Cleopatra was white and I can prove it

[Kyriakos]

Some famous ancient greeks did have red hair, including Alex and Pyrrhos (the latter's name means 'fiery' as well)

Though Herodotos notes that red hair was mostly common among the thracians, and (iirc) it was Xenophanes who argued that thracians, imagining (like everyone else) their gods after their own likeness, have gods with red hair.

[Roma_Victrix]

Some famous ancient greeks did have red hair, including Alex and Pyrrhos (the latter's name means 'fiery' as well)

Though Herodotos notes that red hair was mostly common among the thracians, and (iirc) it was Xenophanes who argued that thracians, imagining (like everyone else) their gods after their own likeness, have gods with red hair.

It was Xenophanes! He also quipped that Ethiopians viewed all of their own gods as being snub-nosed and with black skin. Lol. Basically, everyone depicts their gods in the way that their own people look.

[Kyriakos]

It was Xenophanes! He also quipped that Ethiopians viewed all of their own gods as being snub-nosed and with black skin. Lol. Basically, everyone depicts their gods in the way that their own people look.

Black Athena

[Ludicus]

In essence, the title of my thread is largely in jest, even though it's true.
...we shall argue in the shade.

*Cough* Well, it seems to me that Cleopatra had vitiligo.

[The Gurkhan]

Despite the OP's claim at flippancy, the thread is obviously just another derp derp silly Afrocentric circle jerk. An internet forum equivalent of laughing at someone with severe autism then fist bumping your friends for doing so.

Many of the arguments in here used to promote civilizations blacks (whatever that means) can or should be cheering for are very revealing it seems. I'd say most of the civilisations American descendants of slaves are apparently permitted to ape (Kush, Axum, even Mali etc.) are as irrelevant to them as Egypt is.

Many said civilizations were totally unrelated to each other. So it would be as dim as saying there are plenty of civilizations whites (whatever that means) can call their own. Before promptly listing every known historical kingdom or culture from Scandinavia to Anatolia.

[athanaric]

Despite the OP's claim at flippancy, the thread is obviously just another derp derp silly Afrocentric circle jerk. An internet forum equivalent of laughing at someone with severe autism then fist bumping your friends for doing so.

Many of the arguments in here used to promote civilizations blacks (whatever that means) can or should be cheering for are very revealing it seems. I'd say most of the civilisations American descendants of slaves are apparently permitted to ape (Kush, Axum, even Mali etc.) are as irrelevant to them as Egypt is.

Many said civilizations were totally unrelated to each other. So it would be as dim as saying there are plenty of civilizations whites (whatever that means) can call their own. Before promptly listing every known historical kingdom or culture from Scandinavia to Anatolia.

That's a strawman.
The problem isn't blacks emulating ancient civilizations, it's people - of all colours - falsely claiming biological and cultural descent from those civilizations. Everyone who says "we built x while race y was still sitting in the trees". They're all ignorant scum who try to use their "historical facts" as a weapon in a political struggle. And in recent years, Afrocentrists and various Asian/Middle Eastern supremacists have started to overtake white supremacists in this discipline.

[The Gurkhan]

That's a strawman.
The problem isn't blacks emulating ancient civilizations, it's people - of all colours - falsely claiming biological and cultural descent from those civilizations. Everyone who says "we built x while race y was still sitting in the trees". They're all ignorant scum who try to use their "historical facts" as a weapon in a political struggle. And in recent years, Afrocentrists and various Asian/Middle Eastern supremacists have started to overtake white supremacists in this discipline.

It's not a strawman and you aren't addressing any point I made. Just giving false equivalences against black Americans whose harmless historical delusion poses zero threat to you. As well as the general Euro Identiterian shuddering about Asian/Middle Eastern supremacists. In your case probably Turks.

In this thread people chide US Afrocentrics then in the same breath list civilizations spanning an entire continent blacks can supposedly emulate, which are often as unrelated to said Afrocentrics as Egypt is. Very revealing I think....

[athanaric]

It's not a strawman and you aren't addressing any point I made. Just giving false equivalences against black Americans whose harmless historical delusion poses zero threat to you.

Because "harmless historical delusions" have never posed a threat to anyone, right? Believing in the superior lineage and worth of one's race or culture is entirely benign, as everybody knows.

As well as the general Euro Identiterian shuddering about Asian/Middle Eastern supremacists.

Inferring that this is rooted in "identitaran" motives. Because why else could people object to it? Apparently, enlightenment values or scholarly ethics don't exist in your world.

In your case probably Turks.

Well, I'm not the guy who is so mortally afraid of Jews (lol) he keeps dropping dark hints about "Zionism" everywhere...

In this thread people chide US Afrocentrics then in the same breath list civilizations spanning an entire continent blacks can supposedly emulate, which are often as unrelated to said Afrocentrics as Egypt is. Very revealing I think....

Yes yes, everything is "revealing". God forbid they care about the truth. Or are offering well-meant alternatives to a cultural movement that cares so much about "blackness"...

[sumskilz]

I'd say most of the civilisations American descendants of slaves are apparently permitted to ape (Kush, Axum, even Mali etc.) are as irrelevant to them as Egypt is.

I disagree in the case of Mali. There is some cultural continuity between African Americans and the Mandé people of the Mali Empire, particularly in the partial retention of musical forms and folklore. Their ancestors also came from Dahomey, Kingdom of Kongo, and the Oyo Empire.

[The Gurkhan]

Because "harmless historical delusions" have never posed a threat to anyone, right? Believing in the superior lineage and worth of one's race or culture is entirely benign, as everybody knows.

Inferring that this is rooted in "identitaran" motives. Because why else could people object to it? Apparently, enlightenment values or scholarly ethics don't exist in your world.


Well, I'm not the guy who is so mortally afraid of Jews (lol) he keeps dropping dark hints about "Zionism" everywhere...


Yes yes, everything is "revealing". God forbid they care about the truth. Or are offering well-meant alternatives to a cultural movement that cares so much about "blackness"...

Just false equivalence. As a world view it's totally harmless. Especially to you. Focus more on Turks or something.

Most of the Zionists in my dark hints are gentiles. Almost always American so called Christians.

I disagree in the case of Mali. There is some cultural continuity between African Americans and the Mandé people of the Mali Empire, particularly in the partial retention of musical forms and folklore. Their ancestors also came from Dahomey, Kingdom of Kongo, and the Oyo Empire.

I've always been sceptical of the Mali Empire claims. I find it convenient how the narrative has a populace always being rulers or in a privileged social clique before being chattel. Is there any reason to believe their ancestors weren't an already subservient caste? Particularly within Mande societies. Would descent from those ancestors warrant a claim? Or simply just whichever barely Islamised or even still animist group found themselves the victim of conquest.

[Roma_Victrix]

*Cough* Well, it seems to me that Cleopatra had vitiligo.

Wait, what? For starters, this is a native Egyptian depiction of Prince Rahotep and his wife Nofret...from the 4th dynasty of the Old Kingdom of Egypt...you know...the one that lasted from c. 2613 to 2494 BC. You and I, sitting at our computers in our present time, are centuries closer in time to Cleopatra's lifetime than she was to Rahotep and Nofret. The image you've shared here has basically nothing to do with the images or iconography of Cleopatra, most of which was seemingly Hellenistic in style and origin. For that matter, Cleopatra was not a native Egyptian. She was a Macedonian Greek of the Ptolemaic dynasty that just so happened to rule Egypt thanks to Alexander the Great's conquests/annexations of chunks of the greater Achaemenid Persian Empire.

Surely you've seen the Roman painting of Cleopatra from Pompeii in the OP, and the one from Herculaneum on the previous page. None of these are even close to the native Egyptian style of how Nofret is depicted here. Are you trying to form some sort of comparison that I'm not getting here? Cleopatra's Berlin bust is a sculpture that still has traces of polychromy and paint on it, largely in the hair around her diadem, which seems to have traces of browns and reds. This would seem to coincide with both the Pompeii and Herculaneum painted portraits, as the former depicts her as a brunette, the latter as a red-head or with strawberry-blonde hair.

To be frank, we should be discussing stuff like that, not statues of Egyptian women who lived more than 2,000 years before Cleopatra, unless it's somehow relevant to her own iconography. From what I can tell, the statue of Nofret is not relevant here.

Despite the OP's claim at flippancy, the thread is obviously just another derp derp silly Afrocentric circle jerk. An internet forum equivalent of laughing at someone with severe autism then fist bumping your friends for doing so.

Well that's a brilliant analysis you've got there, one that basically ignores the entire premise of the thread, which is about artwork and comparisons to be made between them as outlined in academic literature like Walker (2008) and Roller (2010). Are you going to discuss that or this other stuff instead? Because this other stuff is off-topic, true, and you're not making it better by commandeering the thread and redirecting the conversation towards this other stuff that's irrelevant.

Many of the arguments in here used to promote civilizations blacks (whatever that means) can or should be cheering for are very revealing it seems. I'd say most of the civilisations American descendants of slaves are apparently permitted to ape (Kush, Axum, even Mali etc.) are as irrelevant to them as Egypt is.

I won't ask how it's "revealing", but I will state briefly that the chief problem with Afrocentrists is that they latch onto civilizations ranging from the Olmecs in Central America to the Shang Dynasty in China, without bothering to learn about or even identify with already known black sub-Saharan civilizations like Kush and Aksum in East Africa or Ghana, and Mali in West Africa or Great Zimbabwe in southern Africa. Yes, these are all radically different civilizations and cultures, but the context of previous posts was that they were all sub-Saharan and strangely ignored by Afrocentrists in their quest to claim everything else, including Mozart.

[sumskilz]

I've always been sceptical of the Mali Empire claims. I find it convenient how the narrative has a populace always being rulers or in a privileged social clique before being chattel. Is there any reason to believe their ancestors weren't an already subservient caste? Particularly within Mande societies. Would descent from those ancestors warrant a claim? Or simply just whichever barely Islamised or even still animist group found themselves the victim of conquest.

Their ancestors would have been people taken from the Western periphery of the Mande cultural sphere, long after its golden age, and mostly if not completely after the empire had collapsed. You could say these ancestors had about the same relationship to the Mali Empire as "Dark Ages" Iberian people had to the Roman Empire.

Not sure if this reference is behind a paywall or not, so here is an excerpt discussing the evidence:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

While the notorious Charleston market was not the only slave port in the U.S., it was a major port and was involved in North American slave trafficking early on, with a fairly wide regional influence into the rest of South Carolina and Georgia. Curtin notes that slave-buying proclivities in the Charleston slave market, emphasizing Mande and including the Mandinka of Senegal and Gambia, might have caused other states such as Virginia to have a slight preference for Senegambian slaves as well. When Curtin's Table 45 speculates that 13.3% of all slaves imported to North America were from Senegambia, 5.5% from Sierra Leone, and 11.4% were from the Windward Coast or Liberia, he emphasizes the regions of west Africa where large numbers of Mande still live today, including Mandingo, Mende, Malinke, Maninke, Mandinka, Susu, Bambara, Vai, and Dyula among others, distributed among non-Mande groups.3 How many Mande or Mandinka were really in these percentages? The linguistic map showing which ethnic groups in west Africa speak Mande-related languages is immense, with many groups on the coasts or relatively near slave ports.4

Of course the vast area of eastern Mali—the heartland—contains Mande-speakers. But from here the influence spread out all along the Gambia River, the Pakao region of southern Senegal, northern Guinea-Bissau, major regions of Guinea and Sierra Leone, significant territory in Liberia, Ivory Coast, Burkina Faso, and even a border area of northwestern Nigeria. The seeming fragmentation of the Mande among so many regions and into slave era classifications that included geographic references to three, or sometimes four, seemingly disconnected areas—Senegambia, "Sierra Leone," "Guinea," and the "Windward Coast" (Liberia and Ivory Coast)—have worked to understate among scholars the Mande influence on the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century slave societies of the U.S., as if these geographic areas could not have a broad ethnic and linguistic group such as the Mande bound by a common language and history.

Further amplifying this seeming ethnic fragmentation is that one key slaving area—along the Gambia River—of vital importance to the slave markets of coastal South Carolina and Georgia, the Caribbean and throughout the New World in certain decades, became by far the smallest country in west Africa, The Gambia. Since the early seventeenth century the Mandinka have predominated in villages along both sides of this river, settling there after Manding (the ancient Mali empire) expanded and began to disintegrate toward the end of the fifteenth century…

In many ways William Pollitzer's The Gullah People and Their African Heritage is a vital source on the whole question of identifying the Mandinka contribution to Gullah culture and language, especially because he did the hard work of combing through colonial British and plantation records, and numerous mentions of slaves in colonial newspaper accounts, including ads for runaway slaves…

Pollitzer in Table 16 thus notes that an astonishing 100% of the 92 words collected by Turner in Gullah stories, songs, and prayers are from Mende (69%), Vai (29%), Bambara (1.1%) and Mandinka (1.1%).5 These are all Mande ethnic groups (and most if not all were collected by Turner in Glynn and McIntosh counties, the two counties on the Georgia coast where I grew up). This concentration suggests the enormous power of Mande music, prayer, and storytelling within Gullah culture, but surely other African ethnic groups made contributions as well.

Perhaps the greatest defect is that Pollitzer does not take into account the absence of a Gambian or Pakao Mandinka informant in Turner's listed group of African informants (more on this below), even though Pollitzer's historical data suggest that Mandinka slaves were often a first or second priority for slave buyers in Charleston and Georgia. A Mandinka would surely have found more Mandinka words in Turner's Africanisms, as I show below. Turner was also hampered by the absence of recent Mandinka dictionaries; David Gamble did not start publishing his Gambian Mandinka word lists until after Turner's work appeared. Pollitzer's Table 16, based on Turner's analysis, thus shows that Yoruba and Kongo have the highest percentage (15.9% and 14.5%) of 3595 Gullah words as personal names, while the following Mande groups as individual ethnicities seem to have far less importance: Mandinka and Mandingo are 4.2% and 1.6%; the Mende are 8.9%; Bambara are 6.6%; Vai are 4.5%; Malinke are 0.2%; and Susu are 0.1%.

However, the combined Mande total would be 26.1%, much higher than that for Kongo or Yoruba. For the 251 words Pollitzer notes in Table 16 that are used in Gullah conversation (as recorded by Turner), the 24.8% Kongo total seems higher than the following Mande groups: Mende 7.8%, Bambara 5.2%, Vai 7.2%, Mandinka 0.5%, Mandingo 2%, and Malinke 0.2%. However, the Mande together are 23.2% (while, curiously, Yoruba are only 3.2%). A modern analysis by Africans of all Turner's Gullah words might change these totals somewhat, as it clearly would for Mandinka.

In a similar way, Pollitzer's Table 18 takes a much-needed look at the 1940 WPA masterpiece Drums and Shadows, but almost certainly understates Mandinka and Mande influence by attempting to quantify the various magic practices of the Gullah in terms of an ethnic group and region of west Africa.6 As noted below, in the eyes of an anthropologist with considerable experience studying the Mandinka, the culture of this ethnic group seems to resonate virtually throughout Drums and Shadows, from both Muslim and non-Muslim Mandinka traditions. Also, this work, published in 1940, relied not on recent anthropological accounts of the Mandinka, but mostly on early explorers' accounts, such as Francis Moore's 1738 Travels (up the Gambia River), as main sources for comparative examples of Mandinka culture. Another problem that must be confronted and understood in appreciating Mandinka legacy in the New World, is that both Muslim and non-Muslim Mandinka slaves came to this hemisphere in great numbers, adding to Mandinka cultural variety during the slave era.

The Mandinka Legacy in The New World

In light of genetic evidence, I think this author is a bit overzealous in his claims, but the more modest academics he cites probably have it about right. Modern Mandinka people are a good fit for a particular genetic component in modern African Americans:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The orange component isn't necessarily Mandinka ancestry, but is at least ancestry from nearby/related groups.

[Kyriakos]

It's not a strawman and you aren't addressing any point I made. Just giving false equivalences against black Americans whose harmless historical delusion poses zero threat to you. As well as the general Euro Identiterian shuddering about Asian/Middle Eastern supremacists. In your case probably Turks.

Assuming there are turks by now, they are central-asian, not middle eastern; can't both argue for actual turks and then speak of middle-eastern tie to the ancient era.

[QoreArqamani]

Wait, what? For starters, this is a native Egyptian depiction of Prince Rahotep and his wife Nofret...from the 4th dynasty of the Old Kingdom of Egypt...you know...the one that lasted from c. 2613 to 2494 BC. You and I, sitting at our computers in our present time, are centuries closer in time to Cleopatra's lifetime than she was to Rahotep and Nofret. The image you've shared here has basically nothing to do with the images or iconography of Cleopatra, most of which was seemingly Hellenistic in style and origin. For that matter, Cleopatra was not a native Egyptian. She was a Macedonian Greek of the Ptolemaic dynasty that just so happened to rule Egypt thanks to Alexander the Great's conquests/annexations of chunks of the greater Achaemenid Persian Empire.

Surely you've seen the Roman painting of Cleopatra from Pompeii in the OP, and the one from Herculaneum on the previous page. None of these are even close to the native Egyptian style of how Nofret is depicted here. Are you trying to form some sort of comparison that I'm not getting here? Cleopatra's Berlin bust is a sculpture that still has traces of polychromy and paint on it, largely in the hair around her diadem, which seems to have traces of browns and reds. This would seem to coincide with both the Pompeii and Herculaneum painted portraits, as the former depicts her as a brunette, the latter as a red-head or with strawberry-blonde hair.

To be frank, we should be discussing stuff like that, not statues of Egyptian women who lived more than 2,000 years before Cleopatra, unless it's somehow relevant to her own iconography. From what I can tell, the statue of Nofret is not relevant here.



Well that's a brilliant analysis you've got there, one that basically ignores the entire premise of the thread, which is about artwork and comparisons to be made between them as outlined in academic literature like Walker (2008) and Roller (2010). Are you going to discuss that or this other stuff instead? Because this other stuff is off-topic, true, and you're not making it better by commandeering the thread and redirecting the conversation towards this other stuff that's irrelevant.



I won't ask how it's "revealing", but I will state briefly that the chief problem with Afrocentrists is that they latch onto civilizations ranging from the Olmecs in Central America to the Shang Dynasty in China, without bothering to learn about or even identify with already known black sub-Saharan civilizations like Kush and Aksum in East Africa or Ghana, and Mali in West Africa or Great Zimbabwe in southern Africa. Yes, these are all radically different civilizations and cultures, but the context of previous posts was that they were all sub-Saharan and strangely ignored by Afrocentrists in their quest to claim everything else, including Mozart.

As someone whose father is an aforcentrist (of the non radical variety) I would have to disagree with the above claims , he and me myself (as a lover of African history ) talks quite often about empires such as Mali , peoples such as the Akan , and the pyramids and warriors of Kush. It is simply that the crazy afrocentrists get more press because of course they do , they're the crazies.

[Roma_Victrix]

As someone whose father is an aforcentrist (of the non radical variety) I would have to disagree with the above claims , he and me myself (as a lover of African history ) talks quite often about empires such as Mali , peoples such as the Akan , and the pyramids and warriors of Kush. It is simply that the crazy afrocentrists get more press because of course they do , they're the crazies.

You're incidentally one of the first if not the first self-described Afrocentrists I've ever encountered who hold even a moderate view of things.

I don't think it's a label that you should desire, though. Does anyone studying European history or publishing works on it want to be called a Eurocentrist? It's not a good label for one to have, even if European history is your field of interest. The very label itself implies shortsightedness, arrogance, ignorance, intransigence, and even bigotry. It's largely the same stigma for self-proclaimed Afrocentrists. I think Afro-phile or simply an African history buff would be better terms.

Skin colour in these types of studies can't really be done unless melanin content can be analyzed. We don't actually have her body to do an analysis of this sort.

Anyway judging by this the Slavs didn't make a major dent in Greek genetics.


Also looking at this map it actually seems like the Turks would have had a much bigger effect on the Greek population.


As you can see Hablogroup R1a is less prevalent among Greek populations than Hablogroup J. Whether or not this comes from the Ottomans or not is a different argument but my point is that the Greeks were not as genetically affected by Slavic migration. Incidentally neither was Bulgaria for that matter, despite being a Slavic speaking country.

Thanks for sharing! This is good information to have for those interested in Balkan history, particularly the Slavic migrations in Greek and Bulgarian history.

The trouble with looking at Y-haplogroups is they can change a lot in frequency without the bulk of the population's genetics changing nearly as much. Genghis Khan’s Y-haplotype being one of the more well documented examples. The area of Greece was mostly G2 in the Neolithic, and then the Minoans and related pre-Mycenaeans are all J2, but the Minoans and pre-Mycenaeans still derived 62–86% of their ancestry from those Neolithic mostly G2 people. The J2 arrived with an Iran/Caucasus related element. Evidently you wouldn’t have wanted to have been a G2 male when those guys showed up.

Anyway, modern Greeks derive about 70% of their ancestry from the Myceneans on average, though as little as 50% in samples taken in the north. That which is not Mycenaean is mostly like modern Czechs, not that it’s Czech, but that whatever mix of ancestries Czechs are is basically the same. There is also another 1-3% that is more recently arrived Iranian-like. Presumably this is related to the Ottoman Period.

Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans

As clear and as lucid as ever. Thanks for sharing! Woe to the G2 males of Greece.

[QoreArqamani]

You're incidentally one of the first if not the first self-described Afrocentrists I've ever encountered who hold even a moderate view of things.

I don't think it's a label that you should desire, though. Does anyone studying European history or publishing works on it want to be called a Eurocentrist? It's not a good label for one to have, even if European history is your field of interest. The very label itself implies shortsightedness, arrogance, ignorance, intransigence, and even bigotry. It's largely the same stigma for self-proclaimed Afrocentrists. I think Afro-phile or simply an African history buff would be better terms.



Thanks for sharing! This is good information to have for those interested in Balkan history, particularly the Slavic migrations in Greek and Bulgarian history.



As clear and as lucid as ever. Thanks for sharing! Woe to the G2 males of Greece.

You are correct that there is a bit of a stigma behind it , but there is a stigma behind claiming there is African History to begin with , so I've decided that since it's a pretty catchy label I may as well keep it . And yes , I would like to inform you that from personal experience living in the African American community and someone with a pretty big love of history that there are quite a few ppl some would describe as 'afro-centrists' that don't say we created China and Athens and whatever.

And in your response to your comment about 'European historian not calling themselves euro-centrists' I would say that you have to realize the situation. Euro-centrism in history is essentially the established form , when you flip through a text book the majority of it in some way has to do with Europe , yes China and Egypt are in there as well but other than that Europe is treated as the most important influential and interesting continent on the face of the planet and is generally reserved the most spots in the books.

Due to this a euro-centrist historian can be euro-centrist without even trying because often times it makes up the majority of what they're taught and they will bring any other topic back to 'Western Civilization' at some point. Does this mean they are the antagonistic type of euro-centrist or afro-centrist who claims 'Y culture was living in caves when X culture was creating temples and palaces' ? I don't believe so , but do to the way history is taught most will have a euro-centrist view on it regardless since we are in a Euro based culture and all other major culture groups were at some time subjugated by Europe , and therefore we often look down our noses at them even if unintentionally.

Therefore as someone who labels themselves an afro-centrist or just someone who enjoys African history in particular , they are working in defiance to that norm. This is because they are constantly addressing and praising the achievements of their own culture , something especially uncommon among those of African descent do to our particular history. As someone who is descended from those who would be labeled 'mud hut dwelling primitives who never did much before the European came on the scene' (due to the after effects of the heavy racism of the imperial age) I consider being a afro-centrist as something to be proud of , because I'm openly in defiance to that norm of labeling Africa and Africans in that way. I hope I helped you understand why I make the choice to label myself as such.

[Roma_Victrix]

You are correct that there is a bit of a stigma behind it , but there is a stigma behind claiming there is African History to begin with , so I've decided that since it's a pretty catchy label I may as well keep it . And yes , I would like to inform you that from personal experience living in the African American community and someone with a pretty big love of history that there are quite a few ppl some would describe as 'afro-centrists' that don't say we created China and Athens and whatever.

And in your response to your comment about 'European historian not calling themselves euro-centrists' I would say that you have to realize the situation. Euro-centrism in history is essentially the established form , when you flip through a text book the majority of it in some way has to do with Europe , yes China and Egypt are in there as well but other than that Europe is treated as the most important influential and interesting continent on the face of the planet and is generally reserved the most spots in the books.

That's largely a consequence of the Age of Exploration and colonization, when European civilization finally stretched around the globe to all continents, even Antarctica which is now carved up between New Zealand, Australia, France, Norway, the UK, Chile, and Argentina. That's been the case for the past five centuries. One could say it's also a concept bred from Antiquity, with the empire of Alexander the Great and Hellenistic world he created in the east, albeit one that was preceded by Greek colonization throughout the Mediterranean Basin and Black Sea region. The Roman Empire, admittedly stretching across three different continents, was centered in southern Europe and was the greatest hegemonic power of its day save the Han Empire of China (plus northern Vietnam, southern Mongolia, and northern Korea), certainly more so than the Parthian and Sasanian Empires of West Asia or the contemporary Kushan Empire of South Asia.

As for the Afrocentric response to the dominant presence of Western civilization in historical textbooks, it's obviously important that each region of the world be covered and given its due. For instance, the Roman Empire didn't exist in a vacuum and had regular interactions with the Horn of Africa, particularly the Kingdom of Aksum in Ethiopia and the cities of Eritrea that existed before it. One cannot speak about the early history of Christianity without also including Sudan and Ethiopia, along with other countries like Armenia. I think, however, that the Roman Empire had a greater impact on the course of human history than any given state of ancient, medieval, or early modern Africa, since the late medieval Western civilization built on the ruins of the Roman world carried Greco-Roman ideas and even architecture to virtually every corner of the inhabited world, beginning in the late 15th century. There is no other comparable civilization, not even Islam, even though the latter managed to stretch itself from the Iberian peninsula to Southeast Asia. More importantly, the impact of Western civilization in every region of the globe is enormous. We can't say the same for Ghana, for instance, although the 20th century has at least brought African arts and African American culture in particular into the mainstream global culture (there's probably not a country on earth that lacks at least someone listening to hip-hop, blues, or jazz music, let alone producing it).

Due to this a euro-centrist historian can be euro-centrist without even trying because often times it makes up the majority of what they're taught and they will bring any other topic back to 'Western Civilization' at some point. Does this mean they are the antagonistic type of euro-centrist or afro-centrist who claims 'Y culture was living in caves when X culture was creating temples and palaces' ? I don't believe so , but do to the way history is taught most will have a euro-centrist view on it regardless since we are in a Euro based culture and all other major culture groups were at some time subjugated by Europe , and therefore we often look down our noses at them even if unintentionally.

There's probably a lot of truth in that. I think the largely primitive, rural and tribal nature of the historical peoples inhabiting much of West, East, and southern Africa speaking one of many Niger–Congo languages has sadly left a greater impression on the minds of most people in the general public than the actual native civilizations of Africa south of the Sahara Desert. As far as the narrative is concerned, when people think "Africa" they think of primitive tribes instead of the Kingdom of Kush in ancient Sudan or the Islamic sultanates that followed it, the Kingdom of Aksum in ancient Ethiopia or the Christian Solomonic dynasty of the Ethiopian Empire that followed it, the Land of Punt in ancient Somalia and the Islamic sultanates that followed it such as Ifat and Adal, the Swahili-speaking cities of medieval East Africa, the Ghana Empire of West Africa in the Early Middle Ages or the Mali and Songhai empires that followed it, or even Great Zimbabwe to the distant south.

It didn't serve European colonial interests to highlight the existence of these historical states, but thankfully now they are given at least some of the attention they deserve. Out of all of these perhaps Ethiopia has left the greatest impression on the minds of Europeans, thanks to its association with Prester John in the Middle Ages, an idea that persisted even during direct European contacts and diplomatic exchanges in the 16th and 17th centuries with the arrival of the Jesuits. Ethiopia's defiance of Imperial Italy and its colonization efforts in the late 19th and early 20th centuries also made a great impression on the European mind, especially in modern Italian historiography. Ethiopia's last emperor Haile Selassie is one of the well-known figures of the 20th century, not just in Africa, but in the entire world.

Therefore as someone who labels themselves an afro-centrist or just someone who enjoys African history in particular , they are working in defiance to that norm. This is because they are constantly addressing and praising the achievements of their own culture , something especially uncommon among those of African descent do to our particular history. As someone who is descended from those who would be labeled 'mud hut dwelling primitives who never did much before the European came on the scene' (due to the after effects of the heavy racism of the imperial age) I consider being a afro-centrist as something to be proud of , because I'm openly in defiance to that norm of labeling Africa and Africans in that way. I hope I helped you understand why I make the choice to label myself as such.

Fair enough; I'm not actually bothered by it. I just think better labels could be used by you and your friends, because most people who've heard this or that about "Afrocentrism" are going to immediately associate you with the crazies that we've mentioned. It's perhaps comparable to the label "feminist" nowadays, which seems to no longer represents the bra-burning women seeking social and legal equality in the 1960s, but instead a group of very vocal, arrogant, close-minded women and men brazenly advocating for misandry instead of actual equality. In that same token, basically anyone who is labelled a "Eurocentrist" these days is cast in a negative light as an arrogant traditionalist if not a bigot or racist.

[QoreArqamani]

I understand your opinion on this , and I will think it over , it's just I am not of the mind of leting terms like afro-centrist get corrupted into something used to describe people who in the black community we call 'Hoteps' (Defined as a black dude who says things like 'China's first emperor was black' and tries to claim literally almost every other civilization in the world). On your point about Rome I would posit that Egypt (which while a heavily multi-ethnic and multi-cultural empire) was a civilization in Africa , is right behind it as Egypt holds just as much of the modern imagination as Rome I would say , with more people able to recognize the death mask of Tutankhamen then the stone busts of Julius Caesar. And yes I agree on your point that they're beginning to get the attention they deserve more and more (at least within the black community) I see phrases like 'African booty scratcher' and people being shamed for their African heritage phasing out (perhaps in small part due to a recent blockbuster set in an ideal African nation) . Make no mistake I understand progress is definitely being made in this whole scenario , but until it becomes public knowledge that civilizations in Africa could be in many ways just as interesting and influential and advanced as other states of their time , the cause of true afro-centrism hasn't died.

[Ludicus]

Wait, what? For starters, this is a native Egyptian depiction of Prince Rahotep and his wife Nofret...from the 4th dynasty of the Old Kingdom of Egypt...you know...the one that lasted from c. 2613 to 2494 BC.

Ah ok, I wasn't paying attention.
The poor woman is too pale. Vampirism, porphyria or vitiligo?
-----
It didn't end well last time... #33 Thread TWC The African Origin of Ancient Egyptian Civilization (2011)
This was a real fight, boxing in black and white!
What happened to our Afrocentric resident?

[sumskilz]

The poor woman is too pale.

She's painted with limestone pigment. Everyone in those old Egyptian paintings is either black, reddish brown, yellow, or white, and that's because the pigments used are either charcoal, red ochre, yellow ochre, or limestone. So one might ask, why didn't they mix those pigments to create in-between skin tones? Evidently they didn't give a second thought to the internet controversies they'd be causing.