Talk:Afrocentricity/Archive 1

Archive 1

Afrocentricity revert

I reverted an addition you made to Afrocentricity because the central claim of Afrocentric scholars regarding Egypt is that the cultural practices (language, spiritual systems, political systems, patterns of lineage) that make Egypt unique do not emanate from outside of the African continent. There is significant reason though to conclude that at least some of their cultural practices came from Nubia to the South (the work of Bruce Williams at the University of Chicago is important here). While there are probably some Egyptologists who do believe that it makes more sense to talk about Egypt as being outside of Africa, I do not think this position has much merit, nor do I think this position is particularly strong at this moment in history. I am willing to hear a counterargument though. --Lester Spence 06:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

diasporal peoples

Hi kspence, I know this very fair-minded article was created because you felt you could not usefully participate in the Afrocentrism article (which is increasingly becoming dominated by the "Black Egyptian" obsession). However, surely there should be some discussion of the relationship between these two terms and of the origin and scope of Afrocentricity itself. Who decides, after all, what is and is not "Afrocentricity"? Are you basing it on Asante's model? If so, surely that should be stated.

What I really want to do is go back to Karenga's discussion of "ism" vs. "icity" but I haven't been able to do it yet. It deserves its own section at least. And yes I am basing the discussion of Afrocentricity on Karenga and Asante's conception, largely because they are the most prominent scholars associated with the concept. I will amend the entry to reflect this.--Lester Spence 04:50, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A ccouple of specific queries -

The article states "Adherents of Afrocentricity argue that scholarship dealing with diasporal peoples should be properly "centered" in order to reflect the agency of diasporal peoples, and in order to better reflect "the truth.""

I realise this is a summary of Asante, so surely it should be labelled as such. In its current unattributed and form it raises many questions - Who are 'diasporal peoples'? Among many others of every labelable race, all Americans bar Amerindians might be deemed "diasporal peoples", and even Amerindians originated elsewhere if you go back far enough. I know you are unhappy with labels like Negro, Black and Sub-Saharan, but surely some attempt to characterise the specific peoples referred to should be made.

Ok. --Lester Spence 04:50, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And how, in any case, is the "agency" of such peoples ariculated by reference to the ancient or recent history of Africa? The next sentence refers to a mysterious "traditional scholar" who "might ask" "how southern culture or poverty influenced the Southern black American english dialect (an approach based on an implicit assumption that enslaved Africans were passive recipients)". Who are these traditional scholars who say this? It seems like a straw man argument to me.

This isn't a straw-man argument at all. If you have the time, take a look at scholarship written about the culture of enslaved Africans written before say 1990, or the development of "black english." What you'll find is that scholars tended to look at enslaved Africans and their descendants as academic objects--people who were acted UPON--rather than as academic subjects (as people who actually acted for themselves). This viewpoint was "the traditional" viewpoint. --Lester Spence 04:50, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've no idea what it means to say that "poverty" might influence dialect, except in the sense that life-conditions in general influence the language people use. That's as true of wealth/power as much as poverty/powerlessness and does not in itself "imply" passivity. Try the same sentence with, say, Shakespeare ["traditional scholars might ask how Elizabethan culture or his social class influenced the kind of English Shakespeare used (an approach based on an implicit assumption that Shakespeare was was a passive recipent)"]. It seems bizarre to me to claim that looking at the culture and social position of a person or group as an influence on them implies passivity. Shakespeare imaginately and creatively drew on the culture of which he was a part, and on his social experience. The same can surely be said of groups of people, diasporic or not. Speaking of influences does not negate that.

It depends. From an Afrocentric standpoint speaking solely of the influence of southern (white) American culture on enslaved Africans and their descendants has at least two problematic effects. First it entrenches the notion that black Americans are not cultural producers. In this case, the dialect they use, is a (corrupt) deviation from Southern (white) American English. Which has an even darker consequence given that Southern (white) American culture was deeply racist. The scholarship that supports this "traditional" view entrenches the idea that blacks are inferior to whites--who ARE cultural producers. Second it isn't accurate--not only does Black English contain several African terms its grammatical structure also has much in common with West African grammatical structure. There should be a way to better communicate this point though. --Lester Spence 04:50, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The next sentence is "an Afrocentric approach might ask instead how the English patterns of blacks in the South influenced non-blacks (an approach that assumes that enslaved Africans have human agency albeit limited). Scholars using this approach might also ask how West African phrases and deep language structures followed the descendants of enslaved Africans across space and time." Firstly, the term "deep structures" is a very specific concept in Chomskian linguistics. It concerns the pre-conditions for grammatical utterences in general. It seems to me that what you are talking about here is linguistic interference: how idiomatic forms of English expression were influenced by specific grammatical and syntactical formations in home-languages. That's a familiar concept in linguistics which often studies how new idioms, dialects and languages arise from contacts between speakers of different languages. "Standard" English itself emerged in just this way (e.g. in the adstratum relationship between Saxon and Norse). Again, neither "passivity" nor "choice" is necessarily implied. It's a normal process, and with regard to to black-American speech has been studied by "traditional scholars" who would not see their work as Afrocentric. I also don't understand why recognising the influence of black-American idioms on non-blacks is "Afrocentric". The connection to Africa itself is stretched to the limit here. Paul B 01:24, 27 June 2005 (UTC)

I think you are right...so from the point of view of the Afrocentrist the question would be--why for decades did scholars ignore the possibility of an African influence on English language? To me this question is one that should have been dealt with extensively in the literature long ago...but (and I am a political scientist, not a linguist) until very recently it hasn't been. --Lester Spence 04:50, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Needed Additions

An expanded Afrocentricity entry should be attached to the growth and development of Black Studies. The fact that it represents an orientation to data, as opposed to a methodological approach. Afrocentricity--like political science--does not have its own unique way of answering questions. Rather, it has a unique subject matter (African diasporals), and a unique way of EXAMINING that subject. It may also be important to talk about the development of the Temple Department of African American Studies (the first PhD granting Department in the country).

Merger with Afrocentrism

A merger with Afrocentrism is not warranted, because the two terms refer to different enterprises. Afrocentricity refers to an intellectual paradigm within the field of Black Studies, just as the term "behavioralism" refers to a major paradigm within political science. It structures questions within the discipline, and also the methodology used to answer those questions. Afrocentrism refers more to an ideology (hence the "ism") that exists outside of the academy. The difference between the two concepts can be seen by perusing the abstracts within any recent copy of The Journal of Black Studies, or even a look at the various papers given annually at the National Conference of Black Studies. Confusing or conflating the two terms would be harmful to those interested in the development and growth of Black Studies as a discipline, and in American history and life in general. Having taught a number of courses on African American history and African American Studies, I would flunk a student that did not understand the role that Afrocentricity as opposed to Afrocentrism played in the development of the discipline.

Now I would not have a problem merging Afrocentricity with the Black Studies entry or even enveloping Afrocentricity within it. This makes a great deal of sense for a number of reasons.

Maulana Karenga has an interesting discussion about the difference between Afrocentricity and Afrocentrism in his work Introduction to Black Studies (pp. 45-49). --Lester Spence 01:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

While I'm not very familiar with the topic, a quick look at the three articles does make it look like Afrocentricity would be better merged with African American Studies (Black Studies redirects there) than with Afrocentrism. Just the length of the articles alone suggests that the two smaller ones be combined. Since no one else has disagreed with Lester's suggestion, I'm changing the merge requests on the three articles accordingly. Wesley 03:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It needs to merge it is a fork it is the same people, the same content the same argument. use the other page to highlight any difference if any. but it isnt good to have this page here it isnt even very well prepared. better have 1 good page than 2 half done same same pages.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 21:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

article needs to clear up confusion

This article would be better if it made clear how afrocentricity is different from afrocentrism.--Urthogie 10:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well it isnt and that is why this article is a total mess. Is it a religion? I do not think the creator of Afrocentricity could answer that. --Hausa warrior (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)