Whats with all the racism geared twords African history?

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,401
Portugal
#91
The controversy is ethnic. Afrocentrics and Eurocentrics have been fighting for years about the ethnicity of the Ancient Egyptians.
Even if I consider myself a Eurocentric (meaning for me that the centre of my point of view is in Europe), or more correctly a Portucentric, I think that for the historiocentrics, the controversy is minimal. Egypt had their own society and was attacked/invaded many times in their long history, from the West by the Libyans, from East by Asians, from the North by raids of Peoples that for the historiography are known as Sea Peoples, and from the south by Nubians. From all the ruling dynasties one was Nubian. As far as I know, many of these invaders are depicted in the iconography, as well as their skin colours. The Egyptians, the Libyans and the Nubians are by definition Africans, and all seem quite distinct. The Sea Peoples and the Asians aren’t.

I would love to do so. However, if I was to do so, I would post SNP data, and genetic isn't allowed on this forum.
Didn’t knew that the SNP site has photos and videos. Went there one or two times.

I simply guessed that genetic create a lot of controversy when discussed. I have seen on various forums people mis-using haplogroups to claim the history of other peoples, which sometimes may create low-quality discussions. However, I don't see why it would be more problematic than historical accounts in general.
There are threads about the theme, you can read them. Genetics is just one more tool in history, not even the most relevant. But I reiterate that it is not unwise to make comments based on lack of knowledge.
 
May 2018
107
On earth.
#92
Simply because of afrocentrism. Afrocentrists have invaded the internet especially on the anglo side of internet it's almost impossible to speak about history with an afro-american he'll always try to speak about black egypt and the black moors and if you try to show him that there is no evidence of it he will call you an eurocentrist and when you see that they make thousands of videos who got 500K views you can't stay calm especially if you're north african.
No. Afro Centrism is a response to already existing attitudes. While it contributes to this issue, it's not the root of it, it's a symptom.
 
Jun 2015
5,686
UK
#94
the racism is simple. it's means to try and justify the colonialism of the day, when these attitudes emerged.
I think though, ironically, that the colonials knew the extent of African civilisation. The British who conquered Asante were impressed at the Palace and the general workings of the kingdom. Thte same is true of Benin City. Much of this has been quashed due to racism.

I'd question whether life in Asante was any less or better even than in England, France, Spain, or the German states at the time. Let's say 1750, the only serious negative then was being captured as a slave and being sent to some Americas plantation. and this wasn't just unsuspecting people, criminals, and anybody who fell out of favour with the king or society was. there were not rigid classes, or even serfdom, to the degreee of Europe, and all were free to trade when required for what they needed. Britain had no serfdom at all in the mid-18th century, but then there was a far moree rigid class structure in place.
 
Nov 2010
7,547
Cornwall
#95
the racism is simple. it's means to try and justify the colonialism of the day, when these attitudes emerged.
I think though, ironically, that the colonials knew the extent of African civilisation. The British who conquered Asante were impressed at the Palace and the general workings of the kingdom. Thte same is true of Benin City. Much of this has been quashed due to racism.

I'd question whether life in Asante was any less or better even than in England, France, Spain, or the German states at the time. Let's say 1750, the only serious negative then was being captured as a slave and being sent to some Americas plantation. and this wasn't just unsuspecting people, criminals, and anybody who fell out of favour with the king or society was. there were not rigid classes, or even serfdom, to the degreee of Europe, and all were free to trade when required for what they needed. Britain had no serfdom at all in the mid-18th century, but then there was a far moree rigid class structure in place.
I'm sure there was the other odd negative! Mind you being chained up as a slave is pretty mega as things go

However comparing the way of life in 2 different countries is nothing to do with racism, real or perceived
 
Feb 2018
49
ohio
#96
We'll because I post on 4chan mostly /international/ and /Comics and Cartoons/ ( I enjoy comics and animation) and sometimes on /History and Humanities/, it seems like this is the result of deep seeded insecurity, you can tell by how angry they sound over things like the mosque of djenne being made of adobe its pretty odd getting so mad over something so trivial.

They get super angry over things like haya steel and scream afrocentrist afrocentrist afrocentrist despite it being discovered and documented by a European man.

Next they'll say its not true because they don't think its true despite having no qualifications to make such claims.

Next they'll strawman and use arguments like "it can't be better because look at it it looks unsophisticated" then compare the least flattering picture of said african thing to the most flattering picture of what ever they're talking about. when that doesn't work they'll try to simplify it like say terra pituing is just basic fertiliser or how Terracing is basic. Another common troupe is how okay for europeans to adopt forigen technology while africans can't.

The most basic tactic is to shift the goal post find the thing they think africans are lacking in then make that the standard, hence why they always use architecture as the standard of civilization or they'll use the wheel, they'll even use some groups not using plows.

Lastly they'll try to attribute african civilizations to outside groups they do so if for example they are 100% African if they have even 1% non african Dna they'll just on it, it's one of the most common tactics.
 
Mar 2016
1,097
Australia
#97
Every discussion about African history inevitably ends up with accusations of "Eurocentrism", "Afrocentrism" and "racism" going one way or the other, so to me it isn't something I'm interested in taking part in. I'd prefer to stick to historical topics where my arguments and criticisms won't get instantly dismissed with an accusation of "racism", as happens constantly whenever African history is discussed critically. Unfortunately this area of study is dominated by political and ideological agendas on both sides, and for me that doesn't make for an enjoyable environment for discussion. This very thread has been the prime evidence of that.
 
Likes: BuckBradley
Feb 2019
345
California
#98
Serious question: is it possible to find a good, objective history of Africa (on the internet ideally)? I am guessing that anything written after about say 1975 is going to be utterly useless revisionism but I am eager to be proved wrong.

Thanks.
 
Feb 2018
49
ohio
#99
Serious question: is it possible to find a good, objective history of Africa (on the internet ideally)? I am guessing that anything written after about say 1975 is going to be utterly useless revisionism but I am eager to be proved wrong.

Thanks.
How exactly would it be revisionism? Most premodern archology is revisionism with europeans attributing every aspect of african culture to outsiders. they litterally tried to use the bible to do so creating hamite theory, lets not forget the Europeans trying to claim the ruins in Zimbabwe was built by Persians or pheonicans, or attributing the yoruba and benin brass and bronze arts to Europeans or even Atlantis so if anything archeological sources past 1975 are far more reliable and done with far less political bais.
 
Feb 2018
49
ohio
Exce
Every discussion about African history inevitably ends up with accusations of "Eurocentrism", "Afrocentrism" and "racism" going one way or the other, so to me it isn't something I'm interested in taking part in. I'd prefer to stick to historical topics where my arguments and criticisms won't get instantly dismissed with an accusation of "racism", as happens constantly whenever African history is discussed critically. Unfortunately this area of study is dominated by political and ideological agendas on both sides, and for me that doesn't make for an enjoyable environment for discussion. This very thread has been the prime evidence of that.
Less critical and more like using anything to delegitimise african history.
 

Similar History Discussions