counterbalance to Eurocentrism. No, the Black scholarship was created honestly to find the truth of whether or not Blacks are and have contributed to history. The debate (and the reason for our endless battles with Eurocentrics) is that every contribution found in Afrocentric study is re-classified as a false positive. THAT should be put in a seperate section... NOT used as an excuse to put a neutrality-flag on this article.

The next three paragraphs, I modified to clarify that 1. Afrocentricsm's Unity Theory in regards to Egypt is not wholly invented by Afrocentric scholars without any archaeological evidence, and is supported in part by non-afrocentricists, like Bruce WIlliams.

The "however" in paragraph 2 of the next section is misleading. Diop is not guilty by association of misrepresenting history, and thus should not be implied to be by the "however". He took it upon himself to study the matter directly, not just "rely" on George James's ideas. In addition, I clarified WHY James and others considered Greek study to be "stolen" (even though i would say it was not stolen, I am convinced that the artistic accomplisments were definitely borrowed or learned from Egyptian ones) for example, these pre-classical greek kouri http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Arts/Kouros.htm

The next paragraph I clarified the Afrocentric position about Egyptian racial category and why Afrocentricists believe that Egyptians are Black. The lack of "why" is rife in this article, without that context, and the context of what the Afrocentricsts were facing at the TIME of their positions, the readership here will believe that our modern (less racialized viewpoints) were being attacked by Afrocntric radicalism. This is not the case, as I point out, Afrocentricists had taken a VALID point of view by showing Europeans the hypocracy of calling a mixed child "black" and calling a mixed "Ancient Egyptian" (who is perhaps identical in appearance) Caucasian. This of course was during the time when mainstream scholars taught that Egyptian royalty was founded from Europeans and established a dynastic master race in Egypt.

More editing will be done later, oh yea, this is Zaphnathpaaneah. And like DeeCeeVoice, I will dispense with the pleasantries quickly if I sense any BS.

My Argument

I never said Deeceevoice had owned thew article. IT only seems correct that she be allowed augmented input on the article as she apparently has very strong knowledge on the issue at hand. Let's take a moment to ask ourselves a question. When we came here, what did we expect out of the article? What should have been extracted? By definition Afrocentrism is a since of pride, heritage of the Beautiful and Powerful Black Race [11] - focused on the Black African Race; it is a paradigm; it is a holistic beauty that is being abused here. When you come and state that a view towards African Americans is POV, you are confusing and mosconstruing the entire purpose of the article. The article is about Black Pride and Deeceevoice is only trying to address this pride in a functional manner. The bottom line is that several arrogant editors came here with preconceived notions about what should be here. Sure, everyone can edit - but everyone cannot relate. Hence, I believe that much of the debate here is simply prejudice and misunderstanding. Black is beautiful. Molotov (talk)
17:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The purpose of the article, as with all other articles on Wikipedia, is presumably to describe the subject and things connected to it in as neutral a manner as possible. It has ended up slanted more towards Afrocentrist Egyptology than anything else, though. Whether or not Afrocentrism is valid is pointless. Heck, discussing it is generally pointless outside of Wikipedia. I don't agree with Afrocentrist Egyptology myself, but the negative reaction to it is a bit over-the-top... Liberal-arts academics really seem to think that what goes on in universities and colleges REALLY MATTERS. If they want to teach something that really has an effect, maybe they should teach something like medicine, or engineering, or business, or economics. Of course, that easily progresses to the idea that maybe long talk threads and such over Wikipedia articles aren't so important, and that road leads to RUIN. Ruin I say. :p --Edward Wakelin 22:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

molotov -- please don't describe editors as arrogant: it violates the wiki civility AGF policies. if you read the discussions on this page i think you'll see that no one has a beef with the dictionary.com definition "Centered or focused on Africa or African peoples, especially in relation to historical or cultural influence" (which you've misquoted). the contention is about POV-pushing. black jesus is strongly associated with afrocentrism and belongs here but deecee considers him unscholarly and points to some innapropriate agreement somewhere in the annals of this discussion as some sort of prior restraint about what can be written.

the last supposed scholar here, kspence, left this page in disgust at the lack of real content.

this article is one of the worst on wiki. given the months deecee has spent on it you'd think it would be better. -71.112.11.220 03:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the quote was right, it was after the hyphen "focus of black race, etc." It seems that this user really hates Wikipedia anyway, and has tried to leave sometime, but cannot.

looks different to me....

quote from molotov: "since of pride, heritage of the Beautiful and Powerful Black Race"

definition from dictionary.com: "Centered or focused on Africa or African peoples, especially in relation to historical or cultural influence" -71.112.11.220 18:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Everything I do on in this crappy place is attacked - I am convinced that these attacks on Deeceevoice are NOT in good faith. 19:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Molotov, the point is not whether editors are arrogant. You should assume these editors are acting in good faith, and even if not, the policy is to be civil. In any case, calling people arrogant will not improve the quality of this page. -71.112.11.220 04:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Calling them arrogant is just to point out a truth. The edits and comments against Deeceevoice make it hard to assume good faith. I am convinced that DC is here for righteousness' sake, and many of the other editors have preconceived and biased notions about what is here. The Dictionary.com definition used was only to point out that the focus of Afrocentrism is on the African American race (I did NOT misquote it, I added a similar meaning at the end of the dash - I am not that crazy : ) ). Thus, if the focus is on the Afro-American race, the concepts and ideas that are central to Afrocentrists - i.e. Black Egyptians, etc. - this should be presented here. Without claims of POV or whatever, because I do not feel that those are authentic. V/M
19:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Molotov. You seem like a nice guy. -71.112.11.220 15:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I love you! Molotov (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Bias in this article

I just stumbled upon this article and it looks like it was written and vetted by committed Afrocentric ideologues. Whats going on? No wonder theres a NPOV tag on this. Imagine if the Eurocentric page was written like this as an apologia? Charges of "racism" would be flying through the roof! Not to mention, the notion (baldly stated as fact in the article) that Afrocentrism is "fundamentally different" or "better" than Eurocentrism itself smacks completely of Afrocentric exceptionalism.

Areas that are particularly problematic:

The term "Afrocentrism" is thus often mistaken to mean a perspective in diametric opposition to that of Eurocentrism, however, this is not the case. In fact, the belief that Afrocentrism is in diametric oppostion to Eurocentrism is a Eurocentric misunderstanding.

-This is not a "fact".

Eurocentricm is not the root cause of Afrocentricity.

Mainstream Afrocentric theory is based on the proposition that Western accounts of world history and civilization have neglected or systematically denied the contributions of Africa's indigenous, black peoples.

-These statements appear to contradict each other.

Honest investigation into history by Black scholars without the assumption and predisponitions of white scholarship, is the motivation of Afrocentric study.

-this is NOT a neutral statement. It is a statement of praise, about motivation no less.

In addition, Afrocentric scholars assert that Black African societies overtime had (like most other human societies) originated in East Africa and Egypt.

-This states as assumed fact that "most other human societies" originated in East Africa and Egypt. It is unclear whether it refers to modern human societies (as opposed to ancient pre-historic societies), in which case it is blatantly wrong. In the case of prehistoric societies, it is not a known fact and should not be assumed.

The more conventional belief among archaeologists and historians is that the ancient Egyptian civilization was more closely related, in terms of culture and language, to the Semitic civilizations of the Fertile Crescent than to the rest of Africa. Ironically, this convention paradoxically denies that these relations had any relevant impact on the rest of the Mediterranean cultures.

-This is not a neutral paragraph. It imputes a contradiction to the "mainstream" viewpoint while referring neutrally to the Afrocentric viewpoint.

the lack of acknowledgement of the postive contributions of Afrocentricism to refuting Eurocentric theories has caused her to be regarded as one who merely fears change from the status-quo instead of an honest critic.

-not a neutral passage again. One can practically feel the author speaking through the passive voice and taking sides.

In fact, the whole section on Egypt and Black Cultural Unity reads like a defense or apologia. That is not neutral material.

This conclusion may be based on the fact that the period of Egyptian history regarded as the most prominent (14th B.C.E.) was considered the early dark age of Greek culture.

-Greek Dark ages are generally recorded from 1100-800 B.C.E., so that is not a generally accepted fact. (source: http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/aegean/pre-greece/greekdarkages.html)

oday, most of these writings are not considered serious scholarship

-to say the least.

These Afrocentric scholars believe that historians must shift their attention away from European accomplishments and Europe-derived racist assumptions, and instead emphasize the black origins of mankind and black contributions to world history

-Imparts benign motives to Afrocentrists and racist motives to Eurocentrists. That is the definition of non-neutral.

However, the concept of race is not based on genetics, which is a far more modern discipline, but on phenotypes. "Caucasians" range from Norway to India and from blond hair and fair skin to dark skin. Black people range from West Africa, to India, to Australia, with a wider range of brown and wavy haired people to the darkest skinned people with the curliest hair. Similarly, the Afrocentrist concept of a "global Africa community" has been reinforced by findings by numerous anthropologists, historians and others, who claim the blacks of New Guinea, Menalesia, the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia are no less "Negroid" than the blacks of North and sub-Saharan Africa. The issue with the more respected mainstream viewpoint is that the definition of a Negroid phenotype begins to take a back seat to the genetic origins of those having negroid features. In addition, those people who fall in the extreme range of "Caucasian" furthest from the blond, and who also fall in the extreme range of Black, furthest from the darkest, are contentiously placed in either one group or another. Afrocentricsts contend, by pointing out that White society excluded mixed people from being Caucasian, should not therefore lay historical claims to those who in history share identical phenotypes and mixture with modern Black people. Espeically when they live within the continent of Africa, and routinely intermarried with the darker skinned and more overtly Black people of the region. Therefore for the Afrocentricist, the Ancient Egyptian, (which mainstream scholars insist made little contribution to western society) who shares this characteristic of intermarrying with more obviously Black Africans, would socially fit within the Black sphere, even though they may genetically share less in common with West African Black people than Afrocentricists are willing to admit. It is important to note, this Afrocentric viewpoint had developed while mainstream scholarship was seriously wrestling with the Eurocentric idea that Nordic or contiental Europeans had founded Egyptian royalty and established the dynastic leadership of Egypt. In addition, mainstream scholarship tends to automatically categorize any Ancient Egyptian with overtly negroid phenotype as a Nubian or non-Egyptian, thus creating a cirucular arguement.

-This whole passage meanders and is could use some improvements in construction.

Afrocentrists argue that such ignorance and blatant racism were common among mainstream scholars, educators and historians well into the 20th century

-Blatantly POV. labelling a statement ignorant is automatically POV; in this case it is compounded by extending the label from the quotes to mainstream scholars as a whole.

It is the examination and analysis of existing scholarship, as well as the study of the original historical record itself, grounded in scholarly inquiry and rigorous research.

-This is about as biased as it gets, it isn't being covered with passive voice and attributions anymore.

In summary, this page is blatanly NPOV and unbalanced.

don't just discuss it here be bold and make changes! (and watch the sparks fly) -71.112.11.220 15:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I haven't been back to this piece in a truly substantive manner in quite a while. It gives me a headache. Some of the additions are useful, but others are clearly problematic. However, the NPOV tag has been on this piece for a very long time -- when it was not warranted. Virtually all of the text cited above was added after I stopped contributing in a serious fashion. And while I did some tidying up of some of the more easily fixed flaws, I just didn't want to deal with a lot of the more serious stuff at the time. (No patience.) I don't have time right now to review it, but I suggest going back to a somewhat earlier version to see what the piece looked like before and then working forward. (Less work.) deeceevoice 09:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I've just done a quick reading of this piece down to the section on the "debate" and made some changes. While intervening edits have added some useful information, much of it as written was definitely problematic in terms of POV. I didn't want to deal with it and just skimmed over it for the time being. There are a couple of places where I've asked for cites -- not because I doubt the veracity of the information (quite the contrary), but it would add to the piece and serve to refer readers who wish to investigate further. These requests are embedded in the edit screen text (there's another way to make them more visible, but I don't know how :( ). I've got deadlines -- and a life outside this place -- but will return to tackle the rest of the article later. Yes, it certainly needs fixing. This is an invitation to others to participate in improving the article -- not in performing an antagonistic hack job or inciting an edit war. deeceevoice 10:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

not in performing an antagonistic hack job or inciting an edit war.

please refrain from attacking the work of others and assume good faith. visit the wiki Civility, No Personal Attacks, and Assume Good Faith pages for more info. -71.112.11.220 15:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from inferring commentary that is not there. *x* deeceevoice 15:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I shouldn't have assumed anything. It appeared you were saying that some editors might be "hacks" or that some might not act in good faith "inciting an edit war" -71.112.11.220 03:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

lack of references

This article has *very* few references. If you've got some, now's the time to dig them up. Unverifiable text may be removed at any time.

-71.112.11.220 21:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The eurocentrist/racist quotes should be moved

To Eurocentrism or wherever. They could easily be replaced with a link to that, and a mention of past eurocentrism in Egyptology. It would serve the same function. I myself don't have time to do it now, when I've got some free time, if somebody hasn't done it already, I'll have a look at the two articles and figure out how to move it. --Edward Wakelin 20:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)Talk:Afrocentrism Archive1
Talk:Afrocentrism Archive2
Talk:Afrocentrism Archive3

Observation

Isn't it interesting of how much work has been done to debate Afrocentrism, yet the Eurocentrism article is so light. I find it interesting that those that oppose Afrocentrism put their energy in debunking it, yet Eurocentrism receives very little attention.

While on the other hand, the Caucasoid article has been extraordinary strong in debate about placing Ethiopians into the definition of "caucasoids", yet the Negroid article shows very little content except the offensively exaggerated skull.

That to me is why Afrocentrism is so important. It does not impose it's will onto the minds of unbiased people, where as Eurocentrism tries to impose their will onto the minds of everyone. Europe isn't even a continent, yet it's seperated as such to seperate the whites from the non-white.

I just wanted to know if anyone else in here can see the forest through the trees.

Afrocentrism may not be so keen to impose its ideas (and I doubt it) because of the dubious value of many of them (such as that phony theory on the African "origins" of Olmec civilisation, to which I would be happy to see an Eurocentric counterpoint that is not dismissed by Eurocentrists as pseudoarchaeology). D,

Interesting.. that someone trying so hard to sound smart, would misspell civilization

Interesting that someone trying to sound so smart does not know that it isn't a misspelling. It's the correct UK spelling. Paul B 14:28 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, as many Eurocentric ideas are equally dubious but have received widespread acclaim throughout the ages. The Curse of Ham, and the scientific parallel of African intelligence inferiority. The use of skulls to conclude that Africans are less intelligent. The dubious theory that Africans never ventured out of Africa in historic times unless a white or asian owner brought them is widely accepted in academia even now. The dubious theory that black "caucasoids" in Ethiopia(a paradox) are more closely related to white europeans than to Black africans in Kenya is widely appreciated in Eurocentric and scholarly circles. The dubious theory that everyone with round eyes and skin color lighter than jet black is a "caucasoid" by default is accepted. The theory that white people have a virtue of human insight that is lacking in asians (which translates to Asians being more technically adept but less insightful and balanced than a white) is also widely accepted. And so on and so on and so on...

Recent changes

• National Geographic: Corrected incorrect caption - the National Geographic shows the reconstruction of the French team, not the Egyptian reconstruction. Now, which one is the "controversial" reconstruction? The French? Or the Egyptian?

• Drusilla Houston: Corrected incomplete and out of context quotation. Drusilla Houston distinguishes between ancient Egyptian, Ethiopian, Nubian and Cushites. She argues in her book that in early ages Egypt was under Nubian domination, and NOT that Egyptians ARE Nubians. [12]

• • What? No one ever said that Eygptians and Nubians were the same. They were two distinct kingdoms, often sharing peoples in common. deeceevoice 15:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Australoid people: Completed quotation, eventhough I don't see why it was included into the article first place, since Huxley differentiates between "Australoid" and "Negroid". [13]

• • Truncated overly long quote back to the way it was. Huxley refers to "Australoids," describing them as essentially "Negroids"/Africoids -- with the only difference being their relatively straight hair -- meaning those peoples we commonly refer to today as (some) Nubians, Ethiopians, Sudanese, Eritreans -- in a word, (many) Nilotics -- etc., and the Tamils/Dravidians of the Indian subcontinent, Australia. Check the distribution map. All the other verbiage about Australia and the eye sockets, etc., is superflous and simply makes the block quote intolerably long. The point is he describes and identifies the Australoids as also populating the Nile Valley. deeceevoice 15:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Additional note:

Studies in craniometry are dismissed as scientific racism, that should be mentioned in the article. [14] [15] Pharlap 14:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

This is not "craniometry" as it has been used to justify trumped-up, silly contentions about inherent inferiority or superiority of certain groups of humankind. The article mentions well-known and widely accepted "racial"/ethnic facio-cranial characteristics in the context of forensic science and forensic anthropology -- areas of scientific inquiry and professional practice where they remain in use today as highly accurate indicators of ethnic identity. Witness Anton's dead-on conclusions -- absent any geographic context whatsoever. You're grasping at straws, and your complaint simply does not hold up. deeceevoice 10:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Seeing as nobody here seems capable of reaching agreement on the content or nature of this article, and that emotions and opinions seem to be far more prevelant than actual facts, might i suggest people try the following: split the page into two parts- for and against the afrocentrist position, and give both equal space, like in a debate or a trial. Then reader can look at all points of view and form their own opinion. This would probably be a good idea for other controversial topics and would prevent all the childlike a abuse and squabbling which seems to be taking up a lot of time and space and providing very little real insight or information. --Roger ramjet 01:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Highly miscegnated?

At 2 points, the article says that Afrocentrists would use the term "highly miscegnated" to describe the modern Egyptian population. It is not reasonable or acceptable to use this term to describe any population, this is offensive to the modern Egyptians. This confirms my suspicions that Afrocentrism, at least in the form put forward here, is a form of racism by a section of the population of the main imperialist power against the population of a 3rd world country. The article should be edited to take account of these issues. PatGallacher 11:29, 2005 July 24 (UTC)

Also, Niger and Nigeria do not derive from the Latin for black, they derive from a Tuareg word for river (and so are unrelated to the word we all want to avoid). The Hyksos did bring the chariot to Ancient Egypt. I find all this stuff with diagrams of skull types rather disturbing, reminiscent of material from the Third Reich, I am not sure it has any place in a Wikipedia article. PatGallacher 14:31, 2005 July 24 (UTC)

How do we know that the origin of "niger" and "nigeria" come from the Tuareg word and not the European (the ones who colonized and delineated the countries)? There are very few if any Tuareg in Nigeria. And the mouth of the Niger river is in a non-Tuareg region of Africa. --68.60.55.162 10:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

See the article on the Niger river for the derivation. The Taureg word is a possibility. I agree with you about skull types and the stuff about 'misecegenation'. This aspect of the content is courtesy of User:Deeceevoice, whose insult-laden methods of debate and POV I find so uncongenial (to put it mildly) that I have withdrawn from involvement. However the article needs a big overhaul. As it is, it has drifted unpleasantly close to the kind of 'racial theory' that should have died out half a century ago. Paul B 15:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Now, now. Just because something is blatant 19th-century style racism doesn't mean we can't have an encyclopedia article about it. — Phil Welch 01:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

What? The Niger River? I never wrote anything about the derivation of "Niger" or "Nigeria." U b trippin', PB. deeceevoice 22:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I wonder, what other articles on here use the word "miscegnation" to describe "objectively" a group of people? Shall we be offended also for those?--68.60.55.162 10:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

OH and I'm glad DeeCeeVoice is still keeping you all in check. It's funny when someone concludes something as fact when its not conclusive, and then gets offended when one of us negroes go off on them. It's called lying, Pat, and yes we get offended by it.

Clean up

I have added the "clean up" flag because, although the article is important and large parts are OK, in places it gets bogged down in discussion of the minutiae of ancient Egyptian skulls, and does not properly address the assumptions which might lie behind such a discussion, see some of my earlier comments. PatGallacher 15:32, 2005 July 24 (UTC)

• I've removed the cleanup flag, which gives the impression the article is sloppily written. If you disagree about the content of the piece and you think something is included which is superfluous, then this is where such matters should be hashed out. I happen to think the discussion is entirely on point. deeceevoice 15:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

It sure the heck needs some work to be half-way respectable from any scientific point of view... AnonMoos 23:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I have restored the cleanup flag because I think the article is sloppily written, see my previous comments. I support the proposal to shift some stuff to "Egypt and black identity" or something along these lines. I will look at Eurocentrism to see if there are any problems. PatGallacher 16:57, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

Photo Great Sphinx

The proposition that the Sphinx could be up to 10,000 years old is a so called theory advanced by Graham Hancock and several others of his ilk. It isn't accepted at all by main stream archaeologists. It is obvious that deeceevoice is a proponent of the Afrocentrism theory that suggests that Egypt was a black African culture and that the Hellenic civilization which followed robbed from them. Judging by the more academic links on the page, this is ill accepted by the most notable Egyptologists.

The issue and objecvitity of this article "Afrocentricism" is that it disputes the most notable Egyptologists, because their conclusions are said to be biased by Afrocentric scholars. For example, the MET has two busts (reserve heads) of old kingdom people. One looks very semetic/caucasoid while the other looks very black/negroid. The negroid bust WAS assumed to be the nubian wife of the tomb owner (i.e. they assumed someone from nubia traveled from their non-egyptian native ground to giza). BUT, they subsequently concluded... once they put their bias/assumption/default-white mentality aside that the bust was the tomb owner.

http://www.metmuseum.org/explore/new_pyramid/PYRAMIDS/HTML/el_pyramid_head2.htm

"Although each reserve head has characteristics that make it unique, this example stands out from the group. It is one of the largest and is the most perfectly preserved, exhibiting none of the intentional damage found on others. Excavated in a shaft with another head, this one was originally identified as the Nubian wife of the tomb owner. Recent study, however, suggests that it probably represents the male owner of the tomb. Although the face has affinities with later depictions of Nubians, it also bears a striking resemblance to statues of Fourth Dynasty kings and undoubtedly represents an Egyptian. The variations among reserve heads probably reflect the diversity in Egypt's population."

This is why there is Afrocentricism, without it, the mentality of the notable Egyptologists would not be checked and people would be assuming this is a slave or something other than the actual original owner of the tomb way up in the north.

Now the only problem left is that people will assume, no doubt, that this is an isolated example of Black Africans in the north. Which again is why Afrocentricism is so concentrated on Egypt.

It would be great if Afrocentrism was just an attempt to introduce more fairness into Egyptology or whatever. But it isn't. It's swinging the pendulum in the other direction, and in many ways it's less defensible, because we know more now than they did when they were claiming that the Egyptians were white and so forth. Correcting one falsehood with another won't cause the truth to show up. Afrocentrism is based on identity politics and the like, it isn't based on taking a good and balanced look at everything. The argument of "Oh the mainstream Egyptologists just believe that because they're white" is amazingly disingenous, is it supposed to be plausible that in a matter that in many ways pits black vs white, that blacks are going to be any more honest?

And the excuses for Afrocentrism along the lines of "Well the racist white Egyptologists used to believe this" sees a trip into a childish land where it's all about paying back past wrongs, not about trying to get things right. It is impossible to solve inequalities against one group, or against one scientific theory, or whatever by inequalities against another group or theory or whatever. Yet the idea that this is possible seems rather common, even though it's basically the belief that the best way to solve a wrong is to commit the opposite wrong. --Edward Wakelin 20:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Afrocentricity

Afrocentricity covers the same ground. If the terminology is used differently or by different people, this can be explained in the intro or a subsection on terminology. Rd232 13:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, I see no particular value in a separate article on Afrocentricity. Perhaps the contributor Spence, who initiated the piece, can elucidate. Frankly, I object to the narrow approach to the subject in that piece. It refers to "the Afrocentric project" as though there is some central council or authority over afrocentric scholarship with a singular direction and aim -- which is simply not the case. Nor did the Afrocentric approach begin with Asante. Some of the most important scholarship in Afrocentric thought predates Asante by several decades. Indeed, one of the foremost so-called "afrocentric" historians alive today, Ivan van Sertima, rejects the term completely. I certainly do not think Afrocentrism should be merged into it. If anything, it should be the converse. The common form of the word is "Afrocentrism," just as its counterpart is commonly called "Eurocentrism" -- not "Eurocentricity." In fact, a search of this website reveals an article on the former -- but none on the latter. deeceevoice 14:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I attempted to participate in the Afrocentrism entry earlier. I stopped because I realized that there was a distinct difference between the entry I was participating in--Afrocentrism--and the concept as used by scholars actively engaging in the literature in the field. To wit, the entry "Afrocentrism" deals largely with the race of the Ancient Egyptians, and the counter-claims of scholars such as Mary Lefkowitz or the late Allan Bloom as well as the work of historians writing in the early 20th Century. These are very contentious arguments, with strong supporters on both sides. But these arguments do not reflect the type of arguments scholars are actually dealing with "in the academy". Furthermore, there is a lack of precision in the Afrocentrism entry that is problematic. Ivan Van Sertima for example is NOT an Afrocentric scholar. Neither is Martin Bernal. People outside of the academy may lump them with scholars such as Theophile Obenga and Maulana Karenga for a number of reasons...but scholars within the academy would not consider them Afrocentric scholars. More importantly, neither Bernal nor Van Sertima consider themselves Afrocentric scholars. Similarly no scholars currently publishing academic work are interested in the "race" of the Ancient Egyptians. Rather than fight these battles within the Afrocentrism entry I thought it important to create a separate entry that reflects the difference between the academic understaning and the non-academic understanding. --Lester Spence 02:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Because as a movement Eurocentrism doesn't currently exist, as it can only exist as how Afrocentrism exists: Misguided attempts by scholars among a victim-group to create a positive mythology: It is far easier to say "Things were great for us before we got ripped off" than to actually sit down and try to make plans for the future. --Edward Wakelin 22:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

What's your hack philosophizing got to do with the price of rice? Eurocentrism need not exist as a "movement"; it's already arrived. It's been the status quo for centuries. Further, correcting the historic record is preparing the way for the future -- and it's far blacker and brighter than the past. :p deeceevoice 23:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Eurocentrism should fall because of objective re-analysis of the past. It shouldn't fall because it's been replaced with more subjectivity. And what hack philosophising? I am pointing out that Afrocentrism is the easy way out, appealing to imaginary good old days rather than to try and make good new days: That is hardly an uncommon thing, it is seen every time somebody whintes about how public schools suck now and used to be better, instead of saying "gee maybe we should put more money in the public school system". --Edward Wakelin 03:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

To put it a different way: How is it a substantial improvement to replace incorrect, skewed history by whites, with incorrect, skewed history by blacks? --Edward Wakelin 03:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess it depends on whom you're reading and whom you believe. As an African-American, I think the history of my people and of blacks, in general, stands on its own. There's no need to appropriate the history of others. But am I an Afrocentrist? I suppose you could call me that. But, first and foremost, I'm a student of history. Judging from your posts, we likely come down on different sides of certain issues -- but that has nothing to do with a desire to embrace that which is not true. I traded e-mails with Susan Anton and spoke directly to the fellow on the French team. And based on those contacts, I am more convinced than ever (though I wasn't in doubt, based on considerable reading I'd done before) that King Tut was a black African. So, don't assume less than honorable motives simply because someone doesn't see eye to eye with you. deeceevoice 03:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I get what you're saying. I think the problem is that when the mindset is "claiming" King Tut or Cleopatra or some other Egyptian figure as being black or white or whatever will not really create the proper atmosphere for objectivity to flourish. Then of course is the fact that the population of Africa is quite varied. Plus: Do we really know enough about Egypt to talk about its ethnic makeup? People spend way too much time pointing at skin colours on old murals: The Egyptian style of drawing people was very stylised, how are we to know if they tried 100% recreation of reality with skin colour? . And it isn't helped by the fact that the modern population of Egypt is very different in terms of ethnic makeup than Egypt was back in the day. And recreating ethnicity or race through facial measurements and the like is quite imprecise: There was an article about this in Harper's (I think) specifically about bodies that might be Aboriginal or might be European: It pointed out that variation between individuals, or over time, could explain a lot of difference of things like facial measurements. --Edward Wakelin 04:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Isn't there a theory, by the way, that many ancient Egyptians were in fact members of an ethnic group that doesn't really exist any more? --Edward Wakelin 04:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

God. I really don't want to rehash old arguments. I think the information I've presented in the article is compelling enough. (I've written the majority of the piece, particularly from "Egypt and black identity" to the end.) They were (and remain) predominantly black Africans. With regard to your last question, there are also theories that aliens came to Earth in spaceships and built the pyramids. The theory you write of is sheer hogwash. There's absolutely no evidence that would point to some mass extinction of the ancient Egyptians. Their progeny are alive and well today. Peace. deeceevoice 04:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Just sayin' there's a theory, no idea as to its validity. I don't know if the Egyptians were black, they're certainly not white, though. Light-skinned Africans I can buy, probably with some degree or other mixing from the Middle East, which is right next door.

The Eurocentric Egyptologists basically based their "they must be white!" theory on the idea that anybody not white couldn't have done what the Egyptians had. This is the same reason, basically, as the "aliens did it" theory: They have a hard time coming to grips with the fact that people thousands of years ago could do some really nifty things with stone. So the Eurocentrists were wrong. This doesn't make the Afrocentrists right: Even if Egyptians were Africans of one type or another, it still doesn't prove the theory that the Greeks just ripped off the Egyptians, for one thing. And I don't think that who "owns" the Egyptians matters: European culture doesn't depend on King Tut or Cleopatra being white.--Edward Wakelin 05:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Everything I have to say on the matter I've said in the article. I have no intention of rehashing things here:

"Afrocentrists, however, contend that race as a social and political construct still exists. They argue that the racist untruths propounded for centuries– that blacks had no civilization, no written language, no culture and no history of any note before coming into contact with Europeans– make the racial identity of ancient Egypt an important issue. Further, such lies have been applied to a particular, broad category of humanity based on the same "racial" phenotype and lineages used by Afrocentrists in refuting such myths. However artificial and discredited a construct, the matter of race became an important and enduring issue, Afrocentrists argue, when whites and others pronounced an entire segment of humanity inherently inferior on the basis of it. Further, such biases still exist today. As a result, Afrocentrists contend, it is important to set the historical record straight within the context in which the history of human civilizations heretofore has been framed, taught and studied--and that is the context of race." I'm done. deeceevoice 07:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Anyhoo: If there's gonna be any merging, it should be afrocenticity into afrocentrism, instead of vice versa, if only beccause "afrocentrism" sounds better, and more regular when it comes to ideologies (who, after all, is a believer in feminicity?, or Communicity?)--Edward Wakelin 04:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Read the entire discussion above, then read the Afrocentricity entry. Afrocentrism can be referred to as an ideology...and the battles around this entry are as fierce as those around Neo-Conservatism. Afrocentricity? A different bag. What we--and when i say "we" here I mean people who actually perform research and publish in Black Studies--are interested in is a very simple question. What is the best way to study black subjects? The more I read the arguments around Afrocentrism (battling about race, rants about victimology) the more I am convinced that a simple entry differentiating the academic component from the ideological one is necessary. I would not want Afrocentrism merged into Afrocentricity...and I would not want the reverse either. --Lester Spence 02:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

As the idea seems to have died, I'm removing the merge request from this article, suggesting instead that Afrocentrism be merged with African American studies. Wesley 04:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Afrocentrism and African-American studies are VERY different subjects. Afrocentricity, seems like one editor's way of escaping the mess on this page. Rather than clean it up, he invented a new term! It should be merged in or just plain deleted. -71.112.11.220 05:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Egyptians

About 50% of this article treats the relatively obscure question of the skin colour of the Ancient Egyptians. Shouldn't that be exported to its own article? I understand that the question is of some importance to Afrocentrists, but to treat it in such detail here seems like a red herring. The actual question of genetics/history/archaeology should be treated elsewhere, and its importance for agendas of black superiority can be examined here (the role of the "black Egyptians" meme in this context seems clear, regardless of the veracity of the individual claims). dab (ᛏ) 13:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Who the hell said anything here about "black superiority"? The article treats the subject in depth, because it the black identity of ancient dynastic Egypt is a central issue in Afrocentrist historiography. I like it here it is. Other articles can -- and do -- link to it. deeceevoice 18:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

How much Afrocentrist stuff is non-Egyptian in focus? --Edward Wakelin 20:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The vast majority of contemporary Afrocentric scholarship ignores the racial question. Some are interested in studying the relationship between ancient African civilizations--including Egypt. But most deal with contemporary problems in Black Studies. How exactly did various African loan words travel across the Atlantic? What are the components of a contemporary African composite culture, if any? How do Afro-Brazilians use the language of race to mobilize against poverty? --Lester Spence 02:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

that would be "Misrocentrism" then. Seriously, Egypt does not exactly equal Africa, does it? I suggest exporting the section to Egypt and Black Identity, leaving behind a summary, but sparing this article the more intricate details of the debate. dab (ᛏ) 16:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes of course it should be moved to a new page. I suggested the same thing back in May [16]. Even back in March it was obvious it was getting so long that it seriously overweighted the article,[17] creating a text that has now become a travesty of a discussion of the pros and cons of Afrocentrist thought. It was because kspense despaired of getting in any discussion of Asante's thinking and its modern offshoots that he created Afrocentricity, though there are some arguments for keeping a separate page. The obsessive concentration on discussing the "blackness" of Egyptians is down to one editor's relentless fixation on the subject. One reason for creating a separate page is that the race issue is starting to affect other Egypt-related articles. It seems silly to have sections on various pharaohs debating what their skin-colour was – we'd be recapitulating the glory days of the worst kind of "race theory". Any such discussion could be directed to the newc article. Paul B 20:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Think what you will. You're not black. Black folks generally don't see it as a "fixation." We see it as an important correction of the much sinned-against historical record. Further, it's not my "fixation." The topic has been treated fairly and thoroughly. YOu can bet if any editor had any credible comeback for the information presented, it would be there. The thing is they don't. The truth is the truth. :D deeceevoice 22:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Why is the newly added genetic information racist, I don't understand. Clearly molecular and cladistic analyses have suggested that ancient Egyptians were of sub-Saharan in origin. If they proved otherwise, maybe it's racist with regard to Afrocentrist view, the reversion to original article does not make any sense. If you want sources, go to Pubmed or any anthropology journals. I am compiling a list right now. G.C.RTW

The language about chimps, etc., reads like something from Stormfront. Yes, by all means provide your sources. But it may be moot. The scientific material, if verified by reputable sources, actually belongs in another article treating the debate about the racial identity of ancient Egypt. I haven't visited it yet, but it was separated from this one a week or two ago. deeceevoice 12:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Deeceevoice, first of all, I hate when people imply that someone is racist, because I am not. If we cannot bring about a fair scientific discussion to the table without angering people who are offended by certain words or phrases, then I think we can do no science at all. Remember, I do believe in the social construct of race (and class), but there are genetic evidence that show the difference in allelic forms of many genes among races. And the expression of these genes then result in phenotype, or the features that you can see from the outside. My addition to the article is purely from a scientific point of view, therefore, if you think I belong to Stormfront or whatever that is, you are clearly mistaken. However, I do wish that you give some constructive criticisms, such that we know that genetic tracing and molecular clocking puts sub-Saharan blacks nearer the common ancestor of all primates, then how can we put the abovementioned fact into more moderate words without mentioning specific primate species (such as chimp). If you don't look at the scientific evidence, and just outright label it as racist if you don't think it fits your agenda, then you are a racist and bigot yourself. G.C.RTW

Blunders

Egypt is most definitely NOT "located squarely within the African continent" -- it's in the northeastern corner. And I think it would be valuable to include a list of certain of the Afrocentric "urban legends" or egregious blunders, which continually keep resurfacing, despite being objectively factually ascertainably simply wrong -- such as when Cleopatra (basically of exclusive Macedonian/Greek ancestry) is claimed to be "black"(!?) -- AnonMoos 23:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you see anywhere in this article where there is any claim that Cleopatra was black? And, yes, Egypt is a part of the continent of Africa, though geopolitically and in the minds of many, it is part of the "Middle East." deeceevoice 03:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Just as it is also partly Asian, as the Sinai was traditionally part of Asia. Therefore, I too would consider squarely to be inappropriate. Snapdragonfly

Darlin', if you wanna niggle about an adverb and wanna remove it, be my guest. It doesn't change the fact that ancient dynastic Egypt was BLACK. :p deeceevoice 09:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

You're cherry-picking just as much as those who would claim Egypt to be all white. Moreso, all your darlings get frankly tiresome. Finally, I would like to note that an article on Afrocentrism doesn't mention even ONCE Zimbabwe or Axum, and Nubia hardly more than in passing; this is just an Egypt obsession; what more, modifying an adverb is not niggling, since these words have a slight tendency to modify sense (of course I should assume you knew it, right). Snapdragonfly

Sorry, darlin', if you find me tiresome. My raison d'etre is to keep you entertained. :p This article addresses the blackness of ancient dynastic Egypt, an ongoing subject of major debate vis-a-vis Afrocentrism. Fortunately, there are no great debates about the blackness of Timbuktu, the racist (and ridiculous) myth about it having been built by some lost, wandering tribe of white people having been tossed into the dustbin of Eurocentric bullsh*t lies long ago. I call yours a "niggling" change, because with all the other stuff I've contributed that die-hard dynastic critics of Afrocentrism try to debunk has remained essentially intact -- because the information is correct and irrefutable. Your tweaking is inconsequential. Ancient dynastic Egypt was no more Semitic or Middle Eastern because its territory at one time extended into the Sinai than ancient Rome was English because it once occupied portions of Britain. And, no. I never claimed ancient dynastic Egypt was all anything, black, white, Semitic, Asian or purple. deeceevoice 08:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

But this article is NOT Demographics of Ancient Egypt or Blackness in Ancient Civilisations, it is Afrocentrism, and should not avoid mention of such things as the other African civilisations. And if you never claimed it so, why do you insist on its blackness as a defining characteristic. Surely you must be aware of the existence of Coptic, an afro-asiatic language, therefore related to Berberic and Semitic languages, which is the current day descendant of Egyptian.

he original Berbers are black, Nilotic, (East) Africans -- not the Berbers of the Maghreb. And, again, the discussion -- of the essential black identity of dynastic Egypt is a fundamental, and certainly one of the most hotly contested issues/questions in debates regarding Afrocentrism. It is appropriate that it be included here. This piece is not meant to be an overview of black/African history. And Semites are nothing but the result of Africans and Asiatics (some of them already Afro-Asiatic, like the Semangs and other aboriginal blacks once found throughout Asia), mixing and, later, Caucasoid peoples. After all, even W.E.B. Dubois wrote that the "Asian" influence/presence in Egypt was also likely to some significant degree Africoid. deeceevoice 16:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

um, not to nitpick with the actual content, but can we move the section to Egypt and Black Identity now, or are there objections? Regarding your statement, isn't Nilotic really a linguistic term (i.e. Nilotic should redirect to Nilotic languages)? Of course the vast majority of Nilotic speakers will be black; it is still not correct to identify linguistic and genetic classification; that would be like saying "English people are white", meaning speakers of the English language. That may have been mostly true up to 1600 AD or so, but certainly isn't true any longer. dab (ᛏ) 14:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

No. "Nilotic" has become, and has been for a very long time, associated with a particular ethnic phenotype: dark skin; long, very slender limbs; etc., etc., like Watutsi, Dinka, etc.). It's no different from the way "Semitic" is used, which originally referred to a language group, but which commonly is used to refer to essentially Jewish (and sometimes Arab) people. deeceevoice 18:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

And, actually, I have no real problem with there being a separate article on "Egypt and black identity." However, I'd like to see what of the language is to remain in this article before the change is made. deeceevoice 18:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

far from "commonly is used to refer to essentially Jewish (and sometimes Arab) peoples", Semitic is still a purely linguistic term. It is only "Anti-Semitism" that has acquired a narrowed cultural meaning. "Anti-Semitism" by convention refers to "Anti-Judaism", while "Semitic" remains a purely linguistic term. This is related to the crackpot ariosophy usage for which "Semitic" was a sort of occult/spiritual term. I am unaware of any similar development of the term "Nilotic" as meaning 'dark skin; long, very slender limbs' or similar. That would be just as bad as using "Semitic" to refer to "crooked nose, red hair, large feet" or similar. dab (ᛏ) 15:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

No. I use the term in that manner, and I hear all the time people referring to "Semites" and "Semitic peoples" as a kind of an in-between "racial" group -- meaning non-black, Middle Eastern peoples. I'm amazed to hear you make such a contention. If you're in the U.S., you must be in Alaska, or Kansas, or somewhere. Kansans, Alaskans, don't start excoriating me. It's just, uh ... weird/kinda provincial. deeceevoice 18:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Egyptians are black as far as anybody is concerned. Why must we argue about this trivial point. You go look the mummies, they look pretty black to me. Have you ever seen a white mummie? Neither have I. If they ain't white, they must be black. No shit about it. Plus, since the Egyptians are so old, their DNAs are reverted back to primal state, which is black, no matter if they are white now. By this reasoning, they are black thousands of years ago, so this proves the argument that Egyptians who built the pyramids were blacks. No shit about thjis power

"... the Egyptians are so old, their DNA reverted back to primal state...." What on earth does that mean? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. That's got to be one of the silliest, most nonsensical things I've ever read on this website -- and that's goin' some. Further, repeatedly inserting "No shit about this" in the article is idiotic and just plain vandalism. deeceevoice 02:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just tired of people claiming that ancient Egyptians were whites, and I want to say that they were in fact, blacks like coal tar. Sorry if I used no shit about it, I just hate it when white establishment putting us down. Blackpower 03:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

There is a discussion of the distinction between "Afrocentricity" and "Afrocentrism" in Maulana Karenga's "Introduction to Black Studies" (2002) that should clear up the confusion about what is meant between the two concepts.

Naming stuff

All stuff about Afrocentrism being right or wrong or whatever aside, maybe it would be best to cut it up between Afrocentrism, and Afrocentric (ist?) Egyptology? Which could include black-Egyptian stuff? Or perhaps just shove it all into Egyptology and have a section on Egyptian racial issues? --Edward Wakelin 00:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Akhenaten

Not "Akhenaton".

(Petrograd 22:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC))

Miscegnated

This is not just a question of terminology, it is the whole concept which many would now object to. The term "highly miscegnated" occurs at 2 points slightly earlier. What alternative term would anyone suggest? PatGallacher 09:32, 2005 September 9 (UTC)

I wrote the passage(s?), so I obviously have no problem with the term. You do. What would you suggest? deeceevoice 10:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

And I have removed the passage AGAIN, because it is a commentary on the use of a particular word -- and not of the content itself. Such discussions belong here -- and NOT in the body of an article. "Miscegenation" is a perfectly valid word and does not mean a corruption of "racial purity."

miscegenation: a mixture of races; especially : marriage or cohabitation between a white person and a member of another race; - mis·ce·ge·na·tion·al /-shn&l, -sh&-n&l/ adjective

Matters of race and ethnicity are treated regularly on Wikipedia. Regardless of whether or not the notion of race has scientific validity, it exists as a social and political construct. deeceevoice 10:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I quote the Wikipedia entry on miscegnation:-

"Miscegenation is a pejorative describing sexual/romantic relations, intermarriage, and/or the production of offspring between members of different races (sometimes religion). As such it necessarily involves controversial assumptions about race and sexuality."

Also, do we know that the racial composition of the Egyptian population has changed all that much over the centuries? Maybe the Ancient Egyptians would have looked a bit like Arabs.

I will consider how to deal with these issues, I would prefer not to get into a revert war. I have decided to raise an NPOV flag for the time being. PatGallacher 13:50, 2005 September 9 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't authoritative -- far from it. And I've consulted numerous references, and there is absolutely nothing in any of them which identifies the word as a pejorative. Not in Merriam-Webster, not in American Heritage, not in Encarta. Yes, the word often has been used by racists, but so, too, do racists, presumably use words like "ignorant," "presumptuous," and "idiot." But that doesn't necessarily make them pejorative, now, does it? The POV tag is removed -- unless you can point to an authoritative source that identifies the word -- which you seem sufficiently unfamiliar with that you've misspelled it repeatedly -- as inherently pejorative. I am an African American and a student of the history of my people. I am thoroughly familiar with the word and am not at all aware that the word is considered inherently pejorative. You have voiced the objection. You have been invited to change the word to something more to your liking, yet you've refused. From where I sit, you have absolutely no cause to place a POV tag on something which some people may erroneously believe to be pejorative. It's gone. Change the word to something of your liking -- or stop bellyaching. Far too many people have worked very hard on this article for you to slap a POV tag on it on so flimsy a pretense and on such a wrongheaded assumption. deeceevoice 16:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, it is generally and widely accepted by authorities of all stripes that skin tone of the general Egyptian population has lightened and darkened over time due to miscegenation and historical events. Only the degree to which that is the case from one dynastic period to the next is in question. About ancient Egyptians looking like Arabs? Not even remotely likely. See the information regarding the Book of Gates. The Arabs are the "Namu," the "people who travel the sands." They didn't arrive in Egypt in significant numbers until almost 4,000 years after the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt. deeceevoice 16:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I can only answer some of these questions briefly, I may respond in some detail later:-

1. Yes, I did misspell it, maybe that's because the word has fallen out of favour these days, as a result of e.g. the struggle of Afro-Americans, that people are not familiar with the correct spelling.

2. English words beginning in mis- generally do have negative connotations e.g. misleadership, mismanagement.

3. It's not just the word, it's the underlying concept, that on the eve of civilization there were "pure" races, which have since become mixed, and where they have this is a bad thing, rejecting the idea that racial diversity without clear divisions has been with us since the year dot.

4. "Generally and widely accepted by authorities of all stripes" can you give us chapter and verse on that, not just that this might have been accepted by some authorities.

5. I am aware that the Arabs only conquered Egypt in the 7th century BCE, but this could be collapsing racial and linguistic issues together. Most Afro-Americans speak English, it does not mean they are of white European ancestry.

6. I feel that this section should be substantially rewritten, I have offered a form of words which would deal with some immediate problems.

7. I continue to detect an attempt to impose an American paradigm on the Old World (i.e. sharp division between blacks and whites) and a streak of racism towards the modern Egyptians. PatGallacher 21:35, 2005 September 9 (UTC)

Your points 2 and 3 are ludicrous on their face. Please, spare me your ill-informed etymological attempts at an explanation of the term. The root of the word is the Latin "misc," which means to mix -- as in "miscellaneous" and "miscellany." Further, words in the English language which are pejorative, as you have charged, have explicit notes to this effect which accompany their definitions in the English-language dictionaries. I have been unable to find a single such reference that labels "miscegenation" as pejorative. And unless you can produce an authoritative source that says as much, your "argument" is specious and exceedingly flimsy. It just won't fly.

That you would even question the commonly, virtually universally accepted notion that the color and ethnic mix of Egypt changed over time is ludicrous. Even white supremacists who swear that ancient dynastic Egypt was a Caucasian/white civilzation at its inception will admit to that.

Your "detection" of a "streak of racism towards the modern Egyptians" is about as on-target/accurate as your grasp of etymology. Furthermore, as I pointed out in an earlier edit note, "racism" relates to bias against "racial" or ethnic groups -- not nations. deeceevoice 21:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

It appears to me to be bad practice to remove NPOV flags without giving people reasonable time to resolve or address these issues, I will reply in more detail later, but I will ask for this page to be protected. PatGallacher 07:50, 2005 September 10 (UTC)

I quote the Wikipedia article on Racial purity:-"Miscegenation is a term for people of different human races producing offspring; it is used almost exclusively by those who believe such "race mixing" is inherently bad." PatGallacher 08:09, 2005 September 10 (UTC)

The article is incorrect if it characterizes the word as pejorative. I and others use the term because it is convenient shorthand for "people of different ethnicities/'races' screwing and producing offspring." People used to use the word "intermarriage"; however, that is completely inaccurate, because it implies, most importantly, a consensual pairing and also a legal one, when, particularly in an American, black-white context, such a thing most frequently occurred as the result of rape and nowadays, even when obviously consensual, continues to occur absent a husband-wife relationship. Like I said, got a better word? Feel free to use it. deeceevoice 09:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an authoritative source and cannot be used to verify its own information

You're like a dog chasing its tail. Again, Wikipedia is not authoritative. The information (or dis/misinformation) it provides can be edited by any ignorant hack or crackpot with a computer and an ISP. Wikipedia is not to be used to verify its own information. I have checked authoritative sources. Again, there is absolutely no mention of "miscegenation" being inherently pejorative, and it has no relation to the words you cited: "misleadership" (if that even is a word; if it is, it's an ugly/clumsy one) or "mismanagement." Check your dictionary. "Misc" refers to mixture; "gen" to "gen" to "people." It's a mixing of different peoples. Your entire argument is completely groundless and utterly without merit.

IMO, no reasonable administrator would protect this page or honor the POV label. Far too many editors have parsed and negotiated and reconsidered and researched to make this article as accurate and objective as possible for you to slap a POV tag on it behind some crap that easily could be cleared up if you would just crack a dictionary. deeceevoice 08:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

No, I think Wikipedia is authoratative, depending on your perspective. If you want to verify any information, go read a book regarding Afrocentrism, or do google search. blackpower

Distorted picture

deeceevoice, if you're going to revert my changes, plese say something in the talk page or at least in your comments as to why. Jim Apple 11:00, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

With regard to claims of possible image "distortion," I draw your attention to the fact that the photo is provided as an example of Tut's facial features -- not his ears, or anything else peripheral to the face. (I've changed the caption -- which I thought I had already done -- to conform with that in Tutankhamun.) Note that the same characteristics of the nose and mouth of the mask, as well as the prominent alveolar prognathism, are also visible here[18] and [19], as well as in numerous other photos -- including the one you provided. Quite clearly, they are not all extremely close-angle shots. It can be argued that the secondary image of the mask you have provided in juxtaposition to the National Geographic shot doesn't look anything like the images of the mask on these pages, either. Again, it's all about lighting. Any experienced photographer knows that the brighter the light, the flatter the image. If you really want to see the contours of an object, then you use a filtered or dimmer light source. These potographs show the actual contours of the mask much more accurately -- as, again, does the photo you took the time to find and, which, incidentally, I prefer because it shows the buzzard/cobra crown and is simply a more beautiful, very moving photograph. Further, it also does not have the Freeman Institute copyright information superimposed on it, which makes for a "cleaner" image. It cannot be charged that the "wallpaper" shots are on the website of a "radical Afrocentrist cult," either. (Freeman is a Jewish professor specializing in cultural diversity training.) Further, here's a link to a photo of the mask on the Discovery Channel website.[20] The image looks very black African -- and not at all like the image you inserted. Note that the ears are not flattened, and the lighting is such that the contours of the mask are clearly visible. I'm really not very familiar w/Wikipedia image use policy, but if there is some way this image could be inserted in place of the Freeman Institute image under "fair use," then I would be amenable to that -- this one or your really cool, dramatic pic.deeceevoice 11:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Fuck, I think King Tut don't represent the true Africans. I think we should put up picture of Michael Jordan or OJ Simpson or Michael Jackson. I think all three pictures should be placed side by side to show diversity of skin color.

NPOV

Ludicrous? Moi? I have restored the NPOV flag for various reasons, among them:-

1. Wikipedia should not be treated as an authoritative source? This is highly POV, and will come as a surprise to many Wikipedians. I cautiously suggest that Deeceevoice should raise this on the relevant pages.

2. Deeceevoice quoting white supremacists to back his case is quite a good example of the problems here. A POV which they may share is still a POV. That is like saying that because Hitler and Stalin did not agree on very much, but they did agree in 1939 that Poland should not be an independent country, therefore they must have been right.

3. The idea that we can automatically assume that the racial composition of the Egyptian population has changed substantially over the centuries is not one which I found in a couple of books on Egyptology I had a look at earlier today, not one I have come across much before, and not found in the Wikipedia articles on History of Ancient Egypt, Egyptology, or Unsolved problems in Egyptology, so this is definitely POV.

4. The Oxford English Dictionary may not say in so many words that miscegenation is pejorative, but most of the quotes have negative or problematic connotations.

5. A word may be etymologically unobjectionable, but it may still acquire negative connotations, e.g. the "n-word" ultimately derives from the Latin for "black". PatGallacher 21:24, 2005 September 10 (UTC)

No. Few people would be surprised that Wikipedia is not to be treated as an authority. A case in point. I can log on to Wikipedia any day of the week and click on any number of articles pertaining to my own people and read things like, "The only good nigger is a dead nigger," "All niggers should be slaves," or, "Nigger is any black person who can't speak English nor pay the electric bill and cares more about having expensive clothing than the necesities of life." My first encounter with Wikipedia which caused me to become involved in this project was some ridiculous contention that the slaves used to call their white, rapist fathers "motherfucker" instead of "daddy." Anyone who treats any open-content website like Wikipedia as an authoritative source, which anyone can edit at any time and say anything ought to have his or head examined.

You're merely being obtuse. Your characterization of "miscegenation" as pejorative doesn't hold water. Virtually any dictionary will include, along with a proper definition, the informaton that "nigger" is pejorative. The same cannot be said of miscegenation, which essentially means "race mixing." Why? Because it isn't inherently pejorative. You have absolutely nothing to lend credence to your claims.

By way of illiustration, this from an online article on the Houghton-Mifflin website, "Reader's Companion to Women's History: Miscegenation":

"The word 'miscegenation' was invented during the 1864 presidential campaign (from the Latin miscere, "to mix," and genus, race) when Democrats claimed that Lincoln's Republican Party advocated sex and marriage across the color line. Like 'mulatto,' probably derived from the concept of mules and hybridity, 'miscegenation' was pejorative in its historical context.'

As I said, racists have used the word.

However, at the end of the article, Houghton-Mifflin uses the word outside the historical context of racism to mean, essentially "people of different races screwing and producing offspring" in a neutral fashion:

"The ongoing legacies of the legal and social history of miscegenation are apparent in issues ranging from the influence of racist ideology in sex crimes or alleged sex crimes, to ambivalence or antagonism on the part of both white and Black communities toward marriages and relationships across the color line."

Another online article in "Christianity Today" is titled "Books & Culture Corner: In Praise of Miscegenation. Racial categories don't mean what they used to. Hallelujah." And at slate.com: "Miscegenation -- an official trend: The Atlanta Journal Constitution has a seemingly important taboo-busting story on the increase in black women dating white men. The evidence of this trend is not only anecdotal -- AJC's John Blake says."

Simply because you and others may be unfamiliar with the use of the word outside of its racist context does not mean it is not used frequently and without negative connotations by others. Time for a reality check. Drop it. deeceevoice 23:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

My POV objections are by no means confined to this one term. If some of the quotes above ever did appear on Wikipedia then I would assume they were removed pretty quickly, it would be a bit of an insult to Afro-American Wikipedians to suggest that they were not. This may raise some questions about the whole Wikipedia project. I am aware that Wikipedia articles are not always reliable. However if Deeceevoice (or anybody else) objects to the content of the miscegenation article (or any other article) then this should be raised under that article not here. Until then, any challenge to the content of that article must, at the very least, be regarded as POV. PatGallacher 09:24, 2005 September 11 (UTC)

There is all kinds of misinformation on Wikipedia. I just made a change to the cultural appropriation exhibited in Janis Joplin, but if someone had visited that article before I did so and taken it as authoritative, they would have been misled. Again, any hack with a computer and an ISP can edit here. That fact in and of itself should be enough to give any sensible person pause about the reliability of information on this website. If you've spent any time as an editor, you must know that. Further, you must be aware that vandalism is not always detected immediately. And certainly the same can be said for erroneous information. No one in any kind of position of authority on Wikipedia would ever suggest that it is an authoritative source. And, no. You've challenged this article's NPOV status on the basis of my use of the word miscegenation, so it was wholly appropriate for the matter to be discussed here -- as we both have been discussing it. It was you, in fact, who brought the flawed article into this dicussion in the first place. It is quite clear you were in error with regard to the purported inherently pejorative nature of the term. And, yes, I already have deleted the erroneous information in miscegenation. And, no. A challenge to content is of an article is not POV if it is supported by authoritative sources. And, clearly -- as herein demonstrated by documentation -- the content of that article was certainly incorrect. I only skimmed it -- but from what I saw, the article actually did NOT say the term was inherently pejorative. It seems you were incorrect about that, too. deeceevoice 11:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

"Any hack with a computer and an ISP can edit here." Indeed. As Wikipedia is supposed to be a single encyclopedia, not a collection of stand-alone articles, I suggest it would be sensible for any challenges to the content of the Miscegenation article to be dealt with there, not here. By the way, if people are concerned about Afro-American issues, what do they think of the article on The Confessions of Nat Turner? PatGallacher 18:21, 2005 September 11 (UTC)

About changes to miscegenation: as I said, I've already been there, done that. deeceevoice 20:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I've had another look at miscegenation and I still don't see any recent relevant changes by deeceevoice or anybody else. The most recent change was 8 September and not relevant to these issues. PatGallacher 22:06, 2005 September 12 (UTC)

Are you blind? Take another look. My first changes were minimal, but substantive. I removed the language that identified the word as a pejorative. After your post, which I'm just reading, I later returned and did some further editing of the first few paragraphs -- but haven't bothered to read the entire article. I see that at least one other person raised the issue before me of the fact that the term is not inherently pejorative. deeceevoice 01:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Highly POV article

The NPOV tag is not only necessary for the reasons in the section immediately above but because the article completely is written in an attempt to advance the viewpoints of Afrocentrists at the cost of ignoring facts, expert oppinion and so forth. The "close up" Tut photo is extremely misleading, the claims about racial charactersitics of Egyptians are mostly nonsense, there is no list of objections to Afrocentrism, nor list of false claims they make (like Cleopatra mentioned above), nor the highly important mention that mainstream experts in all the various areas reject the views of Afrocentrists as being advanced by social identity concerns over using facts. This is one messed up article. DreamGuy 03:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to be overly opinionated

...but, I have just peeked around a bit and I have seen that an editor (i.e. Deeceevoice) has been confronted by other WikiEditors not appreciative of her work. I personally think the article addressed very significant topics, and would be better if people would let DC finish the damn thing before all this crisis builds up. Yeah, I back deeceevoice on this one. Molotov (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I concur, SqueakBox 19:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

What utter rubbish. Deecee is not the owner of this article. It makes no sense to talk about her "finishing" it. She has no more right of to claim it than anyone else does. If you bother to check through the archives you will see how deecee has bullied and verbally abused other editors from her very first appearence here. Paul B 22:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the topic is important, but that does not absolve ourselves of responsibility to make sure it is handled in a way that follows NPOV policy, and this article is not even close. "Finishing the damn thing" is not a criteria for allowing blatantly highly opinionated side-taking in an encyclopedia. Lots of editors are "not appreciative of her work" because it doesn't add any encyclopedic content but only is being used to advance an editorial view that the author holds, supporting this viewpoint and ignoring the large amount of criticism. This article is just the same as if a member of Scientology took over that article, claimed it was correct and uncontroversial and then did not allow a more accurate and fair (i.e. encyclopedic) overview of the topic. Deeceevoice has a clear agenda here, with edit comments here and elsewhere clearly indicating that she is a true believer that Egyptians were black and etc. This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. DreamGuy 21:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

DreamGuy, please assume good faith,SqueakBox 00:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Assuming good faith does not mean that when you see an editor post comments specifically indicating in no uncertain terms that he/she is adding certain things to articles to advance a clear agenda (in this case, that Ancient Egyptians were black, etc.) that you can just ignore it. A large number of editors have noted deeceevoice's bias here and especially on Ancient Egypt and Tutankhamun, while this article is a pure distillation of all the POV pushing he/she was trying to get away with there. If you would bother to go look at these conversations you would see this. I get that feeling that you and Molotov just showed up because you two have a history of false complaints against me. It's a shame that your bias would get in the way of looking clearly at what's going on here. Take a good hard look at the comments above, Talk:Ancient Egypt and Talk:Tutankhamun and then try to say what you are saying. Assuming good faith does not mean turning a blind eye to clear violations of NPOV policy, and frankly your comment is a llittle bizarre. Maybe you should assume good faith about my comments here. DreamGuy 04:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Thinking I am here because of you is both arrogant conceit and shows bad faith. I have had this article on my watchlistr for 5 months, and I have hardly been stalking you all over wikipedia, SqueakBox 04:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

BTW I have never made a false complaint against you, SqueakBox 05:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Therein lies the misconception that deecevoice carries with her with all the articles she "writes." That she has to "finish" them and other people are "getting in her way."

Wikipedia is a group effort. She doesn't want it to be. She wants the group effort to be minions sweeping up after her.

Trying to contribute to an article in and of itself is not a bad thing. Dancing all over the place with words because you're afrocentric is another.

Lockeownzj00 09:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Just because you say I operate in a particular manner, Lockjaws, does not make it so. If you didn't have such a bug up your azz about the truth and were not such a relative newcomer to this article, you would know that I have worked with contributors with differing viewpoints and even edited/clarified/improved portions of this piece that specifically address positions at odds with what I know to be the truth. It's called balance. Why don't you stop b*tching like some petulant child and behave like an adult? This is not about me. I have no power here. I am not an administrator. I am not a sysop -- or any of the other people with special positions or privileges on this website. I am simply an editor. And this piece is no different from any other article on Wikipedia. So, stop farting in the wind and come up off it. State precisely what your objections are to the article, and on what grounds you base them -- or shut the f*** up and move on. Your "afrocentrist" mantra is beyond tiresome. And you're beyond boring. As I repeatedly have done with other articles, I will attempt to address your specific concerns. I'm really busy at the moment, so if and when you come up with something substantive, don't expect an immediate reply. But this is an open invitation -- since you seem to think you need one.

So, shut up, bwoi, or come own widdit. Jes' brang it, dammit. deeceevoice 10:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

This whole argument is pointless. If DreamGuy or Lock have a problem with the article they should (and freely can) edit it. This vague criticisms of alleged behaviour by one editor is thoroughly unpleasant and does not in any way contribute to bettering the article. The way these 2 non contributing editors have framed their arguments is little short of trolling. Breaking POV policy (if occurred) is not an excuse to launch an attack on another editor. DreamGuy seems to imply we must attack anyone who violates said NPOV policy, though I would like to see where that is policy, SqueakBox 16:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

No, that's not what I am saying at all. I am saying that this article is horribly biased and needs a thorough looking at, one that I do not have the time to adequately do. I was putting my support behind those editors who said that the article is extremely messed up. It's unfortunate that we have editors falsely trying to depict this as an effort against a person as compared to an effort against bad articles. In fact I think your actions here would far more accurately be described as trolling as the other comments, as you jumped in to protect some editor without knowing the facts and ignoring a very real problem with the article just because you have a personal problem with me. DreamGuy 17:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I have been following this article for 5 months. Your assertions are ridiculous, so let me state it clearly; my being here has nothing to do with our spat over the Girlvinyl Rfc. Please don't keep insinuating the rubbish that my being here has anything to do with that. To claim I am trolling for trying to protect an editor from unnecessary personal attacks is ridiculous. This has nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of the article and everything to do with not tolerating vague personal attacks against an experienced and good faith editor who has suffered racial abuse on this talk page in the past (why I put it on my watchlist). Stop thinking wikipedia or my contributions to it revolve around you, and do so now, SqueakBox 18:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

SqueakBox, I have been involved with this article for a long time (actually I created it in the first place, not that that means anything), but the emotional stress of trying to engage productively with Deecee given her ultra-aggressive manner and unrelenting POV has made every single editor who has attempted to involve themselves in the article withdraw. Racial abuse has been her stock in trade from the beginning. Check it. If you can find any contributors who have been as offensive as her in comments on this page, please feel free to find them. Paul B 22:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The tags were absurd in the first place -- and I've simply removed them. This article has remained virtually completely unchanged since the so-called "clean-up" tag was affixed to it a month ago. Why? Because the article is a quality one. It was sour grapes, to begin with -- as was w/Pat Gallagher's POV tag. And a glance at the talk page of Afrocentricity reveals substantial sentiment that the two articles should remain separate. There's been absolutely no credible challenge to any of the substantive information presented therein. Why? Because it's dead-on accurate. Poof. They're gone. deeceevoice 21:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Just more deeceevoice disinfoming POV. Any MINOR change is reverted by deeceevoice almost immediately. Who would come in here and rewrite this things just to have it wiped out...over...and...over...again. Case in point, the fish-eye/macro lens King Tut Death mask. I hate to get into finger pointing, but deeceevoice was informed *numerous* times that it was not only POV (photographed to accentuate lips and nose and various proganthisms), but that it was copyrighted and therefore not allowed on wikipedia. Yet, deeceevoice continued to willfully post it, again, and again, and again, on more than one article, with repeated justifications that had already been proven illegitimate. So please, spare us the self righteousness. This is POV-pushing by perhaps the most prolific POV-pusher on wiki and is appropriately labeled. --155.91.19.73 01:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Nothing but excuses

I offered other images of Tut for comparison which showed precisely the same features of the now absent Freeman Institute image and, later, the image offered by another editor, but ultimately accepted the image which now appears in the article. It is, after all, still clearly that of a blackman. :p And who made the change? Check the edit history, jerk. I did. And still no substantive changes to the article? Just some foolish attempts to change "pale" to "medium-tone," when, clearly, if the range of skin tones of indigenes for the region is from blue-black to dark brown to red-brown, brown and then to, possibly, tan and dark olive-toned (if they're mixed with outsiders), "medium-tone" would be -- and I'm being extremely generous here at least tan. Your remark in an edit note was precisely on point: this is the part of the "world where Charles Barkley is pale." And Charles Barkley is considerably darker than the pale Tut reconstruction. And guess what? I'm not the only one reverting such silly changes. Again, check the edit history.

For the last time: put up or shut up. Your infantile whining, your weak excuses, your groundless complaints and silly assertions are wasting our time. *x*deeceevoice 08:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Living in Honduras my perspective on skin tones has substantially changed from what it was living in White England. As we are an international encyclopedia dealing with an African issue we should keep the different perspectives of different communities in mind in our descriptions. We are not substantially writing for white Americans and Europeans, so I agree with Deecee on this point, SqueakBox 17:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The issue here is not whether the skin tone is 'middle' in some absolute sense in terms of world populations, but the fact that the creators of the image chose a "mid tone" in terms of the Egyptian population, as determined by experts in the field. You are not such an expert. Neither am I. Neither is Deeceevoice. Instead of trying to disprove the decision of the experts we should present the conclusions of those who are best qualified to judge what is a mid-tone in this context. If other experts disagree, we should report on that fact too. Paul B 22:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in to this argument, but I have been looking at the articles of king tut and still don't see how any picture of tut's death mask helps the people who complain about deeceevoice. It still looks like a black guy and people who say the Afrocentrism article is wrong than put what you think is right. The problem is that you can't refute truth and deeceevoice only speaks the truth otherwise people who think ancient egyptians were white would of refuted her long ago. You need to stop being a baby dream guy. You say what she put in the article is wrong than put something that is right. I have watched from the sidelines of people attacking deeceevoice from the king tut article to afrocentrism article and I realize that people who speak truth that people don't like to hear will be targeted by people like dream guy who are to stuck in what they believe to see the truth. Wikipedia needs more people like deeceevoice who puts nothing but truth forward. I see now the tags on afrocentrism have been removed and not any changes have been made except to put up a diffrent King Tut picture. Why complain so much about the article and then only change the picture, it seems that since you can't change what the article says people will grasp at anything just to feel good about themselves and complain about the picture. Just so people know any picture of the death mask looks like a black guy so if the people who think ancient egyptians were white feel more comfortable with that picture good for you, but it still looks like a black guy. When is people going to realize that you cannot argue the ancient egyptians were white using the 18th dynatsies as proof. Everything about this dynasty is black. The whole argument against deeceevoice is that she is pushing an agenda, well if pushing truth is wrong than I don't know what to say. Like I said before their is more evidence pointing to a black egypt than to a white egypt.

Flags

Flags like NPOV or Cleanup should not be lightly removed, I would remind all parties of the 3-revert rule, I may apply for this page to be protected. See comments from a while back for explanation of Cleanup flag. I will go into this in more detail later. PatGallacher 21:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you go into detail now about the clean-up tag. I can see no reason to include, and whereas there clearly is a dispute going the article is not clearly in need of a cleanup. In the midst of an edit war it seems somewhat provocative to place it there, SqueakBox 21:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

You've tried with the clean-up flag, and it was removed. The flag was there for weeks, and no substantive changes to the article occurred -- because it doesn't need "cleaning up." The NPOV tag is equally groundless. Absolutely no one has come up with any substantive challenge to the fact presented therein. No one. You wanna call in an impartial admin to take a look? Be my guest. But as far as page protection? Protection of WHAT? There's no edit war going on. Just some sour-grapes grumbling and a totally unsubstantiated NPOV tag -- -- which I, yes, have removed again. There should be a penalty for its gratuitous use. You can't in good faith slap a clean-up or an NPOV tag on something because someone is saying the world is round and you think it's flat and have absolutely nothing to back it up and will not cannot provide an argument to support your views. The whiners have been invited repeatedly to come to the table with other, hard information that refutes the information provided in this piece. And they've come up with nothing but more whining and ad hominem attacks. Again, put up or shut up. Don't abuse/trivialize the wiki process. *x* deeceevoice 22:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I just asked for protection to stop the endless reverts. It would give those who believe there is a genuine conflict to give details of their problems (disliking another editor is not enough) and those detailed objections can be answered, or if there are none the tag can be removed, SqueakBox 22:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately both DreamGuy and Deeceevoice are blocked over the 3RR. I have withdrawn my protection request. Please can we only put the NPOV flag on if we have substantial reasons for doing so, and express those reasons here on the talk page. I agre with Deecee that there don't appear to be any substantial debates about content going on that would justify an NPOV tag, SqueakBox 22:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

This article is anything but quality. It's full of factual errors which I have not involved myself in trying to correct because of the sheer hassle of trying to get anything past. It also gives a completely distorted view of Afrocentrism, since it is almost wholly obsessed by the Black Egyptian concept to the exclusion of discussion of anything else. These points have all been raised here. Paul B 22:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

To deal with the various issues here in what may be order of importance. I note that both Deeceevoice and DreamGuy have broken the 3RR within the past 24 hours. If either of them breaks it again then I will report this at the appropriate place and call for this article to be protected. As for the cleanup flag, it was me who placed this, as I did a few weeks ago. The reason was that in my view the biggest problem with this article is taking up a large amount of space raking over e.g. the details of Egyptian mummies is unbalancing what is overall a useful article. I suggest that we split this off into a seperate article "Controversy over race of Ancient Egyptians" or something like that. I realise that this is a fairly drastic step, which is why I did not want to take it without general agreement, although if this step is taken I would be prepared to remove the cleanup flag, I am open to persuasion about how we proceed. As for the NPOV flag, I don't like to see this flag being removed lightly, it seems to me that other Wikipedians have put forward reasons for this, but I will study this dispute more carefully. PatGallacher 00:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Just because you disagree with the structure of an article is not a reason to put a cleanup tag on it. That is a misuse of what a cleanup tag is for, SqueakBox 00:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

BTW Deecee is blocked and DreamGuy didn't break the 3RR rule. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:DreamGuy, SqueakBox 00:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Nubian wig

OK, I apologise for saying that Deecee made up the concept of the Nubian wig. It clearly is a term used to describe a common type of wig. However, I don't think it is correct to say that Tiye is depicted wearing one. As I already wrote - quite a while back - the brown colour that appears on the surface of the "hair" is in fact a glue that was used to keep a series of blue tiles on. In other words it is not a wig in a conventional sense, since it was intended to be a blue-coloured head-dress. Only a few of the tiles survive on the head-dress today, at the back. Paul B 22:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

If you google it, you'll find that particular bust of Tiye has been referred to on the Egypt tourism website as Tiye in a "Nubian wig." They wore great, big AFRO wigs. There are also paintings on walls of everyday Egyptians wearing afros. In fact, there was even a Discovery Channel documentary about three years ago in which the people portraying the ancient Egyptian royalty were wearing some huge ones. And they were absolutely dead on. Bet the viewers who believe the lies practically choked. :p deeceevoice 02:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

in response to current events

deecee, you are in repeated violations of wiki policies. statements like For the last time: put up or shut up. and characterizations as infantile do not belong here any more than your previous comments about asian genitalia. now i see you have violated the 3R policy. please follow wiki policies if you'd like to contribute. your statements above should close any debate about the civility of your behavior.

to an earlier anonymouse editor, i am not pushing the view that tut was white -- i don't really CARE what race some teenager 3000 years ago was. egyptians had amazing technology, art and engineering, and there's no question they weren't lily-white. sub-saharan africans, europeans, asians, and meso and south americans also had amazing cultures, and, have ALL contributed to each other and everyone here knows that (australians didn't really come up with much other than the boomerang and didgeridoo) beyond that, I haven't done enough research to be confident in saying that he was one color or another, or if it is even possible to come to a conclusion on his skin tone. this area of wiki is especially helpless in this regard. deecee pushes her pov to such an extent it is hard to sort through what facts there are. you seem pretty confident that tut was black (as in sudanese), but that's really just a point of view. The wiki process is to state all POVs within reason, not silence dissent. within reason could be argued, but the typical example of things that are *not* within reason are people that believe the earth is flat.

the points about the death mask -- and you'll have to read the history and discussions to see this, not the article as it stands -- are that 1) it was POV-pushing. A *distorted* photo was used to emphasize features. The original mask may look like a sudanese man, or not, but if using a fisheye lens makes the nose and lips become larger, etc. It's common sense that undistorted images should be used. No one denies this image was distorted, but deecee continued to advocate its use, claiming many other photos that exist are distortions. In the process, she smeared photographers she knows little about that were probably taking the best photographs they could. 2) the distorted photo was copyrighted. wikipedia does not allow copyrighted material, that is indisputable. the point of this is so wikipedia content can be used by all sorts of organizations, including for-profit and print-media, without complications involving copyrights. deecee claimed the author allowed it on wiki, and maybe he did, but he wanted to maintain copyrights to it. when informed, deecee continued to post the image several times. i believe the image was finally deleted for copyright reasons. 1) alone should be enough to make you reconsider your statement about deecee only pushing truth.

as to this article being clean -- heck no it isn't clean. its all about egypt, from the sphynx at the top to the complaints about national geographic. there's more to afrocentrism than that.

why is it just the mask photo that has been getting attention? to me it was just the most obviously POV-pushing thing on the page. i thought it would be a pretty straightforward change to make -- the picture was *copyrighted*, for jimbo's sake -- but even this simple changed required a substantial, no TREMENDOUS, effort. deecee's pugnaciousness makes improvements nearly impossible.

i hope this makes sense. objections to deecee are not based on claiming that tut was white, but that she is pushing her POV, not facts, and stomping on wiki policies in the progress. specifically, posting copyrighted images *repeatedly* and acting in an uncivil manner towards anyone who opposes that POV. i expect many editors -- outside a core afrocentrist team whose identities are not difficult to discern -- feel the same way

--71.112.11.220 06:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Bullshyt. My responses are in the context of endless whining, ad hominem attacks and utterly groundless accusations of POV this and POV that. People impugn my motives and engage in such behavior, and I'm supposed to play nice? Ha! In ya dreams.

Get off the personal tip and deal with the article. You got anything substantive to add or change? We're all still waiting. And waiting. So far, again, you got nuthin'. deeceevoice 00:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, deecee, please keep with the spirit of wikipedia. I don't believe that "you got nuthin" really applies here -- engaging in revert wars (recent 3R), attacking editors (numerous), racism (wareware exchange), use of profanity (above post), posting copyrighted images (copyrighted death mask), pov pushing (distorted death mask image) are all clearly out of bounds, whether this behavior is a response to an attack or not. I hope you can see the damage negative behaviour causes to wikipedia and encourage you to review the wikipedia policies. A lot of thought was gone into them. --155.91.19.73 01:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

"Racism"? The charge is ludicrous on its face. And as far as the Freeman Institute image, I assumed all that was required was that permission be obtained to use the image from the copyright holder -- which is clear from my comments on the image page. And, again, ultimately, WHO changed the image? I' did. Still rehashing old ground and still nothing about why the POV tag remains. Why? 'Cause you still got nothin'. I've stopped asking, because it's clear you've got absolutely nothing to back up your empty charges that the article is POV. :p deeceevoice 02:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

If you did not know of the copyright policy, I am glad you now understand. It is a good idea to read the wiki policies and engage in "good faith" discssion to prevent this sort of confusion. No one wants to be called a racist. I'll avoid the specifics to keep the tone down, but lets just say from some of your comments i don't get the feeling you are open to white and asian people as individuals. I apologize if this is a misunderstanding on my part. If, in the interest of avoiding these problems in the future, you'd like to know specifically which comments are offensive, we can take this offline. --71.112.11.220 15:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Not my experience of Deecee, SqueakBox 16:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The article is clean. It may not be how you like ity (there is an NPOPV trag) but to claim it needs cleaning up would mean it needed to conform to wiki layout, needed linkinhg properly, or something of the sort. If there is more to be added about Afrocentrism (and there may well be) that is a POV dispute, it is not a sign that the article needs a clean up tag, the only effect of wehich will be to asttract some poor editor who thinks the article needcds cleaning up, and will have to waste theior precious time until discovering that the cleanup notice is entirely bogus, SqueakBox 15:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Wiki formatting does not make a clean article. Organization and relevancy are equally important. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanup --71.112.11.220 15:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The "something of the sort" in this case is that a large amount of the article is taken up raking over the details of e.g. Ancient Egyptian mummies, which is unbalancing what is on the whole a useful article. For example, if the "History of Spain" article devoted an unduly large amount of space to the life of General Franco, I think most Wikipedians would accept that the best approach would be to give General Franco his own article. I propose to create a new article "Controversy over race of Ancient Egyptians" or something similar, and shift the bulk of the relevant material there. If this step is taken then I am prepared to remove the cleanup flag. I realise that this is a fairly drastic step to take, so I will not do so immediately, but leave a week or so for people to consider this. However if we get into a revert war then I will call for this page to be protected. I notice a number of people have recently broken the 3 revert rule, I will raise this if they do it again. PatGallacher 23:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I see the POV flag is back. Where is the bias? Where is the specific language that is in question, and what is the complaint? Let's hear it? Speak up! deeceevoice 00:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I put the NPOV flag back because I don't like to see people getting into revert wars removing and inserting these flags, there should be a presumption in favour of retaining flags until the issues have been resolved. However I will look into this further. I suspect Wells' findings may have undergone some mangling. However I realise I ought to look into this further, also Caucasoid and Negroid. PatGallacher 10:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

What issues? I repeatedly have asked for specific details about which passages are considered POV and for what reason. There's been no substantive response. And unless such information is forthcoming, the POV tag will be removed. Again. deeceevoice 13:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

POV appraisal of Spencer Wells

I have deleted the following passage, and an anonymous "editor" insists on inserting it.

"Wells was, at the least, mistaken in his understanding of human genetics. As DNA is replicated continuously, in living organisms there is no such thing as "old" DNA. That said, among mainstream scholars, there is a fairly broad consensus that humamity originated in Africa, though the details remain open to study. In any case, this biologicalism is not Afrocentrism's core thesis. It is, rather, that black Africans contributed much more to the culture of the world than is generally acknowledged."

This is an utterly wrong-headed and almost ridiculously literal interpretation of Wells' comments. By "oldest DNA," Wells is referring to the fact that the San bushmen are the oldest known intact human population of record. All humankind can be traced back to them via Y chromosomnal DNA analysis. Unless the anonymous poster can point to a geneticist or other authoritative source who has made such a wrong-headed appraisal of Wells' comments with regard to the San having the "oldest DNA on earth," this should be excised. It is, in a word, "absurd." Further, the thesis of Afrocentrism is already stated. It was long ago generally agreed -- and I myself concurred -- that the section on "Egypt and black identity" would be split from the main article. This commentary is gratuitous. deeceevoice 02:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

certainly, the DNA in question is not "old"er than DNA in any other person on the planet, its only as old as the person being genotyped. this should be removed on that basis until an accurate description is put there. the likely approach taken by wells was to survey mitochondrial DNA, which is inhertied only maternally. He probably found more diversity in the San bushmen than in others surveyed, though this is too scientific a description (perhaps an article describing the research and techniques is warranted or exists already(?)). To leave this there as is a disservice to wikipedia and afrocentrism. anyway, the research is beside the point. as far as i can tell from this article, afrocentrism is not about human evolution, it is about culture. in that respect, this is irreleant. the article could be changed to include evolution/prehistory as important to afrocentrists if that is the case. the "interestingly" moniker is just plain silly and notes about how the bushmen are different than other Afrian populations just confuses the matter further. --155.91.19.73 19:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism and an incitement to an edit war

An anonymous editor deleted the offending passage with the, IMO, rather presumptuous misinterpretation of Wells -- given that he's an acknowledged expert in the field of genetics and understands fully the very rudimentary point the poster was trying to make. However, the preceding paragraph was also excised -- which I have restored. If there is a question about the accompanying edit note regarding my restoration of the text, I invite discussion here. The same is true of my restoration of the quotations under the "worldview" subhead. deeceevoice 13:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

An anonymous editor repeatedly has changed the text under "A different world-view" (whatever that subhead is), deleting, wholesale, the block of quotes and fiddling with the wording. I have reverted this information with an edit note informing them that future reverts will be considered vandalism, because they have refused to offer any notation in their edit notes and have refused to explain the rationale for their edits on the discussion page. The changes are completely unjustified. And given that the user is also unregistered, my only conclusion is that this is someone intent on causing disruption and starting an edit war. deeceevoice 19:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The user should explain his actions, but those quotes do look a little dated to me. We're in the 21st century, one of those is from the 1700's. The state of archaeology, communications and publishing technology, and racial tolerance has improved dramatically since that time. Some note indicating that these were mainstream historians CENTURIES AGO seems called for. The need for afrocentrism is diminished if modern scholars are less likely to propound such views. There is a need to clean up any faulty research from the past, but that's far less sexy work to do.

By the way, whether they were even mainstream is questionable: Hume was a "radical", Toynbee has had little influence, and John Burgess isn't even famous enough to have a wikipedia page. Most info about him, seems, circularly, to be quotes in afrocentrist works! --155.91.19.73 19:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The quotes are presented as indicative of the mind-set of historians and "scholars" who have propounded the notion that blacks had no civilization worthy of note, no written language and made no contributions of value to world civilization. Such ideas were prevalent in academia and very much mainstream thought up to even the late 1950s, when I heard such swill in the classroom. There are plenty of people still around today who were schooled in such lies, which have helped shore up the foundation of ongoing anti-black bias/racism. As such, they are certainly worth mentioning. Further, Toynbee has considerable stature in lay and academic circles. Just a quick Google produced these lines from a review of, perhaps, his most well known work, A Study of History, which is still in print today:

Arnold Toynbee's A Study of History has been acknowledged as one of the greatest achievements of modern scholarship. A ten-volume analysis of the rise and fall of human civilizations, it is a work of breath-taking breadth and vision.... Originally published in 1947 and 1957, these two....

Further, he was not a "19th century historian," insofar as some of his most important work was not published until the 20th century, and is still in print and utilized as reference works today. The same can be said of noted political scientist John Burgess, who died in the 1930s, some of whose works were reprinted posthumously. And since when did having a page on Wikipedia become an indicator of one's significance/importance? That's absolutely ridiculous.

Here's a blurb on David Hume, who also cannot be so easily dismissed as some insignificant, "radical" hack:

Generally regarded as the most important philosopher ever to write in English, David Hume (1711-1776) -- the last of the great triumvirate of "British empiricists" -- was also noted as an historian and essayist. A master stylist in any genre, Hume's major philosophical works -- A Treatise of Human Nature (1739-1740), the Enquiries concerning Human Understanding (1748) and concerning the Principles of Morals (1751), as well as the posthumously published Dialogues concerning Natural Religion (1779) -- remain widely and deeply influential, despite their being denounced by many of his contemporaries as works of scepticism and atheism.

deeceevoice 22:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I still think something indicating these are long dead scholars belongs there, but we are free to disagree. As to your point of when they were published, I did not know that -- if you attatch dates to their quotes their significance would be magnified.

Based on your quote, I'd say Hume was not mainstream ("...being denounced by many of his contemporaries...").

Likewise, Toynbees article says right at the top: "...Toynbee articulated a general theory of history and civilization to which professional historians have objected. Toynbee's work has found little response in the discipline of comparative history that most occupied him....". No one has ever said he wasn't racist, and I don't believe that is why his quote was removed.

As for the third "scholar", spare us the remarks about it being ridiculous to use wikipedia as a measure of importance. You know well the scope of this project and how difficult it is to find an article about an influential individual that doesn't exist here, but which does exist in some other encyclopedia.

You're deluding yourself. It's been my experience that there are scads of significant people and important topics who/which do not have article entries on Wikipedia. A glance at the articles list will verify that fact. It amazes me that people actually think Wikipedia is some sort of metric of comprehensiveness or reliability in terms of the quality of information it provides. The demographics of the average Wiki member (heavily white, male -- and probably around 18-35/40) skew not only the subject matter, its content and treatment, as well. deeceevoice 09:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

If this racist stuff was taught in the 50's, noting that in the article would be worthwhile (though it would be hard to verify). A lot of the disagreements that erupt are probably based on different perceptions of the way history is presented. In the 90's the schools I attended went to great lengths to emphasize the contribution of various societies and individuals of various ethnicities. Setting the record straight on education in the 50s won't get people on TV the way that making radical claims about current scholars will, but it is important work nontheless.

The anonymous user should state his points here. It's common courtesy. But his edits are not wikipedia vandalism. If you'd take the time to read wiki policies to avoid confusion Wikipedia:Vandalism My guess is someone has stepped on his toes somewhere along the way and now he's here to return the favor. Calling legitimate (though unsupported) edits vandalism eventually sets people off. --155.91.19.73 23:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry deeceevoice, but labeling those edits uou object to as "vandalism" is a biased interpretation solely intended to support edits promoting your POV. The version you restored includes the extremely inappropriate phrase "Afrocentrists argue that the ignorance and blatant racism of such mainstream scholars and historians" -- I don't think it's possible to have a more overtly biased and NPOV-violating phrase, as it makes the article straight out claim that mainstream scholars are actually demonstrated to be racist and ignorant and that Afrocentrists are just commenting on it. This whole article is filled with such kinds of phrases, but that's certainly the most ridiculous one, and it's bizarre that you think you fan get away with it. You don;t seem to understand the concept of objectivity in the slightest. DreamGuy 20:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

My intent was to force an explanation of the changes. And while that entity did not do so, at least someone came forward with a rationale -- to which I've responded. The quotes are clearly racist. Further, Afrocentrist scholars are not the only academicians who find Toynbee racist. You gotta be kidding me. And, again, DreamGuy, stop making broad, sweeping generalizations. Unless you have a specific comment about a specific passage and can state why you object to it, button it. Your endless whining is beyond tiresome and contributes absolutely nothing of value. deeceevoice 22:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Controversy page started

Controversy_over_race_of_Ancient_Egyptians contains the section formerly on the Afrocentrism page.

A different world-view -- recent reverts

• I've removed the "radical" from the characterization of Hume, because it is entirely misleading. The sense in which Hume was considered radical had absolutely nothing to do with his racist views, which is the point of the quote's inclusion. Unfortunately, his racism was right on par with that of others of his time -- and afterwards. Indeed, there are those who tend to downplay Hume's so-called "radicalism" altogether. (See David Hume.) Further, in such a context, this characterization is gratuitous and misleading. Hume had considerable influence. Again, this from the Internet on Hume: "Generally regarded as the most important philosopher ever to write in English, David Hume (1711-1776) -- the last of the great triumvirate of "British empiricists" -- was also noted as an historian and essayist. The entirely appropriate and indisputable "noted" has been restored."

• The curiously wordy and very off-the-mark "who has had little influence" clause appended to the Toynbee reference has been removed. What follows is an excerpt from an editorial book review at amazon.com of Toybee's A Study of History, in which the racist text appears. This ten-volume magnum opus is still being hailed today as a great work with no mention whatsoever of Toynbee's racism. This does not sound like a work with "little influence."

Arnold Toynbee's ten-volume analysis of the rise and fall of civilizations, A Study of History, is acknowledged as one of the greatest achievements of modern scholarship. "Of all the books published so far in this century," Clifton Fadiman once said, "the one most assured of being read a hundred years from now is A Study of History." The Los Angeles Times called it "a veritable masterpiece of erudition and one of the most suggestive, stimulating and inspiring studies of this age."

In The Study, Toynbee revolutionized the writing of history. By encompassing virtually all civilizations--the Egyptian, the Sumeric, the Mayan, the Iranian, the Japanese, the Hellenic, and the West, to name only a few--within the scope of his monumental work, he achieved the first all-embracing synthesis of world history. Before Toynbee, world histories were histories of the West, and only specialists wrote Babylonian, Arabian, or Aztec history. But Toynbee's scheme includes all nations and, more remarkably, by his emphasis on general patterns--on the genesis, growth and breakdown of civilizations--he was able to give a shape to this incredibly diverse material, making it comprehendable to the general reader.

• John Burgess was active well into the 20th century, having died in the 1930s. Reverted to "20th century." I thought to put "19th and 20th century," but that's simply TMI and clutter. As with all three of the individuals cited, those wishing additional information can either consult Wikipedia or Google them.

• I deleted the appositional clause "Although the individuals quoted above were born in earlier centuries," because that much is obvious. I also removed "though rare in modern settings," because there are many who would argue that the underlying racist presumptions inherent in the conclusions reached by the three individuals quoted are still in evidence today. Further, it reads as though Afrocentrist scholars contend it is "rare in modern settings," and I'm not certain that's the case. I think many of them would argue the opposite -- hence, the need for new scholarship.

• Deleted the "claim they," because it is not necessary. The framers of this article long ago decided to treat the serious study of history and deal with Afrocentric scholarship -- not fringe hacks. A good deal of history has always been, and remains today, largely interpretive. While there are those in the mainstream who agree and disagree with certain conclusions of various Afrocentrist scholars, there is no question that rigorous research and study have gone into their work. While the war of ideas continues, the scholars listed in the article are highly respected historians and authors, widely published, widely read -- as well as hotly debated.

• Melanin Theory? "Afrocentric"? Totally wrong, totally irrelevant! deeceevoice 06:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

uncited additions

dear editors,

Arguments advancing the notion of racial similarities between a Nubian and a Dravidian, both classified as Negroid, Afrocentrists contend, are far more credible than those of beween, say, a Swede and a modern-day Turk, both classified as Caucasian. Traditional racial classifications, after all, are not based on genetics, but on phenotype

this is an uncited addition and seems like it may be "original research". I won't remove it, the editor that added it may have just forgotten to put a reference and it seems fairly believable, but there is a lot like this in the article and it is eventually going to be removed for lack of verifiability. your time would be better spent adding citations or cited material than adding even *more* uncited material.

please make sure you've read the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR ("no original research") http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

--155.91.28.231 02:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

This is bull. There are all sorts of anonymous contentions inserted to counter Afrocentrist notions, but then the Afrocentrist argument is expected to cite everything? (Note to self: http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/diop.html and http://www.stewartsynopsis.com/black_egyptians_are_the_original.htm) deeceevoice 19:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

deeceevoice, remember to "act in good faith". that means if someone says they believe something is original research, assume that they mean it as such, not that they have a political agenda. use of profanity and near-profanity is also frowned upon. -71.112.11.220 14:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Seeing as nobody here seems capable of reaching agreement on the content or nature of this article, and that emotions and opinions seem to be far more prevelant than actual facts, might i suggest people try the following: split the page into two parts- for and against the afrocentrist position, and give both equal space, like in a debate or a trial. Then the reader can look at all points of view and form their own opinion. This would probably be a good idea for other controversial topics and would prevent all the childlike a abuse and squabbling which seems to be taking up a lot of time and space and providing very little real insight or information. --Roger ramjet 01:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that it's a good idea, roger. The afrocentrism page won't have two parts, one that try to convince you that egyptians were black, another to convince you they were not, I don't think it's the encyclopedian mindstate. This article, is supposed to describe in a purely neutral way, afrocentrism. Apparently, people who wrote most of this article are unable of doing so without trying to convince us. It's so simple, we aren't trying to find out what color egyptians were, but what afrocentrism consists in, period. --SuperBleda 02:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

wiki guidelines recommend against splitting into pro and con sections. -71.112.11.220 14:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Black Jesus?

I thought a relatively important part of afrocentrism was that Jesus Christ was black (I have heard that from many american afrocentrists) but this article doesn't seem to talk about it. Indeed, it's pretty much all about egypt.

and then, this : "It is the examination and analysis of existing scholarship, as well as the study of the original historical record itself, grounded in scholarly inquiry and rigorous research."

Sounds too pro-afrocentrist, not encyclopedical. it's just an example.

And then, what's all the arguing in this talk page about? This article should just describe this ideology, without trying to convince anyone.Most of this article just looks like it's been written by an afrocentrist who wants to make me believe that egyptians are black. --SuperBleda 02:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The sentence you've reproduced here is simple fact. This article treats the approach taken by/perspective of Afrocentric scholars -- who deserve as much respect as those with another perspective. They are highly educated, trained and respected academicians and historians who do, indeed, approach their profession with seriousness of intent and using accepted and time-honored tools and practices of their profession. (Ask UNESCO.) It's time ignorant laypeople stopped treating them as though they were hacks.

With regard to the Jesus thing -- that's not a central subject of debate among Afrocentrists. The identity of a single person in history is in and of itself relatively unimportant. The debate over the racial identity of Tutankhamun is important because it is emblematic of the ethnic identity of an extremely powerful civilization.

In fact, this article has had input from a wide range of individuals -- and substantively only one, perhaps two, people who might be categorized as "afrocentrist." What you read is reflective of what has resulted from give and take and constant editing/negotiation. If you don't like it, that's a shame. A lot of people have worked very hard to produce a piece with substance. Still, of course, you're welcome -- as is anyone else -- to edit accordingly. Before/if you do, however, it might be useful to peruse the archived discussion. Debate has been spirited and interesting. It might help us avoid covering ground we've already tread. deeceevoice 09:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

the first statement is too pro-afrocentrist, you're right blenda. we need a neutral point of view and certainly many do not agree that afrocentrism is always grounded in what is typical of scholarly research.

as far as the ethnicity of black jesus it is definitely an afrocentrist claim (whether or not the previous editor agrees) and belongs on this page too. as with all of wikipedia, you should be "bold" and add this information! it works better than making comments on talk pages -71.112.11.220 14:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

well, i'd like to write somthing about Black Jesus in this page, but what could I say besides "Many afrocentrists believe that Jesus Christ and people from the bible were black" --SuperBleda 00:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Every serious endeavor has its fringe hacks. If you'll read the archived discussion, this ground has been covered before ad nauseam. Do you think you are the first contributors to raise such issues? Have you even bothered to review the discussion archive? Many people of different viewpoints have worked long and hard on this piece. It was decided long ago that this article would confine itself to the discipline of scholarly Afrocentrist historical study, period. It is in this context, of the article itself, that the statement is presented. Note the list of authors. Nearly all have Ph.D.s and are/were highly respected in their fields of inquiry. History is an interpretive enterprise. Well-educated, principled scholars can and have disagreed on many aspects of ancient history; such is the nature of the field. That does not mean that one (or more) of possibly many sides is, ipso facto suspect, unprofessional, or advanced by crackpots. There is no room here for comments on melanin theory, black supremacy, and all the other extraneous, completely unrelated garbage which others have sought to interject. deeceevoice 14:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

times change, deeceevoice. articles are not static. "was jesus black" gets numerous hits on google and a comment on it here would be an improvement, even if only to state that academic afrocentrists don't think so but hack pop afrocentrists do. if this article were truly scholarly i don't think we'd have seen the fork of afrocentricity. kspence describes his reason for departure above. the archives are extensive and i found little about jesus there, what is there is that from the very inception of the article *numerous* editors have implored you to follow wiki policies. as far as i can tell, most of the other editors have departed due to dissatisfaction with the tone of the discussion on this article. Every serious endeavor has its fringe hacks indeed. -71.112.11.220 17:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I still disagree. The argument over whether Jesus was black or not is not one under serious consideration in Afrocentric circles, and it has no implications beyond the fact that most Afrocentrist scholars -- indeed, most serious scholars of history -- readily admit that the man known as Jesus was not blue-eyed and blond, as many Western religious icons portray him. In fact, the mainstream media, actually, seems more concerned with it than Afrocentrist scholars. It is not central to the Afrocentrist paradigm. And, no. I wasn't referring to the suggestion that we include Jesus in the article when I referred the person to the archives, but to the fact that the article treats "mainstream," academic Afrocentrism -- and not any of the various and sundry issues that certain people, in their ignorance, or out of sheer contentiousness, try to associate with it.

Further, with regard to following wiki policies, I certainly have adhered to wiki policy far more faithfully than have many of the contributors to this piece -- including yourself -- who've engaged in ad hominem attacks, rather than argue their positions. Particularly near the end, there were a relative handful who carped and whined constantly about my presumed Afrocentrist bias -- but when asked repeatedly for substantive contributions or specific criticisms they offered none. All they could do was complain, but brought nothing of substance to the table. I've held my tongue for the most part and refrained from making personal attacks -- a practice which I see you've already begun. I've done no more than advance the viewpoints of respected Afrocentrist scholars in an article on the subject, providing numerous citations and authoritative sources, and worked with other writers of differing viewpoints to help craft an article of quality. "Fringe hacks"? Reads like another cheap ad hominem attack. And you presume to lecture me about wiki policy? Tsk. Tsk. Hardly one to lecture -- are you, now? By your snide insinuation, you now have put yourself in the position of having absolutely no credibility at all in that regard. You've merely joined the whining, sniping pack. *x* deeceevoice 18:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

deeceevoice, please assume good faith and do not engage in personal attacks, as is wiki policy. you seem to be accusing many of the editors here of being a "sniping pack" and in attacking you. there is no conspiracy here to attack you. a simple, valid, question about black jesus was raised. i went on a wild goosechase through many pages of archives, many of which involved deeceevoice conflicts, and did not cover black jesus. not including black jesus is a real violation of NPOV. afrocentrism definitely involves black jesus, whether some inappropriate agreement (which i did not notice in my goosechase) was made months ago to keep black jesus out or not

if you havne't noticed, this article is in shambles. its a shame to wikipedia and afrocentrism. and those other editors that worked so hard at it? where are y'all?.....(sound of wind rustling through the leaves)...... 71.112.11.220 02:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

"The argument over whether Jesus was black or not is not one under serious consideration in Afrocentric circles"

lol, you sound as an authority about what's being said in serious afrocentric circles you are (right?) a part of. Just to take an example, have you ever heard of KRS-One's song "Why Is That?"? It kind of demonstrates how all the people in the Bible was black, I mean, I don't support the idea that Jesus Christ and people in the Bible were black (since i'm a mythist atheist, I don't believe Jesus existed and consider it all mythology), but, that's something quite serious, and alot of people believe in it, and as KRS-One, have relatively serious arguments in favor of their theory. So yeah, it has it's place in this article, and I also heard that it was believed by afrocentrists that Paris was founded by (black) africans, but I don't know if it's really an issue. Because right now, this whole article looks like afrocentrism is ALL about the "race" of ancient egyptians, and i hope you will agree that it's not ALL about that? I mean, it sounds like you don't want to see something about Black Jesus in this article because you don't PERSONALLY believe that jesus was black, but so many people believe in it, it MUST be included, that's only objectiveness --SuperBleda 00:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Too late. You can't erase what you wrote. I addressed the issue of Jesus separately from your snide comment. They are not one and the same. And you ask me to refrain from personal attacks? Clearly, I am not the one in need of a crash course on wiki etiquette here. Only when your house is in order, can you credibly presume to instruct others in comportment. Right now, you have none.

Again, the issue of whether or not Jesus was black is not germane to an article on Afrocentrism. You can call my position whatever you wish, but the fact is the entire issue is certainly off-the-mark. You say the article is in "shambles" and a "shame"? You're entitled to your opinion. And you're of course entitled to improve it as you see fit. I welcome good writing and good scholarship. However, inclusion of the black Jesus debate will be resisted -- for the reasons I've already stated -- and there are others who certainly will support my position. deeceevoice 08:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

"inclusion of the Black Jesus debate will be resisted" damn, as I said before, there is no resisting to do, alot, if not the majority of christian afrocentrists believe that Jesus was black, pretty much all of the afrocentrists i've talked to, afrocentrist rappers/singers (for example KRS-One or 2Pac, and presumably Nas), and even that dead guy who used to manage www.templeofblackjesus.com, damn that site was fun --SuperBleda 00:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Tired of the dispute and critical flags

I am tired of articles describing Black points of view, (which are not written by white contributors favoring a white point of view) being flagged with all of the low-quality flags (flagged for neutrality, flagged for low quality).

Here is something that the white wikipedians putting these flags need to understand:

discrimination in our society affects how black kids are educated and that causes the racial-economic gap in our communitites low self esteem generates ignoranceignorance causes failure. If kids think their people are worthless or sub-human in any way, it subconscously creates an artifical limitation in their minds, which comes out as "lower intelligence" on IQ tests, and what not. If they start off believing subconsciously that they are only capable of certain limits, then they will over time live that way the frustration with that belief comes out with anti-social behavior and desperation and unrealistic hope in an alternative like sports stars, rap videos, drugs, cynical outlook in life.

The reason I say this is because here in Wikipedia, the status-quo attitude is to maintain those ideas Sub-saharan Africa (the "sub" in Sub-saharan africa is part of the mental picture that is created in young minds, its one of MANY examples, that together create the artificially generated educational and intelligence gaps. Afrocentricsm is not a perspective that is created for the convenience of white sensibilities, and is not a reflection of Eurocentricsm.

I will review this article and edit it. I will REMOVE the silly dispute flag and if anyone has a problem with it, we can discuss it here. I do not see the dispute flag in the Eurocentrism article, and Eurocentrism has received much less critical analysis than the Afrocentrism article, even though Eurocentrism does more damage to our educational system, social structure and our country than Afrocentrism ever could.

(All of this commentary by none other than Zaphnathpaaneah)

Zaphnathpaaneah, please remember that wiki policy is to have a neutral point of view and to assume good faith on the part of others. This article does not call anyone less than human or worthless as far as I know, and I don't know how anyone can determine the skin color of another editor. There are flags about neutrality and article quality on this article -- the assumption should be they were placed in good faith, by someone who thought the article was non-neutral or low-quality. Take the following:

Honest investigation into history by Black scholars without the assumption and predisponitions of white scholarship, is the motivation of Afrocentric study

This is uncited and, in my opinion, biased. As far as I can tell Afrocentrism is largely based on the predisposition that earlier scholarship was false. This really is one point of view, whether it is accurate or not.

Black jesus, above, is another example of lack of neutrality. There are lengthy passages in the article without citations, and, worst of all, you can read the article and come to just the smallest of understanding of what Afrocentrism is. -71.112.11.220 15:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

\ User 71 - I never said that the article CALLS anyone anything. I say that the article reinforces a biased point of view, through the clever use of adjectives and redirected statements. For example, you mentioned that the article does not call anyone less than human. The readers will therefore believe that I am making an accusation that I am not making. Then we spend... waste... time discussing THAT. Let us discuss the matter. Firstly you ask for a citation on a statement "honest investigation into history by Black scholars..." Your attitude is that we should assume that Afrocentric study is not honest in it's regard, and that anyone who disagrees should cite their resources. Firstly, it is not an issue if earlier scholarship on Egypt and Africa is false. During the time of Diop, Egyptologists were stating that there was a master dynastic race from Europe that colonized Egypt and made slaves of the black egyptian population. Egyptologists were (and still are) saying that all the variations of Egyptians in antiquity are largely Caucasian, and any "black" aspects are due to foreign settlements after the fact. Archaeological studies of the Badarian, Nubian C, and Naqada cultures prove that Egyptian society came from peoples further south and east (Sudan and Uganda).

The issue with Black Jesus, and many other passages that i have NOT addressed yet (as you see further down I showed you where I left off) will not be commented on until after I get to them. The Afrocentricity of Jesus and other Classical period figures is another matter. Afrocentric scholarship (when done BY scholars, not by laymen) does honestly investigate. Take Jesus for example. Again, Jesus has been portrayed invariably as a White Nordic skulled shaped Caucasian, with blonde wavy-straight hair. The earliest representations of Jesus (as the shephard in the Roman catacombs for example) show him with short knappy hair. Also, straight long hair was against the Jewish law, and Jesus, not being one to encourage that (he also did not encourage permarital sex, adultery, etc) would not have likely worn long hair. Afrocentric scholars, seeing this obvious contradiction, take an opposing viewpoint. How likely would Jesus come across as a Black man? That's debatable. WOuld he be mistaken for a Black man (whether middle complexioned or not) in America? It's pretty likely. Did he look like Shaka Zulu, probably not.

So what you are doing, is EXACTLY what I am saying you should not do. You are presenting examples of Afrocentric ideology, and debating those examples instead of acknowledging their Afrocentricity. This article isn't called "Debating Afrocentricism" or "Debunking Afrocentricism". It's called "Afrocentricism". You let the readers decide how valid or invalid Afrocentricity is. \

In a nutshell, you are flagging the article for it's afrocentric examples, (which is not the right thing to do) because you dont feel there is enough opposition to debunk them (which is a P.O.V. wrong thing to do). You are supposed to address WHY Afrocentricity has the position it has, not why it "shouldn't" have those positions. - Zaph.\

I just read up a section, and it seems that DeeCeeVoice is the only one that gets it. "Again, the issue of whether or not Jesus was black is not germane to an article on Afrocentrism." This is not called "Debating Afrocentricism" this is called "Afrocentricism". - Zaph.\

And yet again, as before, I will use the hypocritical positions in the Eurocentric article. So now we have another Eurocentric example...the "white" Jesus. And now that I think about it, we have other examples. THe British-Israelite theories... et cetera. - Zaph.

NPOV does include the whole "minority position: Minority representation" clause... As such, Afrocentrist Egyptology should be presented in the minority against the modern Egyptologist viewpoint, instead of the viewpoints of Egyptologists in the older Eurocentric Egyptologist tradition (Which is a bit of a straw man, isn't it?). Of course, the purpose of the article isn't to say whether Afrocentrism, Afrocentrist Egyptology, whatever is right or wrong, it's to present it. And of course another question is: What about the rest of Afrocentrism? There's more Africa than just Egypt, after all.

Isn't bringing the whole "white Jesus" thing into this sort of unfair, though? European painters tended to paint Jesus as European. This sort of thing is common worldwide: For instance, East Asian Buddhists make statues and pictures of an Asian Buddha, even though Buddha was Indian. I've also seen Renaissance-era paintings of Jesus being Crucified where the Roman soldiers are standing around in full-on Gothic plate mail. Michelangelo's David, strangely enough, is an idealised, muscular figure, instead of some scrawny guy. And he's uncircumcised, which is rather odd. But it's not hypocritical or sneaky or anything: These are religious figures, or figures of myth and legend, or both, and their depiction is going to change based on who's doing the depiction. --Edward Wakelin 01:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

hey zaph, this is too lengthy for me to respond to or i'd be up all night. the idea is to be NPOV, verifiable and avoid original research, while maintaining civility.

If there are two or three or four sides to an idea each needs to be presented. no parts of afrocentrism should be left out whether they be from the scholars, the radicals, or the laiety. Of course, stuff that belongs in other articles should be in other articles. If my message came across that I wanted to deny that something is afrocentrist that is, I apologize. My impression is that this article is short on details of afrocentrism.

If folks don't agree that a certain statement represents true afrocentrism, the statement shouldn't be obliterated, it should be qualified with something like "radical afrocentrist ron karenga says ...." followed by a reference.

If something is uncited and an editor objects, it needs a citation (to avoid original research).

As I see it, the article has not been NPOV because some editors have failed to hold to these basic ideas.

Jesus has been portrayed invariably as a White Nordic skulled shaped Caucasian

A good example of a statement that might need some qualification -71.112.11.220 04:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

"I am tired of articles describing Black points of view, (which are not written by white contributors favoring a white point of view)" lol, I smell conspiracy theorism in the air. Zaphnathpaaneah, does your commentary means that black americans can appropriate themselves the glorious past egyptian history so black americans can feel less inferior? because that's how it seems to me. and lol, the "sub" in sub-saharan african is supposed to make you feel inferior??

"Egyptologists were (and still are) saying that all the variations of Egyptians in antiquity are largely Caucasian", bloke, even the Kabyles are considered caucasians, it don't mean shit!

"You let the readers decide how valid or invalid Afrocentricity is" sorry for quoting you again, but personally, I think we all can get to agree on a description of Afrocentricity, and the readers wouldn't have to decide anything, we would just describe what is afrocentricity, sounds simple and doable to me. "You are supposed to address WHY Afrocentricity has the position it has" I don't think we should tell the WHY of anything, just describe, not analyse, because if we do what you say, one will wanna say that afrocentricty has the position it has because complex decents of slaves want to get themselves a more glorious history, as someone else will say that it is because it's the white consiracy against blacks etc.. and we'll never get to agree on anything.

ditto Edward Wakelin's post. You sound like a mythist too, kinda ;). --SuperBleda 01:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

So some POV-pusher is upset that an article trying to push a bias that he supports are labeled as POV pushing and interefered with? So what? If you want an advocacy article, go to some website for editorials, not a website for making an encyclopedia. Follow the policies that this site uses or go away, stop talking about white versus black and low self esteem, as that has no relevance here. DreamGuy 08:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

"ditto Edward Wakelin's post. You sound like a mythist too, kinda ;)." What the heck does that mean? What's a "mythist"? If what's being said is that I'm endorsing myths, I really have no idea how that conclusion could have been reached. --216.191.209.118 15:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC) (This is Edward Wakelin, I'm just too lazy to log on, and am on a public computer).

On the subject of explaining Afrocentrism, isn't there a place for that in Wikipedia? The causes of movements of whatever point are often just as important, if not more, than what the movements actually are. --216.191.209.118 15:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC) (Again, Eddy W)

Zaph's Changes with explanations so we can remove silly dispute flag

Afrocentrism focuses (not shifts) the study and evaluation of world history and civilization from a traditionally Western, Eurocentric paradigm.

• because Afrocentrism is not dependant on Eurocentrism. Afrocentrism is a total re-evaluation of history and society and views history and society from the perspective of Black-Africans. The reason why whites would use the word "shift" is because they believe that their point of view is the "default" and we are "shifting" from an established default. We are not shifting, we are focusing.

The first paragraph overlooked the fact that Black people think independantly. Afrocentrism is not designed or created as a mere counterbalance to Eurocentrism. No, the Black scholarship was created honestly to find the truth of whether or not Blacks are and have contributed to history. The debate (and the reason for our endless battles with Eurocentrics) is that every contribution found in Afrocentric study is re-classified as a false positive. THAT should be put in a seperate section... NOT used as an excuse to put a neutrality-flag on this article.

The next three paragraphs, I modified to clarify that 1. Afrocentricsm's Unity Theory in regards to Egypt is not wholly invented by Afrocentric scholars without any archaeological evidence, and is supported in part by non-afrocentricists, like Bruce WIlliams.

The "however" in paragraph 2 of the next section is misleading. Diop is not guilty by association of misrepresenting history, and thus should not be implied to be by the "however". He took it upon himself to study the matter directly, not just "rely" on George James's ideas. In addition, I clarified WHY James and others considered Greek study to be "stolen" (even though i would say it was not stolen, I am convinced that the artistic accomplisments were definitely borrowed or learned from Egyptian ones) for example, these pre-classical greek kouri http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Arts/Kouros.htm

The next paragraph I clarified the Afrocentric position about Egyptian racial category and why Afrocentricists believe that Egyptians are Black. The lack of "why" is rife in this article, without that context, and the context of what the Afrocentricsts were facing at the TIME of their positions, the readership here will believe that our modern (less racialized viewpoints) were being attacked by Afrocntric radicalism. This is not the case, as I point out, Afrocentricists had taken a VALID point of view by showing Europeans the hypocracy of calling a mixed child "black" and calling a mixed "Ancient Egyptian" (who is perhaps identical in appearance) Caucasian. This of course was during the time when mainstream scholars taught that Egyptian royalty was founded from Europeans and established a dynastic master race in Egypt.

More editing will be done later, oh yea, this is Zaphnathpaaneah. And like DeeCeeVoice, I will dispense with the pleasantries quickly if I sense any BS.

My Argument

I never said Deeceevoice had owned thew article. IT only seems correct that she be allowed augmented input on the article as she apparently has very strong knowledge on the issue at hand. Let's take a moment to ask ourselves a question. When we came here, what did we expect out of the article? What should have been extracted? By definition Afrocentrism is a since of pride, heritage of the Beautiful and Powerful Black Race [21] - focused on the Black African Race; it is a paradigm; it is a holistic beauty that is being abused here. When you come and state that a view towards African Americans is POV, you are confusing and mosconstruing the entire purpose of the article. The article is about Black Pride and Deeceevoice is only trying to address this pride in a functional manner. The bottom line is that several arrogant editors came here with preconceived notions about what should be here. Sure, everyone can edit - but everyone cannot relate. Hence, I believe that much of the debate here is simply prejudice and misunderstanding. Black is beautiful. Molotov (talk)
17:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The purpose of the article, as with all other articles on Wikipedia, is presumably to describe the subject and things connected to it in as neutral a manner as possible. It has ended up slanted more towards Afrocentrist Egyptology than anything else, though. Whether or not Afrocentrism is valid is pointless. Heck, discussing it is generally pointless outside of Wikipedia. I don't agree with Afrocentrist Egyptology myself, but the negative reaction to it is a bit over-the-top... Liberal-arts academics really seem to think that what goes on in universities and colleges REALLY MATTERS. If they want to teach something that really has an effect, maybe they should teach something like medicine, or engineering, or business, or economics. Of course, that easily progresses to the idea that maybe long talk threads and such over Wikipedia articles aren't so important, and that road leads to RUIN. Ruin I say. :p --Edward Wakelin 22:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

molotov -- please don't describe editors as arrogant: it violates the wiki civility AGF policies. if you read the discussions on this page i think you'll see that no one has a beef with the dictionary.com definition "Centered or focused on Africa or African peoples, especially in relation to historical or cultural influence" (which you've misquoted). the contention is about POV-pushing. black jesus is strongly associated with afrocentrism and belongs here but deecee considers him unscholarly and points to some innapropriate agreement somewhere in the annals of this discussion as some sort of prior restraint about what can be written.

the last supposed scholar here, kspence, left this page in disgust at the lack of real content.

this article is one of the worst on wiki. given the months deecee has spent on it you'd think it would be better. -71.112.11.220 03:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the quote was right, it was after the hyphen "focus of black race, etc." It seems that this user really hates Wikipedia anyway, and has tried to leave sometime, but cannot.

looks different to me....

quote from molotov: "since of pride, heritage of the Beautiful and Powerful Black Race"

definition from dictionary.com: "Centered or focused on Africa or African peoples, especially in relation to historical or cultural influence" -71.112.11.220 18:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Everything I do on in this crappy place is attacked - I am convinced that these attacks on Deeceevoice are NOT in good faith. 19:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Molotov, the point is not whether editors are arrogant. You should assume these editors are acting in good faith, and even if not, the policy is to be civil. In any case, calling people arrogant will not improve the quality of this page. -71.112.11.220 04:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Calling them arrogant is just to point out a truth. The edits and comments against Deeceevoice make it hard to assume good faith. I am convinced that DC is here for righteousness' sake, and many of the other editors have preconceived and biased notions about what is here. The Dictionary.com definition used was only to point out that the focus of Afrocentrism is on the African American race (I did NOT misquote it, I added a similar meaning at the end of the dash - I am not that crazy : ) ). Thus, if the focus is on the Afro-American race, the concepts and ideas that are central to Afrocentrists - i.e. Black Egyptians, etc. - this should be presented here. Without claims of POV or whatever, because I do not feel that those are authentic. V/M
19:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Molotov. You seem like a nice guy. -71.112.11.220 15:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I love you! Molotov (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Bias in this article

I just stumbled upon this article and it looks like it was written and vetted by committed Afrocentric ideologues. Whats going on? No wonder theres a NPOV tag on this. Imagine if the Eurocentric page was written like this as an apologia? Charges of "racism" would be flying through the roof! Not to mention, the notion (baldly stated as fact in the article) that Afrocentrism is "fundamentally different" or "better" than Eurocentrism itself smacks completely of Afrocentric exceptionalism.

Areas that are particularly problematic:

The term "Afrocentrism" is thus often mistaken to mean a perspective in diametric opposition to that of Eurocentrism, however, this is not the case. In fact, the belief that Afrocentrism is in diametric oppostion to Eurocentrism is a Eurocentric misunderstanding.

-This is not a "fact".

Eurocentricm is not the root cause of Afrocentricity.

Mainstream Afrocentric theory is based on the proposition that Western accounts of world history and civilization have neglected or systematically denied the contributions of Africa's indigenous, black peoples.

-These statements appear to contradict each other.

Honest investigation into history by Black scholars without the assumption and predisponitions of white scholarship, is the motivation of Afrocentric study.

-this is NOT a neutral statement. It is a statement of praise, about motivation no less.

In addition, Afrocentric scholars assert that Black African societies overtime had (like most other human societies) originated in East Africa and Egypt.

-This states as assumed fact that "most other human societies" originated in East Africa and Egypt. It is unclear whether it refers to modern human societies (as opposed to ancient pre-historic societies), in which case it is blatantly wrong. In the case of prehistoric societies, it is not a known fact and should not be assumed.

The more conventional belief among archaeologists and historians is that the ancient Egyptian civilization was more closely related, in terms of culture and language, to the Semitic civilizations of the Fertile Crescent than to the rest of Africa. Ironically, this convention paradoxically denies that these relations had any relevant impact on the rest of the Mediterranean cultures.

-This is not a neutral paragraph. It imputes a contradiction to the "mainstream" viewpoint while referring neutrally to the Afrocentric viewpoint.

the lack of acknowledgement of the postive contributions of Afrocentricism to refuting Eurocentric theories has caused her to be regarded as one who merely fears change from the status-quo instead of an honest critic.

-not a neutral passage again. One can practically feel the author speaking through the passive voice and taking sides.

In fact, the whole section on Egypt and Black Cultural Unity reads like a defense or apologia. That is not neutral material.

This conclusion may be based on the fact that the period of Egyptian history regarded as the most prominent (14th B.C.E.) was considered the early dark age of Greek culture.

-Greek Dark ages are generally recorded from 1100-800 B.C.E., so that is not a generally accepted fact. (source: http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/aegean/pre-greece/greekdarkages.html)

oday, most of these writings are not considered serious scholarship

-to say the least.

These Afrocentric scholars believe that historians must shift their attention away from European accomplishments and Europe-derived racist assumptions, and instead emphasize the black origins of mankind and black contributions to world history

-Imparts benign motives to Afrocentrists and racist motives to Eurocentrists. That is the definition of non-neutral.

However, the concept of race is not based on genetics, which is a far more modern discipline, but on phenotypes. "Caucasians" range from Norway to India and from blond hair and fair skin to dark skin. Black people range from West Africa, to India, to Australia, with a wider range of brown and wavy haired people to the darkest skinned people with the curliest hair. Similarly, the Afrocentrist concept of a "global Africa community" has been reinforced by findings by numerous anthropologists, historians and others, who claim the blacks of New Guinea, Menalesia, the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia are no less "Negroid" than the blacks of North and sub-Saharan Africa. The issue with the more respected mainstream viewpoint is that the definition of a Negroid phenotype begins to take a back seat to the genetic origins of those having negroid features. In addition, those people who fall in the extreme range of "Caucasian" furthest from the blond, and who also fall in the extreme range of Black, furthest from the darkest, are contentiously placed in either one group or another. Afrocentricsts contend, by pointing out that White society excluded mixed people from being Caucasian, should not therefore lay historical claims to those who in history share identical phenotypes and mixture with modern Black people. Espeically when they live within the continent of Africa, and routinely intermarried with the darker skinned and more overtly Black people of the region. Therefore for the Afrocentricist, the Ancient Egyptian, (which mainstream scholars insist made little contribution to western society) who shares this characteristic of intermarrying with more obviously Black Africans, would socially fit within the Black sphere, even though they may genetically share less in common with West African Black people than Afrocentricists are willing to admit. It is important to note, this Afrocentric viewpoint had developed while mainstream scholarship was seriously wrestling with the Eurocentric idea that Nordic or contiental Europeans had founded Egyptian royalty and established the dynastic leadership of Egypt. In addition, mainstream scholarship tends to automatically categorize any Ancient Egyptian with overtly negroid phenotype as a Nubian or non-Egyptian, thus creating a cirucular arguement.

-This whole passage meanders and is could use some improvements in construction.

Afrocentrists argue that such ignorance and blatant racism were common among mainstream scholars, educators and historians well into the 20th century

-Blatantly POV. labelling a statement ignorant is automatically POV; in this case it is compounded by extending the label from the quotes to mainstream scholars as a whole.

It is the examination and analysis of existing scholarship, as well as the study of the original historical record itself, grounded in scholarly inquiry and rigorous research.

-This is about as biased as it gets, it isn't being covered with passive voice and attributions anymore.

In summary, this page is blatanly NPOV and unbalanced.

don't just discuss it here be bold and make changes! (and watch the sparks fly) -71.112.11.220 15:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I haven't been back to this piece in a truly substantive manner in quite a while. It gives me a headache. Some of the additions are useful, but others are clearly problematic. However, the NPOV tag has been on this piece for a very long time -- when it was not warranted. Virtually all of the text cited above was added after I stopped contributing in a serious fashion. And while I did some tidying up of some of the more easily fixed flaws, I just didn't want to deal with a lot of the more serious stuff at the time. (No patience.) I don't have time right now to review it, but I suggest going back to a somewhat earlier version to see what the piece looked like before and then working forward. (Less work.) deeceevoice 09:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I've just done a quick reading of this piece down to the section on the "debate" and made some changes. While intervening edits have added some useful information, much of it as written was definitely problematic in terms of POV. I didn't want to deal with it and just skimmed over it for the time being. There are a couple of places where I've asked for cites -- not because I doubt the veracity of the information (quite the contrary), but it would add to the piece and serve to refer readers who wish to investigate further. These requests are embedded in the edit screen text (there's another way to make them more visible, but I don't know how :( ). I've got deadlines -- and a life outside this place -- but will return to tackle the rest of the article later. Yes, it certainly needs fixing. This is an invitation to others to participate in improving the article -- not in performing an antagonistic hack job or inciting an edit war. deeceevoice 10:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

not in performing an antagonistic hack job or inciting an edit war.

please refrain from attacking the work of others and assume good faith. visit the wiki Civility, No Personal Attacks, and Assume Good Faith pages for more info. -71.112.11.220 15:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from inferring commentary that is not there. *x* deeceevoice 15:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I shouldn't have assumed anything. It appeared you were saying that some editors might be "hacks" or that some might not act in good faith "inciting an edit war" -71.112.11.220 03:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

lack of references

This article has *very* few references. If you've got some, now's the time to dig them up. Unverifiable text may be removed at any time.

-71.112.11.220 21:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The eurocentrist/racist quotes should be moved

To Eurocentrism or wherever. They could easily be replaced with a link to that, and a mention of past eurocentrism in Egyptology. It would serve the same function. I myself don't have time to do it now, when I've got some free time, if somebody hasn't done it already, I'll have a look at the two articles and figure out how to move it.

Absolutely not. The quotes serve a useful purpose as a clear representation of precisely the kinds of historical "scholarly" biases in academia which Afrocentrism refutes. The quotes should remain. deeceevoice 21:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Those sorts of biases could be presented perfectly via a link to the "Eurocentrism" article. And that Afrocentrism refutes them is odd, considering that they were refuted in the scholarly mainstream quite a while ago, and hardly by Afrocentrism. The article itself states that such views were common "well into the 20th century". But we are no longer well into the 20th century, we are slightly into the 21st. To refute views that are no longer held in the scholarly mainstream is nothing but shadowboxing. This article is supposed to describe what Afrocentrism is, describing Eurocentrist views should be left to the Eurocentrism article, which can be linked to. --Edward Wakelin 23:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I have removed them, and fiddled with the phrasing to include a link to the Eurocentrism article. --Edward Wakelin 23:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC) PS: I don't get the constant mention of it, among academics, regardless of race, it's pretty much dead. Go into a university and start making comments about how blacks are obviously inferior, it would not be tolerated. --Edward Wakelin 23:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a load crap. I give my reasons, I follow all the rules, I put the quotes in the Eurocentrism article, and it's a damn click away, and it's still reverted. Their presence is misleading, because they have a sudden "shock" effect. How many serious tenured scholars write stuff like that any more? If Afrocentrism is based around "refuting" viewpoints really aren't represented anymore, well, what's the point of it then? --Edward Wakelin 02:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. How long did we labor to remove "mainstream" from those quotes, when they were clearly not mainstream? One was a radical, another had little influence, and the third is so un-noteworthy he doesn't even have a wikipedia page! And then it moved onto the centuries. These authors had to be 20th century, even if they were born in the 1800s. Count the sentences beginning with things like "Afrocentrists argue", lacking citations. What about "grounded in scholarly inquiry and rigorous research." Says who??

As far as I can tell, NPOV, NOR, Civility ("no personal attacks"), and AGF have been violated for months, and now this. Numerous editors have thrown up their hands and the article is still flagged low quality. I'd support a request for arbitration wholeheartedly. -155.91.28.231 02:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

If any of those 3 are important enough to deserve their own article (Toynbee probably is, for instance), then the quotes should be in their respective articles. That's one of the ideas involved in WIkipedia, right? Using links as much as possible to avoid repetition. The same thing could be done with everything about Eurocentrism (Isn't it a bit odd how the article starts off saying "the belief that Afrocentrism is in diametric oppostion to Eurocentrism is a Eurocentric misunderstanding. Eurocentricm is not the root cause of Afrocentricity.", but then there's these Eurocentric quotes, and remarks about Eurocentrism later on). Ditto the stuff about Tutankhamun. -Edward Wakelin (Can't log on since I forgot my password and can't access the email address since my regular computer has a damn trojan on it), 12:52 PM EST, Nov 4, 2005

if they're relevant they are ok in the article. no one would follow the links to the authors to find out what they said about afrocentrism. there is a project called "wikiquote" that is supposed to be a quotation repository, putting them there is one option. the important thing though is their characterizations are totally off. one guy is totally UN-noteworthy and all of them are from a looong loooong time ago (though some editor keeps changing the relevant eras one century forward). the rationale for afrocentrism in the 21st century is really week if all that can be pointed to are quotes from the 1800s. -71.112.11.220 18:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

They're especially weak if one remembers the stuff earlier on in the article about how Afrocentrism isn't just a response to Eurocentrism, and how that's a badwrong Eurocentrist assumption. I personally think that the "worldview" model of history is a load of crap, since a fact is a fact. Good scholars are trained to avoid as much bias as possible, and recognise what bias they have. -Edward Wakelin, again without password.

The quotes are, indeed, highly relevant. They provide a useful, highly illustrative counterpoint to the Afrocentrist paradigm, very clearly illustrating the racist biases of mainstream historical scholarship. This is the stuff that was taught in the classrooms of Western societies as late as the mid 20th century, and the racist perceptions they engendered and shored up persist to this day. Further, all history is interpretive. And one's worldview is critical in how the raw data of primary sources and the archaeological record are analyzed and interpreted to produce a "story," if you will. The fact of the matter is "good scholars" have always had this or that particular worldview. Unfortunately, for Toynbee and his ilk, the perspective/paradigm which framed/shaped their work was one predicated on white supremacy and inherent black inferiority. And nothing illustrates that fact so clearly, so strikingly as their own poisonous, arrogant, ignorant, racist language on the subject. deeceevoice 04:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Wait. "the racist biases of mainstream historical scholarship"? But they stopped teaching this in the mid-20th century... Thus indicating that it has not been in the historical mainstream for some decades. There is a reason that in universities (Still disproportionately white in student bodies, teaching staff, administrative staff, etc for the most part) Toynbee's stuff is not in the mainstream. There was a movement towards greater inclusiveness, more objectivity, etc. This was a good thing, same as the movement towards trying to be objective in journalism was a good thing. *Facts* can be found by the various disciplines of history, and where things are inconclusive, that should be stated. There are not multiple truths that exist in different people's minds, there is the truth, and then there are the opinions of different people. If somebody can't neuter their worldview enough, or at least get it to shut up when they're working, they shouldn't be in academia.--Edward Wakelin 20:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC) PS: An interesting thought... The whole accusation of making up a friendly version of history to feel better about disempowerment can hardly be kept to Afrocentrists... The Irish and Scottish were shat all over by the English for ages, and now we've got books about how the Irish/Scottish actually did everything of value in Europe.

Toynbee's racism was never even part of the mainstream. When he came up with his history of civilisations (from which his racist quotes generally come), he was criticised by contemporary historians. This was previously in the article, but was deleted by deeceevoice, presumably because it didn't fit the worldview that all academics are racist. It should also be worth noting that John Burgess has a wiki page, one which notes that he fought in the American Civil War and, thus, belongs far more to the nineteenth century than twentieth century. 62.25.106.209 15:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I was taught in school that there were no great black civilizations. I was told blacks never developed a system of writing. When I studied world history, the course began with ancient Greece and Rome and meandered to China. Nothing about Africa at all. I was taught these lies as part of my mainstream public education. The quotes should remain, because they are representative of the kinds of biases and attitudes inherent in the education that many people still alive today received, and help form the foundation for much of the racism that still persists today about the presumed inherent inferiority of black people. And it is precisely such ignorance, such lies that the Afrocentrist paradigm contradicts. deeceevoice 17:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

IIRC, you made a comment in one of the archives about going to public school in the 50s? It's now the 00s. Mainstream universities have courses focusing on topics formerly neglected. The high-school texts I've seen with a "world" slant have quite a bit about Africa in them (I remember the Grade 11 world-history course I took in Grade 10 covering Egypt). The art-history textbook used in Grades 11 and 12, Toronto curriculum AFAIK, have a good amount of stuff about African art throughout history, post-colonial African art, etc. --Edward Wakelin 23:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

please refrain from original research. if you observed it yourself 50 years ago, it can't be in here unless you can provide a citation for it. that also goes for things learned in the 90s and the 2000s -69.237.32.154 02:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

WTF. "Original research." U gotta be kiddin' me. And I can write whatever the hell I wish on the discussion page. deeceevoice 11:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

It's "original research" if you refer to your own experiences rather than published works in articles. Also see the "civility" policy, words like "hell" and expressions like "WTF" are not permitted. Reading the policies will help create better articles and relationships with the community. Thanks! -69.110.56.60 19:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

"Original research" probably doesn't matter in terms of the discussion page. Regardless, things have changed since the 50s. -Edward Wakelin (I think NoScript or whatever in FireFox is keeping me from seeing the tools box, so can't post signature line)

No one argues that "things have changed since the '50s." The problem is they haven't changed enough. The legacy of such academic racism remains, both in the populace at large and in academia. Some of the people who taught me are still alive-and-well old farts, still teaching, still writing. And certainly their students who bought that crap are, like me, still very much alive and contributing to the literature. It's far too easy for younger people glibly to dismiss such attitudes as "ancient history" -- but that history is very much still with us. White supremacy is alive and well -- and, in fact, thriving. Again, the quotes should remain. deeceevoice 12:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course the legacy of academic racism still exists, things don't get "bred out" in 50 years. But profs who taught then and still teach now have probably either gotten rid of their old beliefs, or at least learned to shut the hell up. And high school students who buy anything they're taught at face value generally forget it the second they're out of the course, or at least that's my experience. As for the quotes, couldn't more modern examples be found? Hell, why opinions like that couldn't just be put in the Eurocentrism article and a link put in this article, I don't know. They are also without context. -Edward Wakelin

I've already explained why they belong here. And the opinions expressed speak for themselves. They're pretty bald in their expressions of racism. You can't exactly mitigate something like that. Finally, while the sentiments expressed are still current among lots of people, you'd probably be hard-pressed to find them in the permanence of print -- although I have no doubt that some variation on them is still being uttered in some classrooms. (I had an author friend doing doctorate work in history at the University of Maryland a few years back, and the prof said something equally outrageous during lecture. And that was in the 1990s. Professors and writers whose tongues are loosened by hubris (you know how some profs love to hear themselves talk) and the knowledge that what they say likely will not be repeated (and even if their words were, they could explain they were simply misquoted), by and large, have sense enough not to incriminate themselves in so public a fashion. The Earl Butz, Johnny Cash, and Bill Bennet kinds of episodes are fewer and further between; racists in the public eye generally have learned to keep such poison to themselves or parse their words with some degree of success. But don't kid yourself. The racism hasn't gone anywhere; it's still here -- everywhere. And academia is no exception. It doesn't matter if certain facts of which they are aware fly in the face of their attitudes. Facts don't have anything to do with it. deeceevoice 20:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, then, modern quotes would be better, would they not? Or at least historical quotes should be provided with some context. Doesn't the complete Toynbee quote extend to say something along the lines of "But then again there are a bunch of white civilisations that haven't accomplished anything"? If a university prof in history claims that there were no advanced (Considering the time) black civilisations in Africa, then they should be out on their ass, because that there were advanced black civilisations in Africa is indisputible. Anyway, modern examples of academic racism would really serve better than the current examples. -Edward Wakelin

Inconsistent and possibly racist capitalization

In the first paragraph, "black" always has a capital letter (ie, "Black") and "white" always has a small letter (ie, "white"). I don't know whether there is a reason for this, but it could be construed as racist. Furthermore, this capitalization is not consistently enforced throughout the article. For example, "white" is sometimes given a capital letter. I don't care about this enough to change it, but those who recurrently edit the article may want to decide on a capitalization scheme and adhere to it in their future edits. 160.39.236.134 03:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

We had covered this before. Apparently black and white should be all lowercase, because they do not describe specific ethnic groups or nationalities...whatever. As far as I am concerned Black people are a distinct named group, but fine, it's so nebulous, we can't agree on it at this point. --Zaphnathpaaneah 08:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Stylistically, "black" and "white" generally are both lower-cased. deeceevoice 12:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep the article tagged for eternity

Are we going to move the article up or not? It's got enough citations already. --Zaphnathpaaneah 08:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Zaph. I've gone over the text up to the "Debate" subhead. There are one or two of places that could use some citation, so please check my edit notes. I think I've preserved the original intent of the text with some tweaking to restore NPOV or to clarify, or just general nit-picking clean-up. deeceevoice 12:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey Zaph -- still pretty slim on citations. Check out the first few paragraphs. -71.112.11.220 06:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

P.E.A.C.E.

Why is there so much discussion on this concept of Afrocentrism?

It is because people think that having strong convictions is a virtue.

Be an Oak. Big and solid, right? Swing the axe enough and the oak will come crashing down.

Be a reed. Humble and flexible. Swinging an axe will be useless. The reed just sways with the wind.

Convictions...traditions...racism...all of this is a waste of time.

Stop that.

Ancient Egyptians are not Semitic bu Afro-Asiatic

I would like to know what mainstream scholar sees ancient Egypt as more related to Semitic than the rest of Africa. Ancient Egyptian civlization definately had more in common culturally with Africans because of the notion of divine kingship,circumcision at puberty,and the rainmaker king. The late Egyptologist Frank Joseph Yurco upheld that ancient Egypt was not Semitic but African! Linguist Arnold Lorpenio place the modern Beja language as most related to ancient Egyptian.

The old view that some dyanstic race came from Western Asian and civilzed the ancient Egyptians is called the dyanstic race theory that has been discared.

I am editing in these facts.

Plus the early languages of the Fertile Crescent were not Semitic but a non-Semitic language know extinct.

Ancient Egyptian was not Semitic with citation

Sorry in my last post I did not leave a citation. Here is the citation from the late Egyptologist Frank J Yurco. Yurco is by no means a Afrocentrist:

Frank Joseph Yurco

Jul 10 1996, 2:00 am   show options 

Newsgroups: sci.archaeology From: fjyu...@midway.uchicago.edu (Frank Joseph Yurco) - Find messages by this author Date: 1996/07/10 Subject: Re: The Semites Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

This topic has been the subject of much hot air and little real knowledge. There are no Semites. What there are, are Semitic languages, and speakers of those languages are Semitic speaking peoples. That would include all the speakers of the languages in the Semitic subfamily that forms part of the Afro-Asiatic language super family. Thus, all Middle Eastern peoples of Arabia, Iraq, and Syria can be classified as Semitic speakers, and so also the ancient Israelites, and any diaspora Jews who can trace back to antiquity. Of course, there have been converts to Judaism and Islam all throughout history, and those converts were not necessarily Semitic language speakers originally. So, the Iranians are not Semitic speakers and are unrealted to them, but rather are Indo-Europeans originally, and the North Africans, like Egyptians, Libyans and others farther west, are originally speakers of languages of the other sub-branch of Afroasiatic, the North African branch. Yes, those speakers extend down into Ethiopia and Somalia as well. Finally, Hamito-Semitic as a description of the languages or peoples of these areas is now discredited and no longer used academically. Partly this is due to the racial overtones that this term acquired in past writings. If you go back in prehistory, linguists think that the Afroasiatic language family originated in north Africa, either in the Ethiopian-Sudan region, or else around Lake Chad. The original speakers of these languages spread all over the Sahara during the Neolithic wet period, but as that wet period declined, they headed for neighboring river valleys, and some continued clear across the Red Sea into Arabia, where they settled and developed into the Semitic languages and their speakers. Two crossing areas from Africa to Arabia are the Somalia-Yemen area, and secondly, Sinai, from Egypt. Neither requires extensive navigation. Scholars think that the Semitic languages branched off from the North African sub-family around 7000 B.C.

Sincerely, Frank J. Yurco University of Chicago

-- Frank Joseph Yurco fjyu...@midway.uchicago.edu

Afro-Asiatic is the language family: it is considered to have the Berber, Egyptic (formerly known as Chamitic), Semitic (which is sometimes divided into subgroups such as Canaanite and Arabic), Chadic and Cushitic; the Omotic group is sometimes treated as part of it. On the Other hand, Africa is home to the totality of three language families (Nilotic, Khoi-San and Niger-Congo); 4 if Bantu is considered as a distinct language family. If you treat Madagascar as part of Africa, that makes a sixth language family native to the area: Austronesian. As an AFRO-ASIATIC language, the only languages to which it is closely related in Africa are spoken in the Horn, or in the strip between Sahel and the Mediterranean.

Divine Kingship is VERY FAR from being a purely African concept: it is found in societies from Classical Mesoamerica to Medieval Far Eastern Asia passing through Egypt and Ireland.

Finally, I hardly see how Beja would be the closest language to Egyptian when Coptic is still extant. Snapdragonfly 05:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually Afro-Asiatic most linguist like Joseph Greenberg and Christopher Ehret point to the original origin of Afro-Asiatic to the Horn of Africa,and during pre-history it spread to Yemen and not the reverse. Semitic is the only Afro-asiatic language spoken outside Africa and its origin is also in the Horn of Africa. Berber[Amazigh] is also a native Afro-Asiatic language that is spoken only on the continent of Africa! Coptic is the last phase of the ancient Egyptian language that is spoken primarily in church liturgy. My reference for Beja being the closest to ancient Egyptian is Loprieno, Antonio. (1995) Ancient Egyptian: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge

   University Press. Arnold Loprieno is the leading linguist on the extinct ancient Egyptian languages. 

  Also I am aware that divine Kingship is found in other regions of the world but the particular divine kingship in ancient Egypt was associated with the rainmaker king concept which is only found in African cultures. Early Egyptologist like Henri Frankfort pointed this out.

There is no such language family as Nilotic but I think you mean Nilo-Saharan.

capitalization

are Afrocentrism and Eurocentrism capitalized that way?--Urthogie 14:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC) PS: someone please archive the first 30/40/50 discussions in this talk page.--Urthogie

Lefkowitz quote

"One of Afrocentrism's most prominent critics, Mary Lefkowitz, has characterised Afrocentrism as 'a mythology that is racist, reactionary, and essentially therapeutic.'"

Lefkowitz didn't say this. African-American History professor Clarence E. Walker did [22] [23]. I'll change the quote to "an excuse to teach myth as history". --Jugbo

The Tao of Afrocentricity and Eurocentricity

It seems to me that Afrocentrism is a concious way to homogenize an African perspective and scholarship and counterbalance the primarily European dominated institution of "Modern Research and Scholarship." Because "Modern" Scholars and Academics often unconciously reinforce the institutionalized standards and conlusions of their forefathers, perhaps the idea of Afrocentrism and the efforts made on the Wikipedia page regarding Afrocentrism should be pursued in order to reinforce new concepts and innovations that come forth from those who are in support and exposed to the "Afrocentric" idea. Ratehr than debunking the scholarship behind it, i.e. Diop, DuBois, Asante, Henrick-Clarke, Karenga, etc. the discussion perhaps better look at reinforcing the validity of the ideas, with a breif section on the historical/ political contovercies surroundign the concept.

It seems that "Race," a European originated scietific established and term, has already polarized human segments and thus has given people a reson to conflict over "what comes from where and who?" Seeing that Race Theory has established Caucasian, Mongoloid, Negroid, etc. perhaps research and ideas on "centrisms" should be approached from such a perspective. Now that Afrocentric has been identified, there should correspondingly be made a page for Eurocentric, Asiacentric, etc.

The article in my eyes only needs to discuss: the social-political context of afrocentrism. the scholars of Afrocentrism Principles of Afrocentrism Applications & Interpretations of Arocentrism

Aside from that, everything else is extra and needs to go into Race Theory, Racism, Egyptology, etc.