Nigerian Boxer Who Bragged About Being "Pure African" & Not Arriving On A Ship Gets His Karma

[K.O.N.Y]

Yet all this happened starting from the 1850s onwards, African anthropology is divided into phases and changed according to what was happening in Europe in relation to Africa, read explorer journals done during the age of exploration(pre-atlantic slavery), then during the trans-atlantic slavery, during abolition, and then when colonialism became an economic need in europe, then post colonialism. All these have varying angles.

Impartial journals by Europeans are what even brought attention to the empires existent in Africa and their social organizations. During the slave trade, the narrative took a twist again, then during abolition in Europe(notice USA required a war to bring an end to slavery) then during colonialism, the accounts of unbiased explorers started being disregarded again, and this view, together with the pre-abolition perception of Africa maintained in the Americas due to the slave trade forced anthropologists to challenge this narrative. So, did African Americans play a role in rejuvenating unbiased anthropolgical research in Africa during the scramble of Africa and during colonialism, yes, had there been unbiased works done by explorers in Africa prior to this, also yes. Things aren't always linear.

idk if I'm missing something here

but all you seem to be doing is adding context to @IllmaticDelta points

No one, at least I hope, is saying whites never studied africa with an unbiased viewpoint

even within white supremacy, that's not the point

whats getting to the masses/mainstream is the point

many ados scholars would have been using those sources in the first place

 

[Swahili P'Bitek]

idk if I'm missing something here

but all you seem to be doing is adding context to @IllmaticDelta points

No one, at least I hope, is saying whites never studied africa with an unbiased viewpoint

even within white supremacy, that's not the point

whats getting to the masses/mainstream is the point

many ados scholars would have been using those sources in the first place

The basis of his original argument was that nobody ever cared about sub-saharan Africa and there did not exist unbiased research on the area till The 1850s and so forth, when this is not true. That's the first post I quoted.

 

[IllmaticDelta]

Yet all this happened starting from the 1850s onwards, African anthropology is divided into phases and changed according to what was happening in Europe in relation to Africa, read explorer journals done during the age of exploration(pre-atlantic slavery), then during the trans-atlantic slavery, during abolition, and then when colonialism became an economic need in europe, then post colonialism. All these have varying angles.

I already explained this

Impartial journals by Europeans are what even brought attention to the empires existent in Africa and their social organizations. During the slave trade, the narrative took a twist again, then during abolition in Europe(notice USA required a war to bring an end to slavery) then during colonialism, the accounts of unbiased explorers started being disregarded again, and this view, together with the pre-abolition perception of Africa maintained in the Americas due to the slave trade forced anthropologists to challenge this narrative.

They never changed the savage perception of Africa until ADOS came along to challenge them. The stuff they considered great was all from above the Sahara or things they wanted to white wash (see hamitic theory)

So, did African Americans play a role in rejuvenating unbiased anthropolgical research in Africa during the scramble of Africa and during colonialism, yes, had there been unbiased works done by explorers in Africa prior to this, also yes. Things aren't always linear.

they played more than a just a 'role'

The basis of his original argument was that nobody ever cared about sub-saharan Africa and there did not exist unbiased research on the area till The 1850s and so forth, when this is not true. That's the first post I quoted.

That's not what I said. I said no one (as in the majority of whites) cared about black african history or were trying to learn about them in modern times, specifically in the era of slavery/post slavery/first half of the 20th century, in the Americas.




I said if aframs didn't come along and pioneer african studies curriculum, these lies/perceptions would have went unchecked and the spread of true facts wouldn't have played out in the MAINSTREAM as they eventually did.

 

[Swahili P'Bitek]

I already explained this



They never changed the savage perception of Africa until ADOS came along to challenge them. The stuff they considered great was all from above the Sahara or things they wanted to white wash (see hamitic theory)





they played more than a just a 'role'




That's not what I said. I said no one (as in the majority of whites) cared about black african history or were trying to learn about them in modern times, specifically in the era of slavery/post slavery/first half of the 20th century, in the Americas.




I said if aframs didn't come along and pioneer african studies curriculum, these lies/perceptions would have went unchecked and the spread of true facts wouldn't have played out in the MAINSTREAM as they eventually did.

In the midst of the Hamitic race theory which was propagated to support colonialism and slavery, some European anthropologists still wrote influential unbiased anthropological works of research, with Heinrich Barth's 1868 Travels and Discoveries in North, West and Central Africa being one of the most important works in this period. The portuguese explorers have numerous accounts describing kingdoms and ethnic groups in west and Central Africa from the 1400s. This distortion started mainly in the Americas during the peak of the slave trade, cooled down during abolition inand Europe and peaked again during colonialism. Most of the people who came up with those theories had never even set foot in Africa and neither were they anthropologists. Explorer's like Speke even started twisting facts to suit theories rather than the other way around. Eventually, as with other places in the world, anti-colonial sentiment from the first generation of African leaders and the educated class caught between both worlds would have fought these sentiments, and actually did, drawing from their own ethnic group's experiences with colonialism.

 

[IllmaticDelta]

The portuguese explorers have numerous accounts describing kingdoms and ethnic groups in west and Central Africa from the 1400s. This distortion started mainly in the Americas during the peak of the slave trade, cooled down during abolition inand Europe and peaked again during colonialism. .

A good deal of the negative perceptions of Africa stretch back into the pre-colonial era from native Europeans....not white people in the Americas; the slave era in the Americas just added to it

 

[IllmaticDelta]

idk if I'm missing something here

but all you seem to be doing is adding context to @IllmaticDelta points

No one, at least I hope, is saying whites never studied africa with an unbiased viewpoint

even within white supremacy, that's not the point

whats getting to the masses/mainstream is the point

many ados scholars would have been using those sources in the first place

Exactly...of course there were some unbiased white observers/anthro guys who studied Africa but they were in the extreme minority. The ADOS scholars knew of them and quoted from them.

 

[audemarzz]

ADOS literally has the word slaves in it. The distinguing feature is slavery, so no I don't think he was saying he was superior, he was just stating a fact.

What's this?

 

[Neuromancer]

Perfect.

 

[Neuromancer]

None of that matters when skill is involved.