Eurocentrism and Afrocentrism

1 Eurocentrism and Afrocentrism Eurocentrism Eurocentrism refers to a discursive tendency to interpret the histories and cultures of nonEuropean societies from a European (or Western) perspective. Common features of Eurocentric thought include: Ignoring or undervaluing non-European societies as inferior to Western; ignoring or undervaluing what Asians or Africans do within their own society or seeing the histories of non-European societies simply in European terms, or as part of "the expansion of Europe" and its civilizing influence. Eurocentrism is very old indeed. Already in the fifth century B.C.E. the Greek historian Herodotus mentions "barbaric" Asian hordes who despite splendid architecture, lack European individuality. Although Eurocentrism has been common through the ages, it has not been constant, nor has it affected the way Europeans have viewed all nonEuropean societies equally. Moreover, Europeans have not always been in full agreement with each other over the merits or failings of particular non-European societies.

Buy this excellently written paper or order a fresh one from ace-myhomework.com

2 In some writers and periods there is a tendency to romanticize Asia and Africa. In general, Eurocentrism has been more pronounced during periods of greatest European assertiveness or self-confidence, the most outstanding example being the age of imperialism and colonialism in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

There are certain beliefs, valid or otherwise, that have led Eurocentric thinkers toward ignoring, undervaluing, or condemning non-European societies. There is a wide range of these, some applying more broadly in chronological terms than others. They include the following: Non-European societies tend to be despotic and servile, as against the West's freedom and individualism. Non-European societies are Islamic, or pagan, or believe in strange religions, which are inferior to Christianity, or lack its truth. Non-European societies are cruel and lack concern for human life. They practice barbaric customs toward women, such as female genital mutilation (North Africa), widow-burning (sati, India) or foot-binding (China). Non-European societies are inflexible and unchanging. Some European thinkers have attributed this lack of change to topography or climate, for instance extreme dependence on a major river, such as the Nile or the Yellow River, or extreme heat or dryness. Non-European societies are poor, backward, and underdeveloped, as opposed to the industrialized, progressive, and rich West.

Non-European societies lack rational modes of thinking and scientific approaches.

Several philosophers such as Hegel, Marx, Mueller, Monier Williams and Husserl had their own perception of eurocentrism. During the colonial era, the naïve assumption of Western superiority was given authority by thinkers such as Hegel, who developed a "universal" theory of history, which was, in essence, a theory of European history in which the rest of the World was taken to be objects rather than subjects. For Hegel, as Said has pointed out, Asia and Africa were "static, despotic, and irrelevant to world history." Hegel's view of history was highly influential,

3 on both Marxist and humanist historiography. His rather extreme ethnocentrism should thus not be swept under the rug, but analyzed as a central aspect of his thought. Since Hegel, Ethnocentrism has often blinded the West to the parochialism of its supposed "universals".

Particularly egregious are the attempts by thinkers such as Hegel to define as universal features that are, in fact, quite culturally specific. This includes his "universal history", which saw Europe and America as the pinnacles of human evolution. Hegel wrote, for example, "universal history goes from East to West. Europe is absolutely the end of universal history. Asia is the beginning.

This idea was clearly a justification of Western colonial exploitation. But Hegel took the idea even further. Since his "history" is solely defined in Eurocentric terms, any act committed by the Europeans, no matter how reprehensible, is justifiable as a necessary step in human evolution.

Hegel saw the evolution of human history as a unified totality, proceeding via the evolution of the "world spirit". The "world spirit", for Hegel, was Western, with other cultures subsumed to the dustbin of history, forced either to adapt to the West or be trampled underfoot by this "world spirit", which in Hegel's writing appears as a complex metaphor for the reality of Western aggression. Even within the West, Germany occupies a special destiny. All nonEuropeans are mere objects in the hands of the Europeans, under this theory of history.

Colonialization was the teleological imperative by which consciousness in the form of the superior Europeans must appropriate the others. Hegel also applied this "logic" specifically to his analysis of India. He depicted the British colonialization of India as an inevitable stage in his process of "evolution".

The false perception that India was a stagnant historical land was further perpetuated by Karl Marx. Marx described India as being caught in what he called the "Asiatic Mode of Production". He posited that India was trapped in a stagnant, unhistorical economic state in

4 which "Oriental despots" wielding absolute power governed unchanging, stratified villages. His analysis was flawed by a serious ignorance of the actual economic history of India, and of the numerous underlying causes of decline. (This is why to this day Marxists do not wish to encourage scholarship on India's Traditional Knowledge Systems, as the historical record clearly refutes the belief that there was no progress on the materialistic front from within the indigenous culture.) From a certain perspective, the greatest despots in India were not Oriental but Occidental, i.e., the British.

The prevalent view of most modern Western scholars is that European tradition is not simply one cultural tradition among others. The European self identity is predicated upon its distinct achievements in philosophy and pure theory, and as such, has a unique global mission to fulfill. Husserl claimed: "Europe alone can provide other traditions with a universal framework of meaning and understanding. They will have to Europeanize themselves, whereas we, if we understand ourselves properly, will never, for example, Indianize ourselves. The Europeanization of all foreign parts of mankind is the destiny of the earth."

Afrocentrism Afrocentrism can broadly be defined as an ideology that regards African or black culture as pre-eminent. Over the last half of the 20th Century, its influence became increasingly widespread in the United States, particularly in academia and in popular music culture.

Afrocentrism, also called Africentrism, cultural and political movement whose mainly African American adherents regard themselves and all other blacks as syncretic Africans and believe that their worldview should positively reflect traditional African values.

A common contention on Afrocentrism is that Black Africans dominated Egyptian culture; Ancient Greeks plundered Ancient Egyptian works; many notable historical figures

5 including Jesus, Cleopatra and Socrates were Black; Jews were responsible for creating a Black slave trade. In some ways Afrocentrism can be seen as an understandable reaction to the deep injustices of racism, and the subjugation of Black people in America for much of its history, particularly under the notorious Jim Crow Law which effectively operated as a racial caste system in the Southern and Border States, from the 1870s until the mid 1960s. However, at its most extreme, Afrocentrism is essentially racist; and its thinking flawed. Ironically, its inherent racism has been allowed to go unchallenged in many quarters through fear of any criticism being deemed racist. The claims made by some extreme proponents have taken academic points out of context to promote their own ideological beliefs and perpetuate and promote racial tensions.

Afrocentrists argue that Blacks must see themselves through Black eyes, as agents of history, rather than as simply subjects of investigation. Their view must proceed from an "inside place." Most emphasize the civilizations of northeastern Africa, namely Kemet (Egypt), Nubia, Axum, and Meroe. In spite of criticism (or maybe because of it); Afrocentrism (or Afrocentricity) was and is spreading.

Many of Afrocentrism's critics have chosen to battle these straw men (and women).

However, "Afrocentrists do not want," according to Asante, "to replace Greece with Egypt. They want a proper recognition of African civilization." Afrocentrism "is not, nor can it be based on biological determinism." The movement is open to "anyone willing to submit to the discipline of learning the concepts and methods. . . ." The question is not whether or not Cleopatra was Black — Asante argues that she was not — but about "a proper recognition of African civilization."

Maulana Karenga uses the term "Afrocentricity" to avoid any perception that it has aims equivalent to the "Eurocentrism" it seeks to replace. In seeking to delimit it, he has encouraged its adherents to be autocritical. They must not "promote a static, monolithic and unreal concept

6 of African culture which denies or diminishes its dynamic and diverse character." They must also not "overfocus on the Continental African past at the expense of recognizing the African American past and present as central to and constitutive of African culture and the Afrocentric enterprise."

There are several fallacies associated with Afrocentrism. For instance, Afrocentrism seriously distorts Egyptian history. Egyptians were not "black" (Negroid) on the whole, though a few dynasties of rulers were. But Egyptians were also not racists, it seems, and people of different colors intermarried. Greeks did not "steal" their culture from Egypt. In the ancient Mediterranean world, cultural influences moved around a lot. The Egyptian rulers and their acolytes (like all the "-hoteps", Imhotep, Ptahhotep, et al.) were an oppressive and exploitative aristocracy. Cheikh Anta Diop, whom Afrocentrists admire but, it seems, seldom read, has a very interesting review of Jacques Pirenne's History of Ancient Egypt in one of his books. Diop comments favorably about Pirenne's description of revolutions against the Egyptian rulers by lower-class Egyptians -- something one would expect in an exploitative society. But the Afrocentrists who so admire Diop never mention this aspect of Ancient Egypt! In short, what they admire is the aristocratic, exploitative aspect of it. "African culture" is not a unity: there are many, many cultures in Africa. Ancient Egyptians are not the ancestors, either culturally or genetically, of the peoples of West Africa or of the American black population.

The whole "ice man-sun man" thesis of Francis Welsing is racist crap, without a shred of evidence to support it. Welsing seldom publishes her 'research'; same with Jeffries. I know: I've tried to get it; with lots of effort, I've gotten a very little bit. The infamous "Melanin" Conferences at which these ideas are promoted are virtually secret, their 'proceedings', if any, not available to anyone. The premises of Afrocentrism are false and racist against blacks, among

7 others. It is false and racist that anyone has any business taking "pride" in the "achievements" of one's distant ancestors, since intelligence, creativity, etc., are not inherited, and furthermore no one can take any credit for anything they have not achieved themselves. This is the case even if modern blacks were the descendants of ancient Egyptians, which they are not. Besides, if one takes credit for the "achievements" of one's distant ancestors, why not also assume the blame for the atrocities committed by the same ancestors? It is false and racist to say that "blackness", "melanin" (or "whiteness", etc.) confers intelligence or any characteristics at all. If it were true, all blacks with any degree of white ancestry would be "sub-human" just as the "ice person" thesis claims whites are; most American blacks, if not all.

Today, Afrocentrism is a racist, highly conservative, nationalist pseudo-science (by the latter term I mean: based upon phony scholarship and premises). It victimizes black students almost exclusively, since it is they who have this nonsense foisted off upon them as truth. The fact that it is tolerated and even promoted at various universities, including the one I teach at, is a tribute to higher education's racism against black students. This kind of worthless, reactionary crap would never be tolerated if it were being purveyed to white students! Afrocentrism is another form of authoritarianism. It tells black students: Believe "your leaders" because they are black! Since there's no evidence worthy of the name for these theses, "believe your black leaders" is all that's left.