Black History vs. Afrocentric History (op-ed)
Is there a difference between black history and afrocentric history?
Those that dismiss the question as a false dichotomy inaccurately presume the adjectives are synonyms.
Black was the generalization imposed by Europeans on groups of people from the African continent. Based on European ignorance and incapability to distinguish differences (tribe, language, religion, history, etc.) between these distinct groups the Europeans categorized them by their common dark skin. This general practice created one group under an easily identifiable label when packaged and shipped. It can be traced to the Portuguese and the Spanish. The Portuguese word for black is Preto, and the Spanish word, the more familiar label, is Negro. Afrocentric is a derivative of Afrocentricity, a cultural ideology rooted in the black studies movement in the United States during the 1960’s and 70’s.
Black history emphasizes the black diaspora from the Trans-Atlantic slave trade (when all ethnic tribes were labeled black) to the decolonization of Africa in the 20th century. Why does black history end then? Am I suggesting the election of Barack Obama is not black history? I’ll clarify.
A few years ago I read about a rally against racism at a community college. A 19 year old female student from the Democratic Republic of the Congo was interviewed. She said she never experienced racism until she came to the United States. But she viewed racism as being labeled black. She said in her country everyone was identified by their ethnic tribe and united by their Congolese nationality. She said black was a colonial term used by Europeans and dropped after independence.
The movements across Africa to oppose colonial rule coincided with the America civil rights movement. Blacks on both continents were united by resisting a common form of oppression. And once victory was obtained it ended the era of colonialism and segregation (which began with the Tran-Atlantic slave trade) and started a new historical period of independence. This period disintegrated the European label black and returned distinction to a diverse group of people with respective histories and different futures. For example blacks in the United States became African Americans. The first African American president was Barack Obama in 2008, that’s African American history. But Patrice Lumumba was the first prime minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 1960, and that’s Congolese history, and so on.
Afrocentric history is the past according to Afrocentricity. Afrocentricity or Afrocentrism is a worldview in response to Eurocentric views and racist depictions of African people. Holders of this cultural ideology believe white historians removed the accomplishments of Africans in antiquity to glorify Europe and reduce the non white to a subservient race to maintain white supremacy. Therefore black history, with its humiliating origin, is an extension of white supremacy that damages the self conceptualization of Africa’s dark skinned descendents creating the need for a history that promotes positive African images to foster self esteem.
For that reason afrocentric history asserts European civilization derived from Africa. It argues Greek philosophy was stolen from Egypt. It brags African’s navigated the world before European exploration and the civilizations of Mesoamerica were deeply influenced by Africans. It also claims figures from Socrates to Beethoven were black. There is very little evidence to support these claims. And critics of afrocentric history have referred to it as pseudo-history based on poor scholarship, therapeutic mythology, western civilization in black face, and a minstrel study for misdiagnosed deficiencies in self esteem.
But the fundamental flaw of afrocentric history is its terminology. It interchanges the modern racial category black with the general term African, but when applied in antiquity this interchange creates an inaccurate synonym. Therefore afrocentric history, through its own good intentions, treats the very subject it tries to uplift with the same indifference to distinction as the Portuguese and the Spanish.
According to Frank Snowden, professor of classics at Howard, and considered America’s greatest black classicist, race as a social construct didn’t exist in antiquity, and if the notion of race was absent today, as it was then, the world would be a better place.
First published in the New Pittsburgh Courier 2/11/15
Those that dismiss the question as a false dichotomy inaccurately presume the adjectives are synonyms.
Black was the generalization imposed by Europeans on groups of people from the African continent. Based on European ignorance and incapability to distinguish differences (tribe, language, religion, history, etc.) between these distinct groups the Europeans categorized them by their common dark skin. This general practice created one group under an easily identifiable label when packaged and shipped. It can be traced to the Portuguese and the Spanish. The Portuguese word for black is Preto, and the Spanish word, the more familiar label, is Negro. Afrocentric is a derivative of Afrocentricity, a cultural ideology rooted in the black studies movement in the United States during the 1960’s and 70’s.
Black history emphasizes the black diaspora from the Trans-Atlantic slave trade (when all ethnic tribes were labeled black) to the decolonization of Africa in the 20th century. Why does black history end then? Am I suggesting the election of Barack Obama is not black history? I’ll clarify.
A few years ago I read about a rally against racism at a community college. A 19 year old female student from the Democratic Republic of the Congo was interviewed. She said she never experienced racism until she came to the United States. But she viewed racism as being labeled black. She said in her country everyone was identified by their ethnic tribe and united by their Congolese nationality. She said black was a colonial term used by Europeans and dropped after independence.
The movements across Africa to oppose colonial rule coincided with the America civil rights movement. Blacks on both continents were united by resisting a common form of oppression. And once victory was obtained it ended the era of colonialism and segregation (which began with the Tran-Atlantic slave trade) and started a new historical period of independence. This period disintegrated the European label black and returned distinction to a diverse group of people with respective histories and different futures. For example blacks in the United States became African Americans. The first African American president was Barack Obama in 2008, that’s African American history. But Patrice Lumumba was the first prime minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 1960, and that’s Congolese history, and so on.
Afrocentric history is the past according to Afrocentricity. Afrocentricity or Afrocentrism is a worldview in response to Eurocentric views and racist depictions of African people. Holders of this cultural ideology believe white historians removed the accomplishments of Africans in antiquity to glorify Europe and reduce the non white to a subservient race to maintain white supremacy. Therefore black history, with its humiliating origin, is an extension of white supremacy that damages the self conceptualization of Africa’s dark skinned descendents creating the need for a history that promotes positive African images to foster self esteem.
For that reason afrocentric history asserts European civilization derived from Africa. It argues Greek philosophy was stolen from Egypt. It brags African’s navigated the world before European exploration and the civilizations of Mesoamerica were deeply influenced by Africans. It also claims figures from Socrates to Beethoven were black. There is very little evidence to support these claims. And critics of afrocentric history have referred to it as pseudo-history based on poor scholarship, therapeutic mythology, western civilization in black face, and a minstrel study for misdiagnosed deficiencies in self esteem.
But the fundamental flaw of afrocentric history is its terminology. It interchanges the modern racial category black with the general term African, but when applied in antiquity this interchange creates an inaccurate synonym. Therefore afrocentric history, through its own good intentions, treats the very subject it tries to uplift with the same indifference to distinction as the Portuguese and the Spanish.
According to Frank Snowden, professor of classics at Howard, and considered America’s greatest black classicist, race as a social construct didn’t exist in antiquity, and if the notion of race was absent today, as it was then, the world would be a better place.
First published in the New Pittsburgh Courier 2/11/15
Comments
Post a Comment