Afrocentrism: Does It Hold Any Merit?

SimSimSalabim

Chieftain
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
16
Location
Ontario
I'm highly suspicious of Afro-centrism and its attempts to portray popular figures in Western imagination such as Cleopatra et al. as Black Africans, especially considering it demeans Black scholarship and actual African history. What are the craziest Afro-centric theories you've seen/heard?
 
The problem with Afrocentrism is that it's an ideology and will only accept things that go along with that. It's also tied up with American and post-colonial racial politics. Some Afrocentric ideas that I've heard - the Khmer, Shang Dynasty Chinese, Olmecs, the Moors, Buddha, Jesus, Aesop and Beethoven were all black. There's also the question of the ancient Egyptians being black which I won't get into since it's a fierce debate that goes nowhere, at does it least have some merit to it compared to the others. A lot of it depends on what your definition of black is, which is kind of an artificial concept. Also, I think some of the Moors were black but talking about them as a black people is maybe a bit like saying Americans are black. Most of the others, like the Olmecs, Khmer and Shang Dynasty Chinese have nothing going for the theory except some statues that have vaguely African features.
 
NovaKart said:
Most of the others, like the Olmecs, Khmer and Shang Dynasty Chinese have nothing going for the theory except some statues that have vaguely African features.

Those theories are fringe and don't have all that much to do with Afrocentrism per say, much as Scientific Racism has nothing to do with genetics or Reptilians with the Jewish-Bolshevik conspiracy.
 
When I was in high school there was a poster in my history class that had famous black people in history and included Buddha, the Khmer and Olmecs and some others I can't remember. It was just used for decoration I think, our teacher never talked about it. Still, these theories do have some weight with society in general and among some black people if not serious historians.
 
NovaKart said:
When I was in high school there was a poster in my history class that had famous black people in history and included Buddha, the Khmer and Olmecs and some others I can't remember. It was just used for decoration I think, our teacher never talked about it. Still, these theories do have some weight with society in general and among some black people if not serious historians.

So on the basis of one poster, the origin, intent and purpose of which you don't know, you've drawn the conclusion that this supposed form of Afrocentrism has weight among society and black people? Well, I suppose that's fair. I guess I can use the Reptilian stick to beat government with now.
 
So on the basis of one poster, the origin, intent and purpose of which you don't know, you've drawn the conclusion that this supposed form of Afrocentrism has weight among society and black people? Well, I suppose that's fair. I guess I can use the Reptilian stick to beat government with now.

That was one example, although an important one because it was a poster put up in a public high school in a history class. It also comes from some comments from black people that I've heard and some books that I've seen. Some of these books are written by professors teaching at universities. Afrocentrism in America is really tied into American racial politics and may be a bit confusing to people outside of America.
 
The problem with Afrocentrism is that it's an ideology and will only accept things that go along with that. It's also tied up with American and post-colonial racial politics. Some Afrocentric ideas that I've heard - the Khmer, Shang Dynasty Chinese, Olmecs, the Moors, Buddha, Jesus, Aesop and Beethoven were all black. There's also the question of the ancient Egyptians being black which I won't get into since it's a fierce debate that goes nowhere, at does it least have some merit to it compared to the others. A lot of it depends on what your definition of black is, which is kind of an artificial concept. Also, I think some of the Moors were black but talking about them as a black people is maybe a bit like saying Americans are black. Most of the others, like the Olmecs, Khmer and Shang Dynasty Chinese have nothing going for the theory except some statues that have vaguely African features.

How the heck would Buddha, Aesop, or Beethoven be black? Now I'm curious.
 
I remember a certain thread about the ancient egyptians being black on this board, where the OP had some pretty far fetched explanations. are every centrisms like that?

Black Beethoven sounds like a kick-ass blaxploitation movie though. Or a stupid comedy starring Martin Lawrence:rolleyes:
 
Huh I always thought these centrisms were criticisms at teaching history which focused on only one particular continent.
Either way even I, a full-time idiot, knows that all those above historical figures were not Black and its a lot of wishful thinking and nonsense :P Trying to claim famous geniuses from history for your own racial group demonstrates an inferiority complex and is just politics, not academia.
 
This is an Afrocentric source which claims Beethoven was black:

http://open.salon.com/blog/ronp01/2009/09/27/the_african_heritage_of_ludwig_van_beethoven

The comments are particularly informative about the mindset of people who accept these ideas. The following is a less biased source:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2598/was-ludwig-van-beethoven-of-african-ancestry

Wikipedia doesn't mention anything about his race.

This is about Aesop, look for the physical appearance and question of African origin section:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesop

This is a site that connects the black Buddha, Khmer, Olmecs and ancient Chinese without really offering anything of substance:

http://www.essaysbyekowa.com/Black Buddha.htm
 
All the centrisms are completely useless for viewing world history. I think Afrocentrism is perhaps the most useless of them all because of the lack of fact that is used for support.
For example: Cleopatra was black.
Response: No, she was part of the Ptolemaic dynasty of macedonian/greek decent. The Ptolemies practiced strict incest to ensure a pure blood line so there is no way any african blood flowed through her veins.
 
All y'all are dismissin' afrocenterism 'cause y'all got white education biases.

All the centrisms are completely useless for viewing world history. I think Afrocentrism is perhaps the most useless of them all because of the lack of fact that is used for support.
For example: Cleopatra was black.
Response: No, she was part of the Ptolemaic dynasty of macedonian/greek decent. The Ptolemies practiced strict incest to ensure a pure blood line so there is no way any african blood flowed through her veins.

Of course she had African blood in her, just as you do and I do and every other person on earth does. Race is an artificial construct.
 
Afrocentrism is more fun than a barrel of monkeys, I struggle to take people seriously when they claim "x person who is obviously not black" is black or x society is actually black, like when I was told Indians are actually black, Indians are not black, we are frickin' Indian damnit
 
Of course she had African blood in her, just as you do and I do and every other person on earth does. Race is an artificial construct.

So... there is no such thing as common heritage? As in "Cleopatra and modern day Africans share a common ancestor that modern day Europeans do not".
 
Back
Top Bottom