Whats with all the racism geared twords African history?

Jan 2019
25
Earth
#32
Many of those anti-African racist around here are not American, not even westerners. Anti-African or Anti-Black racism is a thing across many cultures around the world.
we have to accept that almost every culture is Racist or have some degree of xenophobia, Middle East, south Asians, East Asians and even Blacks suffer from this just like whites.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
4,723
Portugal
#33
In the sequence of my last posts here, and since I don’t want to derail the focus of this thread, I decided to open a new thread, that among other things can also focus in the “dispute” between Silva Porto and Livingstone, and in the existence of more explorers in Africa than just the British ones, this without to deny the relevance of the British:

Adventures of the European Explorers in Africa and the Scramble for Africa
 

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,904
Lisbon, Portugal
#34
Care to elaborate the bold part?
I've been on this site since 2014, and I've seen individuals from non-western countries posting (I would think they are tolls) some bigoted comments towards Africans and Africa's history.
 
Mar 2012
337
#36
I think many people misrepresent the "Afrocentrist" point of view, and who can blame them when you have Afrocentric scholars claiming everything from the Vikings to the Olmecs as black. On the other hand the absolute ridicule and emotional reaction most people have to the idea and evidence of a black presence in Egypt, Rome and Greece is just as bad. Spamming "We Wuz Kangs" isnt going to change the reality of the evidence on the ground.

IME three reasons
1-Misinformation and sterotypes
2-Bigotry
3-Reaction to Afro centrism
 
Jun 2017
2,555
Connecticut
#37
I think many people misrepresent the "Afrocentrist" point of view, and who can blame them when you have Afrocentric scholars claiming everything from the Vikings to the Olmecs as black. On the other hand the absolute ridicule and emotional reaction most people have to the idea and evidence of a black presence in Egypt, Rome and Greece is just as bad. Spamming "We Wuz Kangs" isnt going to change the reality of the evidence on the ground.
Yeah exactly a lot of people are right on the merits but you can kind of see the intensity of the reaction as racist that wouldn't be there in other instances.

Best way to sum up the "Weez was KIngs" thing in Egypt is to look at how the US will be viewed in several millenia because the Egyptian population at least until recently had a somewhat similarly sized percentage of "Black" people versus 'White" people(quoting because neither are real identity's that would exist without the last several centuries). By that time there will probably have been a sizeable amount of black leaders and US notables but in proportion this will likely pale compared to white, mixed(which eventually will be what Americans are known as in several centuries) and latino leaders because of the discrimination early on and the fact there's just not as many later on. We should view Egyptian history through similar lens obviously there were blacks in Egypt, obviously some of the pharaoh's were black or had black features but at the same time most Egyptians don't fit the mold of what a more racially conscious world views as "African" and Africa wasn't actually a continent at the time(a misconception that all races share that helps lead to this idea) and there's hundreds of Egyptian pharoah's finding a few(not counting the 25 dynasty which was obviously removed from this argument) same way they'll likely be hundreds of US Presidents and like 10 or 15 "Black ones".

Also think the Afro centric desire towards claiming Egypt is due to non black scholars emphasis on Egypt. Kush/Askum/Ethiopia to the South's got Pyramid's, briefly conquered and ruled Egypt and was a very long standing successful civilization by traditional historical standards, being the only major classical civilization(non eastern) that escaped Roman domination. Also the only major classical civilization's that's more or less existed continiously. It also combats the perception that blacks didn't used to be part of the West as while Africa was split, Ethiopia wasn't given away but people often don't talk about the why there. Ethopia's early adoption of Christianity, longstanding survival and it's King's recognition among European nobles demonstrate that Ethiopia did have recognition to some degree as a civilization in an era where Africans were considered to be "uncivilized" groups whom colonizers were trying to change. However this is almost never brought up(on these forums it is and often invoked a racist reaction from modern day Egyptians, talking about generally no one brings it up). Same goes for Northwest Africa(which was the most civilized part and developed of the West for centuries) and until recently the Mali Empire(I feel in American capitalist culture that example works better because of the King's unusual wealth).

I am using Ethiopia, Kush and Nubia quite interchangeably trying to talk about the continuous civilization south of Egypt even though some are in Sudan, am well aware I'm butchering the technical terms would appreciate not being called out on it.

The most ridiculous and outrageous thing about European fetishization of Roman and Greek superiority(not that I believe in Greek superiority think their civilization is super overrated) is the hypocrisy because while they've claimed these civs as their heritage via skin color(though considering Italians inferior regardless of that in past centuries), these people viewed their ancestors as animals and that is not their history regardless of how long they spend trying to make it so. Actual Greeks and Italians are actually seen in quite a negative light because of their current fiscal and political issues and when Orlando cited Italy's relatively accurate claim to the Roman Empire, the rest of the Western leaders were very upset so this nerve isn't new. European fetishization of the Roman Empire is basically the same thing as "Weez was Kings"(literally giving themselves the name Roman Emperor) except Europeans took the BS further(and for much longer) and I don't think this is ever really picked up on. The most developed and successful parts of today's Western world were either the backwater regions of the Roman Empire whose inhabitants the Celtics are now mainly in Ireland or the classical equivalent of the "you should never go there" place from the lion king(Germany, Scandinavia etc). This applied to most of Africa too but Africa had it's Greeks and Rome's too of which only Egypt tends to get recognition(Carthage's recognition tends to be negative and not the kind people would fight over because A they lost and B because their religion might have sacrificed children). So the hypocrisy racists have towards coopting Egyptian identity when doing the same to Rome,such a central part of European history is quite outstanding given they've spent over a millenia doing the Weez was Kings. Or rather "Weez was Emperor!"

So the anti Afro centric people tend to be mostly right in these regards, but their motives usually give off huge red flags as is their often refusal to acknowledge that Afro centrists have points and that Egypt did have black people and black pharoah's which they did. They are correct many traditionally oppressed groups do try to co opt someone else's history but they need to look in the mirror. Europe's co option of Rome is also a case showing that evidence on the ground doesn't really matter when stacked next to self given superlatives. Given that many Afro centrists are Americans and will have considerably more influence on academia than North Africans it is very conceivable they will gain the power at some point to get their narrative generally accepted the same way Europeans were able to get their co opting of Rome generally accepted(even before Rome's fall). It is also worth noting that in future centuries the US will not really have black or white populations and if the anti Afro centrists are indeed motivated by race they will not be around to care.That is a two way street, western blacks might also stop caring but Europeans have festishized Egypt a bit too so I could see that narrative getting outside support.

Most important thing to know is that this debate has been going on very briefly in historical terms and might end up just fading away depending on future events. It must also be kept in mind that the West has many historical misconceptions about Egypt that are there for non historical reasons. The whole Jews being slaves in Egypt and escaping to the promised land for example never happened nor could have happened in any capacity and despite most scholars knowing this, most Americans do think that is history. So we have a precedent even for African history of people distorting the truth so how exactly is this different?
 
Last edited:

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
#38
It is natural that in the English speaking world they know more about the British explorers than about the others. That doesn’t mean that the others didn’t exist. And the European travellers weren’t necessarily primarily British in the 19th century, even if the British had a quite relevant role.
As you agree, the British explorers would have been the best known to the English speaking world, and it was the British who discovered the source of the Nile. No one said the other didn't get exist but as far as the general English speaking public, they might not have know about explorers of other nationalities.


I can admit that the British explorers made Africa known to the English speaking public at large, again that doesn’t mean that the others didn’t exist. The Portuguese explorers were quite known to the Portuguese public, and even if I am unaware, I can suppose that the other explorers (French, German) were quite know to their public, it is a bit belly centred if we think that the British were the only ones know to the public.
How knowledgeable were the Portuguese about the exploits of he British Explorers? Britain being thee leading country of Europe and the world at the time, it wouldn't be surprising that Portuguese were better informed about the British explorers than the British about the Portuguese but I was just wondering if the situation was similar in Portuguese , with the Portuguese public ignorant of the explorers of other countries.

Bart Dale, if you don’t know about the story of Silva Porto it is now necessary to raise question that are already fully answer for more than a century. We all know that there are Black Africans in Portugal since at least the 15th century, both free men and slaves, and that their offspring made many “mulatos”, but in this case Silva Porto was not a “mulato”, an half-caste, even if we all have African Ancestry. Livingstone used that to prove that he was the first European to reach those areas, while Silva Porto was been there for some years.
And you are certain of the appearance of Porto, that he didn't have significant amount of African appeance in his feature? If he did , then Livingston made a understandable mistake, and just mistakenly took him to be one of the native half caste Portuguese.

For the other countries I am not that informed ut I can mention Werman Wissmann, Carl Peters, Pierre Savorgnan de Brazza…
I recall mention of of some of the German and French explorers in my reading , but not Portuguese. I wonder if they were not as well known as you seem to think in Britain

Note, Livingston had his own pet reporter report on his progress, Stanly, which I doubt any of the Portuguese explorers, but I could be wrong.

The British Empire was the biggest one, and the USA spoke English, so it is quite natural that the most known ones in the English speaking world would be the British and not the Portuguese, the French or the German.


Bart, reading this again it seems that the British were the only ones. They weren’t. And with this I am not wanting to remove the relevance of the British explorers. And when I am talking about the Portuguese case, I am not talking here about the long history of the Portuguese in Africa, I am talking about the Portuguese explorers in the 19th century, not in the 16th. And again, I am not talking about the Portuguese explorers for nationalistic purposes, saying that they discovered more than A, B or C. I am talking about them because I know their stories better that the ones of the German or French.
You are saying that the British explorers were no more significant than the Portuguese explorers, and that might or might not be true. The British explorers did find the source of the Nile, a long sought after goal, which the Portuguese did not , which might imply that while Portuguese explorers were active, they were not as extensive as the British. Frankly, the Portuguese 19h explorers were never mentioned when I studied history, so I don't know their efforts.

Although I agree with much of you are saying here, I don’t understand your point here or the relevance of the mention to the Chinese.
To.demonstrate that others had just as much "racism" and bias as the British, but have not been criticized the same way as the British for such behaviour, and had less reason for the attitude.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
4,723
Portugal
#39
Bart,

I most agree with you, and I created a new thread related with this theme of the European Explorers, so we won’t derail this, that has a particular theme, and I hope you can contribute to the new thread.

Anyway I feel the need to comment here certain things of your post.

As you agree, the British explorers would have been the best known to the English speaking world, and it was the British who discovered the source of the Nile. No one said the other didn't get exist but as far as the general English speaking public, they might not have know about explorers of other nationalities.
Agreed, even if the source of the Nile was in political and diplomatic terms only or mostly a British concern. And for all this post let us recall the 1900 political map of Africa.

How knowledgeable were the Portuguese about the exploits of he British Explorers? Britain being thee leading country of Europe and the world at the time, it wouldn't be surprising that Portuguese were better informed about the British explorers than the British about the Portuguese but I was just wondering if the situation was similar in Portuguese , with the Portuguese public ignorant of the explorers of other countries.
The Portuguese weren’t ignorant about the explorers of the other countries. The Exploration of Africa was an European concern. The Newspapers published the new discoveries. There were geographical societies and clubs. There were conferences, receptions and dinners at a time that the people didn’t had TV or net. There was correspondence. There were novels about it. There were talks in the “cafés” (bars where the people drink mostly coffee) and in the streets with the last newspaper in the hand. Africa was a theme in many European countries! Not just in Britain.

And you are certain of the appearance of Porto, that he didn't have significant amount of African appeance in his feature? If he did , then Livingston made a understandable mistake, and just mistakenly took him to be one of the native half caste Portuguese.
Silva Porto was naturally tanned for the long years burned by the sun of Africa, like any bushman, but as for his genealogical tree there are no black people as far as we know, and he have images of him, but the main point was far behind that, if you read Livingstone’s writings that I quoted, I presume that you will understand the point. Anyway as I said I am developing this in other thread.

I recall mention of of some of the German and French explorers in my reading , but not Portuguese. I wonder if they were not as well known as you seem to think in Britain
I said that the Portuguese were known in Portugal, I didn’t made any comment about their notoriety in Britain. But they were certainly known in the circle of the explorers. As for you didn’t read about them… well… again that doesn’t mean that they didn’t exist. Let as recall again the political map of Africa in 1890. How did the powers grab all that land… the exploration was the first step. Why did Britain delivered an ultimatum to Portugal in 1890? So that Portugal was obliged to retreat from previous explored areas. How were they explored? By Explorers.

Note, Livingston had his own pet reporter report on his progress, Stanly, which I doubt any of the Portuguese explorers, but I could be wrong.
Stanley came much later. The meeting between Silva Porto and Livingstone was in 1853. But the expeditions of Serpa Pinto, Capelo and Ivens were fully followed by the press.

The British Empire was the biggest one, and the USA spoke English, so it is quite natural that the most known ones in the English speaking world would be the British and not the Portuguese, the French or the German.
Naturally. I said something like that in other words.

You are saying that the British explorers were no more significant than the Portuguese explorers, and that might or might not be true.
NO. I didn’t said that!!! I usually don’t follow in those kind of things A is more significant than B. Even if I could say something like that for the European exploration in the 15th, 16th and some decades of the 17th century, I couldn’t say that for the European exploration of Africa in the 19th. Let us recall again the political map of the continent at the end of the century.

The British explorers did find the source of the Nile, a long sought after goal, which the Portuguese did not , which might imply that while Portuguese explorers were active, they were not as extensive as the British. Frankly, the Portuguese 19h explorers were never mentioned when I studied history, so I don't know their efforts.
The Nile wasn’t a Portuguese concern (see the map), their concern in the 19th century was centred in Southern Africa (see the Pink Map). Again the Nile was mostly a British concern.

To.demonstrate that others had just as much "racism" and bias as the British, but have not been criticized the same way as the British for such behaviour, and had less reason for the attitude.
I wasn’t criticizing British racism or bias, I was criticising the statement that the British were the only Europeans to explore Africa… and again let us look to the African political map of 1900: File:Colonial Africa 1900 map.png - Wikimedia Commons

And I wrote too much in this post...


EDIT: This last map that I linked seems to have some issues, it was the first that I found, but if gives us the great pciture...
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions