Afrocentrism is just as misguided as any other kind of ethno-nationalism.

[Rhamses]

What's funny about it? Geographical environment is a serious topic on how it effects people.

Yeah, except Africa isn't some green paradise where things come easy. There's some harsh diseases, animals, and geographic barriers that make life there difficult. Europeans experienced that exact thing when they began to colonize the continent in the 19th century and almost starved to death.

The main components of large-scale civilization is a grain-based food (rice, corn, wheat), and large animals to tame (goats, horses, camel, cattle). Neither of those exist in Sub-Saharan Africa, and had to work around it. In Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia you had a near constant exchange of ideas for centuries that spurred their development.

[Elegiac]

Aye

If you want a real answer most thinkers and historians define the level of civilisation based on a combination of technological advancement and civil liberty's

Hope that helps you with a definition. Even if it is just the standard academic one

Speaking as someone who studies history in an academic context; no.

'Levels of civilization' is based on a largely outdated viewpoint of humanity as a linear progression rather than a serious of processes in response to internal shifts and external pressures; generally we don't use terms like 'civilized' as a contrast to 'primitive' because it's not useful or accurate.

Point in fact, the assumption that modern democratic liberties or even industrial technology are necessarily 'good' is a value judgment that is generally avoided in historical analysis.

[PC2]

So, you mean exactly the sort of societies that would have things like cities, books, trade networks, metallurgy, etc? Societies like every major African kingdom in the past thousand years?

Certainly they created knowledge and wealth, but knowledge of institutions was not as present as it was in Europe.

Also, assuming that domestication was based on happenstance. Lol. You're not very well read are you?

I was defining the difference between primitive and advanced societies. Primitive ones advance based on trial and error, advanced ones take that process and build a philosophy around it.

[Elegiac]

Do you n the Swede have anything but one-liners to reply with?

I'll give you a serious response when you give us a serious argument.

[judgementofantonidas]

So the Afrocentrists have been getting increased air time of late because of the release of Black Panther. Now, please don't misunderstand me. I've not seen the movie, and have no opinion on it as a film. I enjoy the MCU so will probably watch it on BlueRay once I catch up with Thor and Guardians (I'm pretty far behind). That being said, some of the internet ravings surrounding the film are beyond ludicrous. I've nothing against idealistic escapism. If we want to treat Wakanda as a Camelot for black people, then fine, have at it. Just so long as you keep in mind fantasy, is fantasy, and shouldn't drive your ambitions and interactions with others in the real world. I'll deconstruct some of the ideas being spouted in connection with the film.

1. Wakanda is what Africa would have been if European colonization hadn't happened.

Guy's, if Africa had been like Wakanda, at least in terms of technological advancement, colonization wouldn't have happened. Europeans wouldn't have had the power to do it. It's just that simple.

2. Africa remains poor and violent because of the remaining after-effects of colonization.

Africa was poor, technologically backward, and violent before, during, and after European colonization. In fact, the areas that were most heavily colonized, and remained colonized the longest, are the richest and most socially stable places in Africa. Ethiopia, which was never colonized, had slavery until 1942 when it was abolished under pressure from the Western Allies in the aftermath of WWII.

3. All that is required for black people to prosper is for them to be socially isolated from the rest of the world and left to their own devices.

This is the worst claim of all, because predictably the white ethno-nationalists are completely on board with it, and it's the most easily debunked. The main reason Africa was so technologically backward, seriously people, in many places they were barely past the neolithic era as recently as the late 1800s, is precisely because the difficult geography of Africa isolated their people from trade with the rest of the world. The vikings, hardly characterized as a great European civilization, had better weapons than the Zulus 1000 years before the British were stacking their bodies like firewood.

European expansion, especially that of the Anglo-Saxons, didn't happen because they were always an advanced or powerful people. Prior to 500 years ago, Northwest Europe was an insignificant backwater on the edge of the Eurasian landmass filled with squabbling tribes more preoccupied with killing each-other than just about anything else. That all changed when those people embraced trade with the greater world, organized themselves into coherent nation states, and started amassing the resources required to support a population boom. The rest is history.

You don't even need to go deep into history to see that the claim of economic isolationism is the path to prosperity is farcical. Look at the difference between Feudal and post-Meiji Japan, China and the rest of Southeast Asia before free trade compared to now, and North vs. South Korea. The number one reason the United States is so prosperous is because we keep attracting and bringing in new blood that is a self-selected group of ambitious, creative, driven and risk-taking individuals, and we're promiscuous with regards to with whom we'll do business.

I'll finish with this point. Afrocentrists, or Black ethno-nationalists as we should call them, are abandoning their real legacy in favor of a fantasy. Black Americans are a part of the cultural fabric of this country. They have affected our art, language, music, food, clothing and participated in the big moments of our history. Blacks have fought bravely in our armies since the Revolution, and produced great philosophers and statesmen such as Frederick Douglas, Martin Luther King, and Clarence Thomas to name just a few. The US is the first western country to have a black man as the head of state. Blacks are more free, have more opportunity, and are more prosperous here than in any country on earth. That is a far greater legacy for them to latch on to than a fictitious African Camelot.

right. but now you are being racist. only blacks can cry inequality. not really pointing out anything that is not already commonly known.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Oh, I don't know. The fact you think you can just pick food anywhere in African countries. If that was true, why is there so much starvation there?

Because in addition to being impacted by colonialism who have their own interest, most of the interest of the native people remained the same unless exploited by outside sources.

There is food in Africa, but it isn't going to be the same supply as traditionally would be in other places.

[Video Games]

It's a fuckin marvel movieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[HumbleDuck]

I just realized blunt racism of the intellectually dishonest doesn't trigger me anymore. Thanks mmo-champion I guess ...?

[Elegiac]

Certainly they created knowledge and wealth, but knowledge of institutions was not as present as it was in Europe.

Read: These societies were mostly not literate therefore they were primitive.

Which is complete horseshit, as you don't necessarily need literacy to sustain complex institutionalised societies.

I was defining the difference between primitive and advanced societies. Primitive ones advance based on trial and error, advanced ones take that process and build a philosophy around it.

Making up a definition, sure.

Also, no; ancient humans were not stupid and were about as intelligent as you or I. They created, experimented, and elaborated.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

First you need to specify exactly what your point is. Are you talking about the entire continent of Africa, or just the Sub-Saharan portion? Or are you just talking about Black People? If its the latter, just be up front about it and stop BSing.

Also you should probably understand that there has always been a significant black population in North Africa as well.

It depends. Some parallels exist with regards to both North and sub-saharan Africa, as the Europeans effectively colonized both, and more beyond. The claims I'm reacting to though, are specific to sub-saharan Africa, because while North Africa, the Middle East, and China all had previously enjoyed their eras at the forefront of civilizational progress, and even during the European ascendency, were still involved in trade, sub-saharan Africa by comparison was incredibly primitave and isolated, and so the claims that European colonization are what caused it to be so are even more spurrious than they would be if made elsewhere.

[Doctor Amadeus]

It's a fuckin marvel movieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

This is why we can't have nice things.

[Rhamses]

He is correct on that post, I am not exactly sure why you would call that bull, need is the mother of all invention, not that it alone is why some developed and others didn't per say, but those different paths in development for sure had an effect.

None of which made one more superior than the other, it simply lead to different sets of problem solving skills.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

[Deleted]

Speaking as someone who studies history in an academic context; no.

'Levels of civilization' is based on a largely outdated viewpoint of humanity as a linear progression rather than a serious of processes in response to internal shifts and external pressures; generally we don't use terms like 'civilized' as a contrast to 'primitive' because it's not useful or accurate.

Point in fact, the assumption that modern democratic liberties or even industrial technology are necessarily 'good' is a value judgment that is generally avoided in historical analysis.

Yea that's the current american academic definition.
I was taught something very different. I was also taught feelings and morals shouldn't get in the way of the truth.

If you want to belive a society the practiced, slavery, human sacrifice, had no vote, no rights and women were property and no major city's no roads no rail. Was or is equal some how to modern civilisations then you do you.

[SirCowdog]

Also, no; ancient humans were not stupid and were about as intelligent as you or I. They created, experimented, and elaborated.

In many cases I suspect they were actually MORE intelligent. Being able to come up with solutions for complex problems without the advantage of modern resources or technology is pretty amazing, when you get down to it.

[Rhamses]

It depends. Some parallels exist with regards to both North and sub-saharan Africa, as the Europeans effectively colonized both, and more beyond. The claims I'm reacting to though, are specific to sub-saharan Africa, because while North Africa, the Middle East, and China all had previously enjoyed their eras at the forefront of civilizational progress, and even during the European ascendency, were still involved in trade, sub-saharan Africa by comparison was incredibly primitave and isolated, and so the claims that European colonization are what caused it to be so are even more spurrious than they would be if made elsewhere.

And Africans successfully conquered Spain in the 8th century until the 15th century. I would say that life in the Moorish civilization and the Ghanian/Mali civilization that fueled it was actually superior to dark-age European life at that time. Moorish Spain was probably the best place to live in Europe up to the time of Columbus.

Europeans DID strip Africa of its resources and purposely destabilize local governments in order to better control the local people. They did the exact same thing in the Americas and Asia as well, so I'm simply not seeing your general point here. Africans fell to the Europeans just like anyone else, mainly because of the industrial revolution. The same industrial revolution that led to Europeans slaughtering themselves in record numbers in WW1 and WW2.

[Elegiac]

Yea that's the current ammerican academic definition.
I was taught something very different. I was also taught feelings and morals shouldn't get in the way if the truth.

What "you were taught" doesn't rely on feelings and morals like the modern paradigm which explicitly tries to eliminate value judgements so as to present a more objective analysis.

One of these things is not like the other...

If you want to belive a society the practiced, slavery, human sacrifice, had no vote, no rights and women were property and no major city's no roads no rail. Was or is equal some how to modern civilisations then you do you.

Essentially you're just endorsing viewing history as a morality play rather than something that can be studied objectively.

[Doctor Amadeus]

It depends. Some parallels exist with regards to both North and sub-saharan Africa, as the Europeans effectively colonized both, and more beyond. The claims I'm reacting to though, are specific to sub-saharan Africa, because while North Africa, the Middle East, and China all had previously enjoyed their eras at the forefront of civilizational progress, and even during the European ascendency, were still involved in trade, sub-saharan Africa by comparison was incredibly primitave and isolated, and so the claims that European colonization are what caused it to be so are even more spurrious than they would be if made elsewhere.

There are no parallels and you citing black nationalism or black supremacy doesn't actually embolden your arguments. Stupid people are stupid people, and people fixated on the color of their skin as their only claim to anything are pathetic.

It's a damn movie, which granted maybe it does have influence and art can do that, but instead of making it about racism and the past, perhaps it could simply be a springboard into something more positive.

Like hey maybe inspiration for more people to do things like apply the best of themselves, to stick up for others even if they aren't like them, and band together and protect the values everybody can share.

I mean I might getting a bit carried away there, but at the very least it's just a movie 2 hours of escapism which I don't see what the hell there is any harm in, especially in a world where everybody hates one another and wants to shoot everything up.

Perhaps if people once in a while could be left the hell alone and relax and enjoy a simple mindless movie then maybe that is all the positivity there needs to be.

[Elegiac]

It depends. Some parallels exist with regards to both North and sub-saharan Africa, as the Europeans effectively colonized both, and more beyond. The claims I'm reacting to though, are specific to sub-saharan Africa, because while North Africa, the Middle East, and China all had previously enjoyed their eras at the forefront of civilizational progress, and even during the European ascendency, were still involved in trade, sub-saharan Africa by comparison was incredibly primitave and isolated, and so the claims that European colonization are what caused it to be so are even more spurrious than they would be if made elsewhere.

Hint: When you say "civilizational progress", you've already distanced yourself from any serious academic study.

[PC2]

Making up a definition, sure.

Also, no; ancient humans were not stupid and were about as intelligent as you or I. They created, experimented, and elaborated.

Are you referring to innate intelligence? My ancestor from 10000 years ago may have about the same innate intelligence as I do, but that is not knowledge.

[PACOX]

Black people got a thing, time to be outraged.