A Citation from ‘Etymology and The Problems of African History’

“These two factors of interpretation and translation and its effects on the changing lanes of life and chaning lanes of history, show a culture that is seriously evolutionary, a culture that is great concerning the misconceptions about Eurocentric, make it impossible for African history to remain clear of what is invested on it by certain institution since any attempt to challenge the bad history of writer -historian tend to suffer the inhumanity of Afrocentric. But despite what is now believed to be Afrocentric and what is Africa in general, the term Afriocentric, like Eurocentric, is a political statement that incorporate much of what we know from early years of the continent struggling for independence leading to the age of the Complex as so laden in years to come, and what happened through the age of the re-awakening. What we may argue is that despite the faux about Africans and they impassioned attempt to revamp history through loins of Africa past, that history involving the very nature of the Continent makes it impossible for one group to clearly state Africa is a history by itself and began with African Majority (Blacks), that the term Afrioncetric is not academic term.

The term is a political one and as such must not be given over to the label of general history of the Continent. What the likes of Marcus and W.E.B Dubois, or their earlier inspiration Ajayi Crowther, Edward blyden, and Alexander Crummel, worked on, was a relentless position on two probable but differing schools of influence, one led itself towards a reality that is both political and African, and the other was a strictly an academic effort aimed at trying to get the world to understand itself from the ancient sources of African and world histories. The first was the case of Afrocentric or Africentrism (Pan African), being the effort to celebrate ‘African for Africans’, and the other, has little and possibly nothing to do with Afrocentricism. The later had to do with realized facts of history from thorough academic engagements, which points a central civilizing force that is Africa, and it went on to suggest that the people invented the mathematics and the sciences which gave structure to early Christians and Muslims, has nothing to do with Atlantis, it was all in all, a Civilization that was predominantly Black.

These people did not escape the censorship of Complex, and were also accused of being called Afrocentric for reasons for no apparent reasons other than the real other than the fact that the society is coming through to its ultimate ends, with the tendenct towards a colonized or enslaved people’s background, to the rise of the world as we know it, gives off the false impression of a culture borrowing from the ashes of 19th century European Culture and then on to a form of re-awakening of that 19th century African HISTORY. The fact are too far from the apple when and if we create the impression that there are also they for us to see that the rest of Africans were merely trying to add weight to the crowd of was merely trying to add weight to its past by making Egypt White, so to speak.

Africa by the turn of the last century was sold to everyone as a continent that accomplished nothing, and contained a people who contributed nothing and mainly served as Slaves. As such the Continent and its people suffered the brutality of others, especially said Europeans in very direct forms, and the Arabs of much later centuries. The Jews if not in years past but recent, have also participated in their cruxcifiction of these Africans. We have said that these in order to make palatable the more ugly fact that much of World history is a footnote to Africa. That such incident of the ‘Founding of Kilwa’, containing separate interpretation and translation misdirect history of crucial importance, and is in many ways part of the troubles we have about African history. The institutioned impressions on the continent are no longer at ease with its past, a claim that elaborates the mind’s construction of the Historians of that Continent, whose benevolence and invaluable sense purpose in knotting the languages may have gentrified these wrong views and ultimately barred the half truths about Africa and about an improbable single people or race, let alone a White ancestral Egypt. For her all things considered, we may note that a curious incident of languages of African relating to European and Asian languages are not by accident, that their comparative performance to North American and Eurastratic languages are articles of history, very recent history.

‘These two factors of interpretation and translation and its effects on the changing lanes of life and chanGing lanes of history, show a culture that is seriously evolutionary, a culture that is great concerning the misconceptions about Eurocentric, and here, make it impossible for African history to remain clear of what is invested on it. These academic investment of the said cultures, deems itself in plain since these Academic institution permits much effort to challenge the bad history of writer -historians, those who challenge this error of history and its status-quo may tend now to suffer the inhumanity of Afrocentric. But despite what is now believed to be Afrocentric and what is Africa in general, the term Afriocentric, like Eurocentric, or Asio-centric or other centric circle is a political statement and mode interpretation involving the African Political History, to the degree that the struggle much of what was known from early years of the continent to its struggles for independence. The age leading to African Independence was riddled with the certainty of Complex and from such complex, the view become so laden with expections that it amounted to a show of confidence as personified by a certain Marcus Garvey.

But what happened through the age of the re-awakening was something else. The movement to identity with Africa in terms of its history co-incided in many ways than one with the search for African Identity and independence. The error was the deliberate matching of the facts against the grain, the result was an aspersion that hhas clouded reason for such a lot time. What we may now argue is that despite the faux about Africans and their impassioned attempt to revamp history, that history involving the very nature of Continent – which Africans and many historians argue as the source of major truth about the world – the term Afrioncetric was not academic term. The term is a political one and as such must not be given over to the label of general history of the Continent, as if the view Africa as the cradle and bone of Civilization was a new invention.

What the likes of Marcus and W.E.B Dubois, or their earlier inspiration Ajayi Crowther, Edward blyden, and Alexander Crummel, worked on, was a relentless position on two probable but differing schools of influence, one led itself towards a reality that is both political and African, and the other was a strictly an academic effort aimed at trying to get the world to understand itself from the ancient sources of African and world histories. The first was the case of Afrocentric or Africentrism (Pan African), being the effort to celebrate ‘Africa for Africans’, and the other, has little and possibly nothing to do with Afrocentricism. The later had to do with realized facts of history from thorough academic engagements, which points to a central civilizing force that is Africa, and it went on to suggest that the people who invented (Arithmetics) mathematics and the Sciences in all its forms also gave intellectual structure to early Christians and Muslims. These said people had nothing to do with a so called Atlantis, and if Atlantis was a thing within itself in history, the civilization came from the continent as well.

That above all, the Civilization was all in all predominantly Black. The term Black may now seem a misapplication but in terms of the world in which these men and women lived, it was black and white, them versus we. They were foreigners occupying for who knows what the brightest part on the continent. Then, at the turn of the 19th century still, much of Egypt and North Africa had sunstantial presence of native population. These natives were no doubt looked upon as we much affliction as those of Native indians, as if their culture like the Indians of North Americans were ancient and primitive whilst Europe and their supposed remnant in South EAST Asia, were couriers of the new and modern civilization.

These people did not escape the censorship of Complex, and were also accused of being called Afrocentric for no apparent reasons than the reality away from the fact that African society was leaving its past and coming to its ultimate ends. This complex had a moral tendency towards a colonized or enslaved people’s background, beginning with the struggle for success to the rise of the new world as they know it. The idea gives off the false impression of a culture borrowing from the ashes of 19th century European Culture and then on to a form of re-awakening of that 19th century African HISTORY. The fact are too far from the apple when and creates the impression that the rest of Africans were merely trying to add weight to the crowd of their success, and attempts of such level promoted a fasle sense of itself. But it pays off with a trip to the past, where we find the argument that there exist a people who is still believe Egypt White, and from a distance part of the continental globe to bring civilization to Africa and particularly North Africa.”

Adapted from ‘Etymology and the Problems of African History’

by Sampson Iroabuchi Onwuka

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: