Draft talk:Afrocentricity

Moved from User talk:Africologist § Draft of Afrocentricity

Intro

Hello! I haven't forgotten about our proposed project, but to be honest, I have been rather busy. Just started reading a few more sources on the subject but still have not yet been able to pin down decent wording for even something like a stub. Of course, there is Wikipedia:NODEADLINE, but I didn't want it to seem like I just dropped this idea. jps (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for checking in. I completely understand. Been plenty busy on this end as well. Just let me know when you are ready to get started. Africologist (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

jps and Africologist, I saw your earlier conversations about starting an article on the topic of Afrocentricity. I have taken the initiative and started Draft:Afrocentricity in hope that we might be able to collaborate and build a quality Wikipedia page. Daniel Power of God (talk)

Thanks. This is still on my to-do list, but TBH, the requirements of this semester have made it less possible for me to devote the time necessary for this project onwiki. jps (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

This is much appreciated. I have also had a trying semester (completing my PhD). After a quick survey of the draft, I think it looks good so far. By next week however I should be able to contribute. Africologist (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

jps and Africologist, you're welcome and thanks. I look forward to collaborating with you both and further developing this draft. I wish you both the best in your semester work. Daniel Power of God (talk)

I took a first pass. There may need to be a bit more work done to explain this idea as dispassionately as possible with proper reference. More work on criticism would be appreciated especially. I was a little surprised to see how much *universalizing* and treating Africa as a monolith was happening especially with the philosophy and spirituality. I'm sure there has been some critical theory work done in that regard and it would be good to summarize that. Great start! Thanks for getting the ball rolling. jps (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the need to add more work on criticism. Particularly, what have been the major critiques of the theory as Afrocentricity, not Afrocentrism. This would of course mean adding those who have attempted to critique Asante's Afrocentricity yet misaligned it with Afrocentrism. Also, adding proper responses to those critiques. For the critical theory on historiography jps asked about I would look at Asante's book Afrocentric Manifesto and Victor Okafor's article "Toward an Africological Pedagogical Approach to African Civilization." Asante also has a book on African History: The History of Africa: The Quest for Eternal Harmony, now in its 3rd Edition. Africologist (talk) 11:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Great points, and thanks again, jps and Africologist. The draft was prematurely submitted and rejected by other editors. Part of the comment made, along with the rejection, was a request for discussion first on Talk:Afrocentrism. As you both seem to have already discussed the topic of Afrocentricity at Talk:Frances Cress Welsing#Not an Afrocentrist and Talk:Afrocentrism#Afrocentricity and Afrocentrism are not the same, which seemed to indicate agreement on formally starting Draft:Afrocentricity, and I helped initiate the start of the draft, would this not meet the condition laid out in the request by the rejecting editor? Daniel Power of God (talk)

Don't worry about the premature submission. Once the article is ready it can be ported over no problem. What we need to make sure we get right first of all is a full accounting and a proper contextualization. We aren't quite there yet, but we're getting closer. jps (talk) 10:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Quite strange the discussion wasn't noticed. I wonder why that is. Nevertheless, one critical person we should look at as far as critique is Patricia Hill-Collins and her book From Black Power to Hip Hop: Racism, Nationalism, and Feminism. She refers to Afrocentricity as a civil religion. Interesting comparison. Asante however responds to her in Afrocentric Manifesto, declaring her to be completely mistaken on aspects of the paradigm. jps I noticed you said philosophy and spirituality and not historiography but I interpreted it partly the same because of the universalizing aspect. I hope you followed where I was going there. I think both materials I suggested would still handle that. Africologist (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The AfC process is overworked and most of the reviewers can't be bothered to do much more than look to see if the article deserves to go live. As it is, the article is not in such a state, so the rest of the comments can safely be ignored. Great source with Patricia Hill-Collins, by the way. I'll look into that one. Is this another misapprehension of Afrocentrism vs. Afrocentricity? I have the expectation that there is a lot of mangling going on when it comes to the way the academic side of the issue versus the popular or strawman side of the issue plays out. I suspect we will have to deal in a more serious way with the way that the entire endeavor is centered around Asante. jps (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

To me, it appeared that Hill-Collins failed to understand, or simply was not aware of, the growing meta-theory surrounding Afrocentricity. And, yes, in many ways took up the tropes presented by those who frame/strawman it as Afrocentrism. It was an intriguing critique, nonetheless. I should be contributing soon, btw. Africologist (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I just read https://www.jstor.org/stable/3819965?seq=1 which is Uzo Esonwanne's critique of Asante's Kemet, Afrocentricity and Knowledge. While fairly scathing, it offers some interesting perspective on Afrocentricity generally I'll outline below. I don't think that Esonwanne has mistaken Afrocentricity for Afrocentrism in this review (though there is one instance in his jeremiad where he uses the latter term in what I think is a carefully chosen rhetorical gesture) especially as it is centered on Asante's work rather than any broader complaint:

So implausible is Asante's discussion of Kemet, Africa, epistemology, and research methods, so disorganized is his presentation of his arguments, and so crude and garbled are his analysis of various philosophical movements and individual authors that one may be forgiven for dismissing the whole project of Afrocentrism out of hand or accusing him of causing incalculable harm to the serious study of African American and African cultures. Sometimes Kemet is so off-handedly racist as to take the reader's breath away. In spite of these difficulties, however, Kemet does possess what I choose to call negative value. By this I mean that iit is exemplary of the sort of conceptual, epistemological, and theoretical approaches to research that scholars involved in African American and African studies programs would do well to avoid. This is the sense in which, in my view, it may be said to have some intellectual value.

Kemet also offers us something else, something which should be familiar to scholars of pan Africanism: the idea of shared political interests. In my view, Afrocentricity is a post-Civil Rights individualist version of the pan-Africanist doctrine. What it shares with that doctrine is the assumption that African peoples have a shared political interest in resisting imperialism. On account of the longevity this assumptions has enjoyed, and because such a solidarity is politically desirable, we should hold the temptation to dismiss the notion of Afrocentricity completely in abeyance. (p. 206)

As far as I can tell, this review went unanswered.

jps (talk) 11:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Good find. I have read this before and I agree, Uzo is very clearly discussing his view on Asante's Afrocentricity, or what he gleams from the text, in this review (though his works cited gives me the opinion of a heavy bias prior to his reading the text). Asante did respond in Chapter 8 of his book Malcolm X as Cultural Hero. I have included a number of quotes below:

Anyone relying on Esonwanne’s review for an understanding of my work would have little knowledge of what I actually wrote. His statement that, “sometimes Kemet it is so off-handedly racist as to take the reader's breath away” is gratuitous mudslinging. To make such a statement without giving one example, one illustration, or one sentence from my book to support that contention is not only a serious breach of professionalism but a grotesque and dishonest intellectual ploy.

Esonwanne’s identification of Cheikh Anta Diop, Maulana Karenga, and Wade nobles as, “a rather strange mix of names because in many respects—methodology for example—these figures represent quite different approaches to the study of Africa and the African American heritage” is absolute confirmation of my belief that he does not understand either Afrocentric theory or Kemet, Afrocentricity and Knowledge. These writers are within the same school though they may express different subject interests; they are all Afrocentric scholars. One may have historical, political, economic, or psychological thematic interest and training and be Afrocentric. The fact that Esonwanne sees these scholars as “a strange mix” simply indicate his unfamiliarity with their works or with the main currents of Afrocentric ideas.

To speak of the African is not to speak in the abstract and to speak of the European is not to speak in the abstract. But there is never an African without ethnic or cultural identity as there is never a European without ethnic or cultural heritage. However, we know that there is something in a composite sense that we call European Civilization or European culture and we know that in saying this we are not claiming that there are no French, Swedish, Australian, English, Norwegian, or German cultures. We are merely saying that there are certain modalities that make those societies more similar to each other than any of them are to the Thai or to the Zulu. In this sense there is a composite African although there are Yuruba, Hausa, Kikuyu, Congo, African American, Jamaican, and Igbo. One may refer to these as discrete African communities which taken together would provide some notion of a composite African. I have an entire section on this question entitled “Ma’at in African commonalities” on page 92 and 93 of Kemet, but Esonwanne apparently did not get that far in his reading of the text. (pp.59-61)

Africologist (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, there is an updated version of this text entitled, African Pyramids of Knowledge (2015). We should perhaps look for reviews on this edition. Reviews on book such as The Afrocentric Idea (1998), The Afrocentric Paradigm (2002), An Afrocentric Manifesto (2005), and Demise of the Inhuman (2014) should help as well. Africologist (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Good to know there was a reply! It doesn't show up in Google Scholar, I guess, because the works cited from books are not easily collated. I'll look for more reviews. jps (talk) 12:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

As a follow-up to the earlier proposal on adding sources addressing criticisms and responses to criticms, I added sources on Hills Collins' criticisms and Asante's response to those Hill Collins' criticisms. I also added a source from Asante that drew distinctions between Afrocentrism and Afrocentricity. jps and Africologist, there may be some merit in taking another look at Chawane (2016), which is already referenced in Draft:Afrocentricity:

"Today, a growing cluster of Afrocentric scholars at major universities in the Americas - particularly in the USA - and Africa have established several professional associations and journals. The leading centre for the Afrocentric Movement is the Temple University School of Scholars, often referred to as the Temple Circle. The Temple University is regarded as the leading centre of Afrocentricity, probably because Asante (the proclaimed originator of the concept) is based there. Among the Temple Circle of Afrocentrists are scholars such as C. Tsehloane Keto, Kariamu Welsh Asante, Abu Abarry, Ama Mazama, Theophile Obenga, and Terry Kershaw.15"

This excerpt seems to capture some of the impact (e.g., development of professional associations and journals in the United States of America and Africa) of Afrocentricity (and/or Afrocentrism) among African-Americans in the United States of America and among Africans in parts of continental Africa (e.g., Johannesburg, South Africa). The source also has sections relating to criticisms of Afrocentricity and responses to those criticisms. Daniel Power of God (talk) 15:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes! This kind of context is going to be important, I think, especially as it answers some of the questions that I've had when first researching this subject about the centering of Afrocentricity on certain people and institutions. Great source! jps (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this is great. Does the language in the article really seem too technical? Africologist (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the article right now contains a lot of language that is too compact and doesn't really provide the context that some readers might need. jps (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I added content deriving from Chawane (2016) as well as from the excerpts of Esonwanne (1992), which was critical of Asante's work, and Asante (1993), which was a response to Esonwanne's criticisms. As the issue of the draft being too technical has been raised, parts of the draft, where it seems suitable, can be revised and/or restated to improve its overall readability. Daniel Power of God (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! A few technical notes: it's not good style to include footnotes after every sentence when it is always to the same source. Additionally, there seems to be some strange glitch happening with your text where a space is added before each wikilink you are using. I think I caught most of those, but we might try to track down where that is coming from. Your style seems to use a lot of parenthetical e.g. lists which could do well to be expanded upon and explained. I tried to accomplish some of that. I too fall trap to the parenthetical which is a style that reduces the readability of some text. But thanks for continuing to work on this project. There is a lot of good stuff here and I am pleased with how the collaboration is going! jps (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

jps, thanks for your insights. I will bear them in mind. I look forward to the continued collaboration. Daniel Power of God (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Workshop a sentence

Here is an interesting sentence that I am not sure I understand:

In addition, Afrocentricity integrates aspects of African spiritualities as essential components of African worldviews including harmony, interdependence, order, and perfectibility.

I agree that the sentence is well-sourced, but from the source I don't have a very good sense for what "harmony, interdependence, order, and perfectibility" and, specifically, how these ideas are specifically "spiritual" or African. I think we need to be clearer here either with our identification of these aspects (and how they may be specifically African) or, alternatively, we could remove the list and just rewrite the sentence as

In addition, [some approaches to] Afrocentricity integrates aspects of African spiritualities as essential components of African worldviews.

This is a much more vague sentence, but it seems more intelligible to me. But perhaps I'm missing something here. What can we say about this in a clear fashion?

jps (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

jps, the highlighted statement, "In addition, Afrocentricity integrates aspects of African spiritualities as essential components of African worldviews including harmony, interdependence, order, and perfectibility," seems to derive and receive its context from the following in Alkebulan (2007):

Of cosmology, Asante (1990) asserts that the place of African culture in the myths, legends, literatures, and oratures of African people makes up, at the mythological level, the cosmological issue within the Afrocentric enterprise. Furthermore, he asks the following: What role does African culture play in the African’s interface with the cosmos? Are dreams of life and death in this tradition reflected in metaphysical ways? Finally, he maintains that the fundamental assumptions of Afrocentric research are based on the African orientation to the cosmos (pp. 8-9). Similarly, Myers notes that the “African extended self is God manifesting, the human being is with God having structured consciousness through conceptual systems to be divine of supremely good” (p. 77). In other words, the work of the Afrocentrist must be rooted in a spiritual conception of what is good. There must be an ethical functional dimension to Afrocentric research. Research must address the needs of African people for it to be relevant.

For African peoples, the essence of life is spiritual. As a con-sequence, “Afrocentric methods as well as Afrocenrically [sic] generated knowledge must reflect the primacy of the spiritual, the relationship between the physical and the spiritual, as well as the interconnectedness of all things” (Mazama, 2001, p. 399). Akbar (1984) also identifies spirituality as a major characteristic of the Afrocentric paradigm. He asserts that a holistic model includes the full dimensions of the human composition: physical, mental, and metaphysical. The Afrocentric approach “views humanity as ultimately reducible to a universal substance that is harmonious with the entire cosmos.” Spirituality implies order, harmony, interdependence, and perfectibility and is essential in the human makeup (pp. 408-409).

As it relates to the highlighted statement, the broader context seems to be cosmology. Within the block quotes that I shared, the following seems to stand out: "Similarly, Myers notes that the “African extended self is God manifesting, the human being is with God having structured consciousness through conceptual systems to be divine of supremely good” (p. 77)...For African peoples, the essence of life is spiritual...The Afrocentric approach “views humanity as ultimately reducible to a universal substance that is harmonious with the entire cosmos.” Spirituality implies order, harmony, interdependence, and perfectibility and is essential in the human makeup (pp. 408-409)."

Africologist, what do you think? Daniel Power of God (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I have a hard time understanding what this is supposed to imply in terms of "harmony, interdependence, order, and perfectibility". I can understand that spirituality is important to Afrocentricity, but I don't know what "God manifesting" means nor what this ostensible "universal substance... harmonious with the entire cosmos" is supposed to imply. jps (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Apologies fellas. I'm in a bad state right now. My little brother died recently so I'm going to need a little time to get back to you guys. But I will. Africologist (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm so sorry to hear that. No need to apologize. Take care of yourself! jps (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Africologist, I am sorry for your loss. Please take care. Daniel Power of God (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

jps, with the excerpted information from Alkebulan (2007) in mind, another possible substitution for the highlighted statement can be the following:

African culture and African spirituality are oriented toward a metaphysical cosmos and view God as the interconnecting, spiritual and cosmological essence of the physical universe; consequently, the African psyche is conjoined with God and is viewed as a manifested expression and cosmological substance of God; as such, within the cosmological aspect of Afrocentricity, African spirituality promotes harmony, interdependence, order, and perfectability in Africans and is regarded as integral to maintaining and improving the condition of Africans at the metaphysical, psychological, and physical level.

Daniel Power of God (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I am still having a hard time parsing these issues and this particular passage has confused me even more. In what ways are African spirituality oriented toward a metaphysical cosmos in a defining fashion? The quote doesn't really explain that. The use of "God" is also ambiguous here. Is this "God" in the monotheist's sense? If so, that strikes me as something worthy of explanation (and is rather surprising considering the breadth and depth of African religious traditions). To then go on to argue that this God is the "essence" of the physical universe might be a way to explain the author's definition of God, or it might be an identification of God with, say, physical things such as spacetime or atoms or thermodynamics. My guess is that it is the former and not the latter, but the excerpt and source itself is not something I yet understand fully. The next sentence is remarkable because it seems to make a bold claim that some undifferentiated "psyche", not clearly identified in any other context I can find, is "conjoined" with "God" which is, I believe, a mechanistic claim as to how God works in this framework. I think the sentence is claiming that "God" is actually observed by those who adopt this approach as an expression of this psyche and, further, that this is also somehow connected to the aforementioned "essence". Whew! That's a lot to disentangle, and I'm not sure we have a coherent explanation yet for what is going on here. I also have no idea what the "cosmological aspect" of Afrocentricity is yet. There are clearly cosmological aspects of African mythologies, for example, but I rather believe there is something else being argued for here that hasn't yet been elucidated in our draft or in other pieces I've read on the subject. The statement, "African spirituality promotes harmony, interdependence, order, and perfectability in Africans and is regarded as integral to maintaining and improving the condition of Africans at the metaphysical, psychological, and physical level." seems to me to be saying something fairly unremarkable if perhaps important for us to explain "Within the context of Afrocentricity, spirituality is important and some Africologists consider it vital to the endeavor." Beyond this, the details of the statement seem unexamined so, for me, I don't think they help us understand the point that is being made. To be clear, I think what we need to focus on here is exactly how spirituality is used within the context of Afrocentricity. To benefit our audience the best, a clear mechanistic explanation of what and how it works would be best -- something along the lines of, "In Afrocentricity discourse, spiritual practice is encouraged by certain authors including Asante as a way for practitioners to connect with...." Does that make sense? jps (talk) 12:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

jps, the related prose in Draft:Afrocentricity, derived from Mazama (2002), which is titled Afrocentricity And African Spirituality, states: "Afrocentricity is rooted in the perspective and culture common to African peoples, and centers on African peoples and their experiences as agents and subjects. In the context of spirituality, Afrocentricity includes a foundational concept of a unity in being that is manifest as an inherent essence in nature (e.g., animals, humans, minerals, objects, plants)." As highlighted above in Alkebulan (2007): "Akbar (1984) also identifies spirituality as a major characteristic of the Afrocentric paradigm." With that said, I will provide a fairly detailed excerpt from Mazama (2002) that may help add more content to consider regarding this apparently important aspect of Afrocentricity. It is as follows:

Indeed, let us remember first that Afrocentricity is a perspective on the African experience that posits Africans as subjects and agents, and which therefore demands grounding in African culture and the worldview on which it rests.

When we study African culture and, more particularly, African philosophy, it appears clearly that the fundamental African philo-sophical principle is the principle of the unity of being. Indeed, the major articulation of African metaphysics is the energy of cosmic origin that permeates and lives within all that is—human beings, animals, plants, minerals, and objects, as well as events. This com-mon energy shared by all confers a common essence to everything in the world, and thus ensures the fundamental unity of all that exists. Let us note in passing that this ontological unity is a very ancient feature of African cosmology because, according to Plumey (1975), for the Ancient Egyptians,

The whole universe was a living unity. Even those parts of the physi-cal world which we are accustomed to think of as inanimate, e.g., stones, minerals, water, fire, air, etc, partook of a common life in which men and women and animals and birds and fishes and insects and plants and even the gods themselves shared. (p. 24)

This energy constitutes the active, dynamic principle that animates creation, and which can be identified as Life itself. Let us note that this principle of ontological unity has at least two immediate and profound implications, that is, the principle of connectedness of all that is, based on a common essence; and the principle of harmony, based on the organic solidarity and complementarity of all forms.

And what is the source of that energy that the Yoruba call Ashe? It is God itself. Everything that is shared in that divine essence and is, as a result, sacred. Ndaw (1997) reminded us how

dans les poèmes inspirés par la chasse, le chasseur ne s’enorgueillit pas de tuer: à l’égard du chassé, il n’exprime que louange et respect. Le chasseur et le chassé jouent simplement leur rôle dans le drame de l’existence. L’homme de brousse compose des chants pleins de charme et de sensibilité à la gloire de l’antilope, qu’il chante et danse en l’honneur de la mise à mort [in the poems inspired by hunt-ing, the hunter does not brag about killing. For his prey, he has only words of praise and respect. The man of the forest composes charm-ing and sensitive songs, glorifying the antelope, which he sings and dances at the occasion of its death]. (p. 71)

In the same vein, special rituals take place before cutting trees down, for the latter are conceived of as a place of special signifi-cance for the communication between people and God. It is there-fore fair to conclude from this that, in the African context, people do not conceive of themselves as separated from the cosmos but as being completely integrated into a universe that is much larger than any of them and yet is centered around them.

In the same respect, there is no major difference between death and life. Both are perceived as different modes of being. In the Afri-can universe, Elungu told us (1987) that “dans l’homme, le corpsn’est pas l’antithèse de l’âme; le présent est chargé du passé et grosde l’avenir. Dans l’univers, le ciel et la/ terre se rejoignent et la vienaît de la mort [the body is not the antithesis of the soul or mind, the present is filled with the past and carrying the future. In the uni-verse, the sky and the earth meet, and life is born out of death]” (pp.23-24). Life is infinite and knows no end, and therefore death is simply another form of existence, a rite of passage that allows one to gain another existential status, that of ancestor, that is of a purely or almost purely spiritual being. As should be expected, in such a world there can be no waterproof separation between the world inhabited by the spirits, be it the ancestors and other spirits and that inhabited by the living. Because Life is one, there can be no dichot-omy between so-called natural and supernatural worlds. In fact, it is generally admitted that the main difference between the world of the spirits and the world of the living is essentially one of degree of visibility, the spiritual world being largely invisible but nonetheless quite real. This is the very reason why in many parts of the African world the dead, or those that Mbiti called the living-dead, are buried within the family compound, along with many of their belongings, so that they may continue to play a part in their family’s affairs. It is also for the same reason that we offer libations and food to them, as gestures of appreciation, hospitality, and respect. If we maintain our relationship with our departed relatives, it is because we wish to secure their protection. The ancestors, Mbiti reminded us (1990), are “the guardians of family affairs, traditions, ethics and activities” (p. 82). Being closer to God, by virtue of their spiritual nature, they are in better position to petition God on our behalf, for our protec-tion. They are, to quote Mbiti again, “bilingual,” speaking the lan-guage of the living and the language of the spirits. With us, they communicate through dreams, come before us, or talk to us during divination sessions. This communication with us is made possible by our own immaterial component.

This easy and common communication between the world of the living and that of the living-dead is underlined again by the reincar-nation of the living-dead, generally within their own family. New-borns are frequently thought of as ancestors who came back, not necessarily as physical entities but as spiritual personalities. The newborns are officially separated from their spiritual community and reintegrated into their living community during naming cere-monies, a week or so after their physical birth. Thus, once again in the African worldview, life and death, far from being opposites, are complementary. As Zahan put it (1979), “Within this context the limits between life and death do not really exist. Life is born from death and death, in turn, is the prolongation of life” (p. 45). The cir-cle, which is the African spiritual symbol par excellence, takes on its full meaning as it stands for the constant renewal of Life through death and birth. The Bambara have a beautiful saying: “Life merges from divinity through birth and merges back into divinity through death, and through this cyclical transformation, we achieve immor-tality.” The ancestors must give protection and guidance in return for the tributes paid to them by the living, the most important one being to keep their name alive.

But of course, as we know, the ancestors are not the only spiritual entities to whom we may turn for assistance of whatever kind. In fact, the African spiritual world is densely populated. Next to the ancestral spirits, for example, are those of people who, for a variety of reasons, did not make it to the ancestral community. However, those spirits I am most interested in are the spirits of divine origin, who the Yoruba call orisha and Vodou practitioners call loa. Those spirits cover all aspects of nature and human existence. The orisha, Farris Thompson told us (1984), “are the messengers and embodi-ments of ashe, spiritual command, the power-to-make-things-happen, God’s own enabling light rendered accessible to men and women” (p. 5). The same author continued that to be possessed by an orisha is to “‘make the god,’ to capture numinous flowing force within one’s body” (p.9). The same holds true about possession by the loa. In fact, the existence of what are often referred to as secondary dei-ties is quite common in Africa, and we thus find the following onto-logical hierarchy, starting from the bottom, with natural elements, animals, the living, ancestors, and above them, the orisha or loa, all under the supreme authority of God. The implications of this onto-logical order are of paramount importance for African people. Indeed, when we think of African selves, we cannot be satisfied with an individualistic approach but must understand that we are an organic part of a whole that includes diverse spiritual and physical entities. We certainly cannot think of reclaiming our lives outside of this ontological order if at the end of that reclamation process we are to be whole again, as demanded by Afrocentricity.

Daniel Power of God (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I am still having some issues with this, but I think I'm starting to see themes. Here they are as I see them:

1. Unity of being
2. Integration of living and dead
3. Spirits as a part of the natural world (no separation of the natural and the supernatural).

That's a pretty succinct summary. There are some issues here as regards the ontology of spirits and the supernatural, but we can avoid that simply by saying that the emphasis on these ideas is part of Afrocentricity. I'm still perplexed as to how this is actually used in scholarship or praxis aside from exposition on the one hand and perhaps an adoption of certain spiritual practices on the other, so additional sources that explained that would help.

What's more, I think we could do with some more analysis about the way in which Africa as an entity is being realized here. Pan-Africanism as a political movement has lost a lot of steam since its heyday and there is the problem of identifying aspects that are truly universal to Africa while being distinctly African. Unity of being, for example, is a concept that arguably is found everywhere. Perhaps we say that it is emphasized in Afrocentricity in a manner different from the way it is discussed in other contexts, but, again, more sources would help clear this up.

Good work! I think we're getting closer.

jps (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

jps, to provide a more detailed summary, which incorporates part of the previously suggested possible substitution for the highlighted statement:

The paradigm of Afrocentricity is based on African culture and the African cosmological worldview. In the African cosmological worldview, there is an ontological unity of being, and metaphysical energy that connects all that exists (e.g., animals, events, humans, minerals, plants, objects), and consequently, bestows all that exists with essence and animates all that exists with life. Two aspects of the ontological unity of being are the connective nature of all that exists and the harmonious nature – that is, the complementary and mutually unifying nature – between all that exists. God/Life is the cosmic source of life and active, dynamic principle from which this metaphysical energy and essence derives.

Rather than there being a division between life and death, body and soul/mind, past, present, and future, earth, sky, and universe, supernatural world and natural world, spiritual beings and living beings, in the African cosmological worldview, there is a unification between them all. Within African cosmological reality, a distinction that can be made is that spiritual beings are mostly physically unobservable and living beings are physically observable. In the case of African ancestors, by merit of them being ancestral spiritual beings, are able to be ritually communed with and serve as intermediaries who communicate and intermediate between Africans and God. As within the ontological unity of being, there is harmony, the harmonious nature between life and death is one of complementarity; as such, African ancestors can be reincarnated within the lineages of the African family and the geometric shape of the circle has the symbolic meaning of unity and continuity between life and death. This symbolic meaning is captured in the following Bambara proverb: “Life merges from divinity through birth and merges back into divinity through death, and through this cyclical transformation, we achieve immortality.” Furthermore, in addition to there being an ontological unity of being, there is also an ontological hierarchy, which listed from greatest to least is as follows: God; divinely originating spirits over all that exists, such as the Loa and the Orisha; African ancestors; Africans; animals; natural elements in the physical universe.

As a major focus within the paradigm of Afrocentricity is centering, and re-centering, Africans within their own cultural context, and as African spirituality is a major aspect of the paradigm, within the cosmological aspect of the paradigm, African spirituality promotes the principles of harmony, interdependence, order, and perfectability in Africans and is regarded as integral to maintaining and improving the condition of Africans at the metaphysical, psychological, and physical level.

Daniel Power of God (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

there is an ontological unity of being, and metaphysical energy that connects all that exists... I still don't quite see what this unity of being is supposed to explain that makes the claim fundamentally Afrocentric as opposed to, say, panpsychic. While dualism certainly holds sway in certain areas of European Continental Philosophy, for example, this is by no means the only approach the world over. How is this argument specifically African as opposed to, say, a hallmark of a great variety of indigenous thought? This doesn't seems well explained here. There seems to be an unstated assumption here that these divisions are extant outside of Afrocentricity. Is that a fundamental tenant? Does Afrocentricity argue that this is a distinguishing feature of the ideas that are external to it? There still remains a lot of unanswered questions in terms of the supernatural and divinity, for example. There is a helpful distinction between "spiritual beings are mostly physically unobservable and living beings are physically observable", but this cannot be the only definition for there are a lot of things which are physically unobservable which are not considered "spiritual beings" (all things imagined, for example). I think a definition of the supernatural and divinity are needed here as they are probably not what is defined in our articles on the subject supernatural, divinity are decidedly skewed away from any Afrocentric position. The hierarchy might be an interesting thing to pursue especially as it pertains to Lwa and Orisha as fundamental entities along with a connection to ancestors. The veneration of ancestors and the placement of their witness above that of currently living is one that definitely is a hallmark and seems reasonable as a point of inclusion.

What is still unaddressed is the universalism assumed in these passages. The idea that there is a commonality among an African perspective that is a distinguishing characteristic is surely one that could suffer from accusations of being a hasty generalization. So how is that dealt with? What makes the African aspects of Afrocenticity African as an elevated approach and not merely one adopted from, say, Bambara as the chosen quote is taken?

jps (talk) 12:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

jps, my previous comment/summary was intended to capture more of the detail included in the fairly detailed excerpt from Mazama (2002) provided above. Aspects of what is highlighted in the summary can be used or modified for use in the draft, such as relates to the ontological hierarchy. As you indicated in the List sections discussion, there are a lot of sources included in the draft. Additional sources or different aspects of sources already in the draft can be added to better answer questions and points that have been raised. In any case, draftspace and mainspace articles apparently remain works in progress. Earlier here, regarding apparent issues relating to ontology, you indicated that "we can avoid that simply by saying that the emphasis on these ideas is part of Afrocentricity." In the List sections discussion, you also indicated that there were some issues of WP:MANDY to be addressed in the Criticisms and responses to criticisms section and seemed to indicate that being able to address the raised issue depends on being able to address the issues being raised here. While the draft may not be perfect, given what has already been said and what is already in the draft, what do you think is the simplest way these related issues can be addressed? Once the necessary changes have been made, do you think the draft will then be ready to be submitted for review? Daniel Power of God (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

The problem right now as I see it is one of intelligibility. If you show this to someone who does not know what Afrocentricity is will they understand it? I just tried and got some confused responses. It's hard to know what the right way to handle this is. I think what we need to do is try to simplify the explanations and make them as straightforward as possible. Let's take the subject we are discussing here: As Afrocentricity incorporates aspects of spirituality what are the major features in a practical matter? Do people invoke Lwa and Orisha in their scholarship? in their praxis? in their critiques? Do you see what I'm getting at here? We need a more intelligible explanation/exploration of the subject rather than one that reads like a list of ideas. jps (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

jps, by submitting the draft for review, this avails the opportunity for it to enter the mainspace. In the mainspace, this avails the opportunity for other constructive editors to contribute to the development of the article in ways you mentioned and even in ways not yet considered. Though the draft may not be perfect, it is a work in progress. If you address the WP:MANDY issues and other issues that you observe with the draft that can be readily resolved, with the review process having begun, this progresses the development of the draft and avails it for potential further development in the mainspace. Given the recent inactivity in the development of the draft, and bearing this reasoning in mind, I submitted the draft for review. Daniel Power of God (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with submitting it for review, but I worry that it won't necessarily pass. Right now, there is still a lot of substance that is unintelligible for me. Perhaps another reviewer can help. jps (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

jps, the resubmitted draft was rejected apparently due to the mainspace page for Afrocentricity already existing as a redirect to the mainspace page for Afrocentrism. Earlier in the discussion regarding the draft's initial submission and rejection, you stated in the Intro section: "Once the article is ready it can be ported over no problem." Given the reason for rejection of the resubmitted draft, the related detail covered in the earlier discussion, and the draft apparently being an imperfect work in progress, can the draft be "ported over no problem" to the mainspace, where the other issues that have been raised can be addressed? Daniel Power of God (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, I think that what we might want to do is make sure that all the things that are in this draft are present at Afrocentrism first. WP:CFORK goes in that direction typically. If the article at Afrocentrism becomes too large, we can create Afrocentricity. Does that sound like a good plan? jps (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

jps, that plan sounds like it could be a good first step. However, the amount of content in the present draft seems to be enough to merit a standalone article. The rejecting editors of the initially submitted draft and of the resubmitted draft both rejected the draft apparently due to the mainspace page for Afrocentricity already existing as a redirect to the mainspace page for Afrocentrism. Yet, the difference between both rejecting editors lies with the rejecting editor of the initially submitted draft; the rejecting editor of the initially submitted draft indicated that the amount of content in the draft at that time was not enough to merit a standalone article, but could be merged with the mainspace page for Afrocentrism. As the rejecting editor of the resubmitted draft did not include this reasoning, this seems to imply that the development of the draft, from the time of the rejecting editor of the initially submitted draft to the time of the rejecting editor of the resubmitted draft, is enough to merit being a standalone article. It may also be worth mentioning that another editor, aside concerns over how technical the language in the draft was at the time when the comment was made, also seemed to think the draft might be accepted if submitted; this may also indicate that there is some merit in the draft being a standalone article.

The rejecting editor of the initially submitted draft also made some commentary on the draft at that time; the view apparently is that the draft is a spin off article and that, unless the draft meets the conditions for special notability, spin-off articles should first be discussed at Talk:Afrocentrism. Discussion apparently was started at Talk:Afrocentrism#Afrocentricity and Afrocentrism are not the same. In this discussion you had mentioned reaching consensus, on whether Afrocentricity should be a draft or redirect, and it ended with the decision and agreement to start the draft. There apparently was no opposition to this idea. Though an imperfect work in progress, there is a now a draft for Afrocentricity. Is there already enough consensus to justify a "spin off article"? How much consensus is needed to establish justification for a "spin off article"? Daniel Power of God (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the easiest thing to do is expand the section on Afrocentricty in Afrocentrism. We obviously cannot incorporate this entire draft there, but a lot of it can be accommodated. Especially worth including would be some discussion of the Temple University circle and the criticisms/responses to criticisms. If/when the section on Afrocentricity becomes too long, then spinout will work well. jps (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so a spin out rather than a spin off. The content from the draft could apparently be placed in the Afrocentrism#Aspects of Afrocentricity and Afrocentrism section. Given the existing subsections in that section, it seems that creating a new Afrocentricity subsection might work best.

However, as it seems this can be viewed as a matter relating to spinning out or spinning off, it seems as if the matter of when to split may likely arise. The section on content splitting seems relevant as the differences between Afrocentricity and Afrocentrism has already been disputed at Talk:Afrocentrism#Afrocentricity and Afrocentrism are not the same. In addition to the content found in the Differences between Afrocentricity and Afrocentrism section, the List of Africologists section of the draft - as an apparently reliably sourced list - seems to demonstrate that a mainspace subsection or page on Afrocentricity more appropriately falls under the category of Africology rather than Pan-Africanism, as the present Afrocentrism page currently does. What do you think, jps? Daniel Power of God (talk) 01:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Good point. We can certainly include more academic material at Africology and that may be a more natural spin-out article base while the disambiguation between Afrocentrism and Afrocentricity is more relevant to the Afrocentrism article. jps (talk) 12:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

jps, as it seems to relate to the matter of categorization, what do you think of the points made here: Talk:African American studies#Sub-field?? Daniel Power of God (talk) 13:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Best to make these meta-points with sources, I think. Do you have a good source that reviews the landscape of these inter-related fields? jps (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

jps, in Okafor (2014) the following is stated:

As is well known, across the United States, our discipline goes by a variety of names: Black Studies, Black American Studies, African American Studies, Africana Studies, Pan African Studies, African World Studies, Global African Studies, African Diaspora Studies, and Africology. Even the 13 universities in the United States that currently offer doctorate degrees in Black Studies do not have a common name for those graduate degrees. What appears to drive these distinctive names is a combination of factors: the composite expertise of their faculty, their faculty’s areas of specialization, and the worldviews of the faculty that make up each unit. By worldview, I am referring to the question of whether the constituent faculty in a given setting manifests any or a combination of the following visions of our project:

• a domestic vision of black studies that sees it as focusing exclusively on the affairs of only United States African Americans who descended from the generation of enslaved Africans
• a diasporic vision of black studies that is inclusive of the affairs of all of African descendants in the New World—that is, the Americas: North America, South America and the Caribbean
• a globalistic vision of the black studies—that is, a viewpoint that thinks in terms of an African world—a world encompassing African-origin communities that are scattered across the globe and the continent of Africa itself.

This excerpt seems to correspond with the points made at Talk:African American studies#Sub-field?, including where the following statement made was: "The titles of these departments: Black Studies, Africana Studies, African-American Studies, Pan-African Studies, and Africology, reference departments that are all in the same field." Okafor (2014) indicates that Africology and African American Studies are a "discipline" (as opposed to disciplines) that goes by various names. Another statement made at Talk:African American studies#Sub-field? was: "We should merge the two articles "African American Studies" and "Africana Studies" with this in mind." What do you think of the recommendation to merge Africology and African American Studies into a single article? Daniel Power of God (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

It's worth an WP:RfC. I think you make a good case, but I can also see the other side -- namely that there are some programs that focus on African Americans and there are others that have a more global perspective. jps (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

jps, I have found more than ten sources similar to Okafor (2014) that indicate Africology, Africana studies, and African American Studies are the same field/discipline. Which kind of discussion do you think is best to be started at Talk:African American studies, a WP:RfC or a WP:MERGE discussion?

Regarding adding content from Draft:Afrocentricity to Africology and Afrocentrism, what content from which sections in the draft do you think should be added to which sections of these mainspace pages? Asante's block quote in Differences between Afrocentricity and Afrocentrism section of Draft:Afrocentricity is also in Terminology section of Afrocentrism. The other content in this section do not seem to be present.

Based on the current arrangement of mainspace pages, I think a spin out from Africology is most suitable. Daniel Power of God (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Either format works for the discussion. My impression is that a well-crafter RfC might get more input than a merge discussion, but I could be wrong. Maybe we should talk below about what content to add to Afrocentrism or other articles. jps (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Source material

I'm going to drop this here for now, but eventually we could put this over on the talkpage of the article. I thought it a good source for some of the questions raised above, perhaps [1]:

First in relation to Eurocentric academia, the Afrocentric/Africological movement in the West, particularly in the American context questioned previously established epistemological assumptions about the construction of knowledge and who benefits from such knowledge. One example of the phenomena is the utilization of Afrocentric epistemology, which arguesthat the historical redemption of African Americans must begin within the agency of African people instead of Europeans. For example, the knowledge produced by European intellectuals such as British philosopher David Hume in his essay “Of National Character”, German philosopher George Hegel in his “Lectures on History”, and US President Thomas Jefferson in his text “Notes on Virginia,” to name just a few, are part of a corpus of the racist, sexist and anti-African work that form theWestern Enlightenment; and are part of a large body of work that form a powerful academic, pseudo-science, and socio-political cultural tradition in regards to the humanity and agency of Africans, and provide the leitmotif or underlying pattern for the global formation of White supremacy.

Therefore, the Afrocentric perspective that emerged in the wake of the late twentieth century was and is a natural human intellectual response to the cultural imposition and biases by Eurocentric theorists and their sympathizers. Afrocentricity’s intellectual precursor Negritude, developed by the President of Senegel, Leopold Senghor, and others was an earlier attemptto critique bastions of Eurocentric hegemony but was utilized primarily in the realm of literary inquiry (Jackson, 2003b).The basic assumption underlying the Afrocentric worldview reflects the notion of human-nature unity or as “The affinity for peace, harmony, self-knowledge, agency, and liberation among its proponents” (Baldwin, 1980; Jackson, 2003, p. 116). The ethos reflective of this assumption is that of “oneness” or harmony with nature and survival of the group (Nobles, 1980).

However, scholars such as Leftkowitz (1996) and Stephen Howe (1998) have accused Afrocentric scholars of being racist, or anti-white. However, Afrocentricity in its theory and praxis is anti-oppression and is an intellectual movement that has created space for the international study of Africa and its diaspora in relation to other cultural paradigms (Asante, 1999;Jackson, 2003). Also, Afrocentricity calls into question Eurocentric analysis and study that poses as universal hegemony(Asante, 1990). In regards to Afrocentricity Asante notes:

It has made it possible for us to see that agency, location, and the centrality of experiences are keys to all human interactions. We have to see people from their perspective rather than impose ours on them. They are subjects, agents, and actors in human history and not simply to be used, acted upon, or treated as victims. In this regard, Afrocentricity has become a major theoretical intervention in the study of communication, sociology, social work, philosophy, and literature. (Personal correspondence, 2011)

Secondly, the emergence of the post cold war 1990s neo-liberal discourse surrounding the issue of race would be characterized by the attempts of academics and the electoral calculations of New Democrat politicians to suppress “race” as part of public discourse (Omi & Winant, 1997). Therefore Afrocentricity was attacked as viciously as other programs of liberal redress such as affirmative action based upon reactionary critiques related to assertions of reverse racism. In one example of the tension surrounding the ideological denial of the era, historian Arthur Schlesinger in his book The Disuniting of America(1992) characterizes particular forms of multiculturalism or Afrocentrism as problematic and confuses hyperbole related toethnicity with actual historical facts (Asante, 1999).

Furthermore, New Democrat political discourse was characterized by advocating false universal reform, and dismisses or suppresses and masks the effects of racism and its underlying tensions (Omi & Winant, 1997). For example, New Democrat politician Bill Clinton, informed by the works of sociologist William Julius Wilson author of The Truly Disadvantaged, and Thomas and Mary Edsall in their book Chain Reaction, would utilize neo-liberal discourse in an attempt to “rearticulate the conservative policies of the Reagan-Bush era into a more benign politics of redistribution” (Omi & Winant, 1997, p. 148).

Third, in relation to the ideological denial of the West; external critiques from nominally progressive Eurocentric scholars, other cultural paradigms and internal pressure from Black scholars of various ideological influences currently engage the Afrocentric school of thought. However, in the interest of parsimony the remainder of the essay shall focus on the internal conflicts within Africana studies, challenges and possible new directions for Afrocentric meta-theory in relation to communication studies....

In relation to Afrocentricity, Black studies, and or Africology black feminists have made legitimate claims of masculinist norms of scholarship and discrimination in the discipline, in institutional practice, and theoretical underdevelopment(Hull, Scott, & Smith, 1982; Ransby, 2000). These claims are valid and black feminist scholars in the face of these obstacles have made significant contributions to the field of Black studies and communication studies. However, the fact remains that overwhelmingly most black women scholars and black women in general do not identify with feminist theory and praxis due to the fact the historical treatment of women of European descent does not mirror the construction of gender in the African/diaspora community (Tsuruta, 2008). Furthermore, the tenuous dependency model relationships that some black feminist scholars have with white feminist matriarchy, its fraternal partner white male patriarchy, and the posthumous conceptualization of black women activist as feminists continue to undermine the intellectual fecundity, interdependency and creativity of feminist theory and praxis (Lorde, 2007; Tsuruta, 2008). Similarly, the Afrocentric schools of thought received severe criticism from postmodern or post racial theorists and or cultural studies scholars.

The theoretical legacy of these particular positions is indebted to the intellectual conflict with totalizing Marxist discourse among western academics and activists following the revelations of Soviet atrocities and the 1956 invasion of Hungary; the teleological assumptions of historical materialism or reductionism, and anti-utopian or skepticism of collective destination or global frameworks (Hall, 1996; Hebdige, 1996). In particular, the primary charge leveled by postmodern/postracial/cultural studies scholars is that Afrocentrism is an essentialism utilized to appropriate and critique African artifacts, in particular Egyptian ones, and form a basis for the movement (Jackson, 2003b). Furthermore, the atavistic tendencies of some Black nationalists and their exclusionary practices have exacerbated the situation, clouded the intellectual discussion, and contributed to the hyperbolic environment surrounding the discussion of Afrocentricity and its adherents (Jackson,2003a). However, in relation to text, the Afrocentric approach focuses on location and dislocation and a brief examination a rhetorical position of the postmodern/post racial/cultural studies critiques is warranted.

There is also a paragraph on the relationship between Afrocentricity and queer theory, but this isn't as well expounded, in my estimation. Still probably worthy of a turn in our article. Perhaps some of the sources therein contained can be used.

jps (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

This is good. Reynaldo Anderson is a good source for understanding Afrocentricity and the history and politics around it. If you can find it, may I also recommend the text: Molefi Kete Asante and Afrocentricity in Praise and in Criticism (1995) ed. by Dhyana Ziegler. Africologist (talk) 05:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

jps, I also think this is a good source. It seems to highlight criticisms. It also seems to highlight "agency" and "Negritude" as other sources do. Daniel Power of God (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

List sections

As the start for Draft:Afrocentricity seems to have emerged from Talk:Frances Cress Welsing#Not an Afrocentrist, it might be helpful to create two new list sections or a new section with two list subsections, located below Draft:Afrocentricity#Responses to criticisms. One list could be for people who were part of the Temple Circle. Another list could be for notable persons with academic degrees in Africology. These lists may be helpful to the reader and may help to further clarify and show the distinctness between Afrocentricity and Afrocentrism as well as between people who may fall under the category of Afrocentricity and people who may fall under the category of Afrocentrism. What do you think, jps? Daniel Power of God (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Having a list would be nice for my research, but it may not necessarily work in the article especially if there aren't reliable sources which make the leap towards connecting each individual to Afrocentricity. Can we workshop the list outside the draft first and if it looks decent we can then incorporate it? jps (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

jps, regarding the potential development of a list highlighting notable persons with academic degrees in Africology, I found a list of graduates from the Department of Africology and African American Studies. A list of 180 persons can be found in Table I, pages 566-571 ([2]). Another related source to consider, though not necessarily relating to the development of a list, may be Asante (2009), which is titled Africology and the Puzzle of Nomenclature. Regarding a Temple Circle list, there are some sources already in Draft:Afrocentricity, such as Asante (2007) and Chawane (2016), which provide some detail. The following is a list that includes those sources as well as other sources:

Temple Circle List

The Temple Circle, also known as the Temple School of Thought, Temple Circle of Afrocentricity, or Temple School of Afrocentricity, was an early group of Africologists during the late 1980s and early 1990s, that helped to further develop the theory of Afrocentricity that was initially developed by Molefi Kete Asante. (Given the importance of the Temple Circle, in relation to Asante and the development of Afrocentricity, this particular prose might be best placed as the last sentence in the lede.) The following is a list of the Temple Circle:

• Abu Abarry
• Aisha Blackshire-Belay
• Nah Dove
• Charles Fuller
• Terry Kershaw
• C. Tsehloane Keto
• Ama Mazama
• Theophile Obenga
• James Ravell
• Thelma Ravell
• Kariamu Welsh

Daniel Power of God (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Excellent work. We might want to think about WP:LISTCRIT for this situation. Sometimes, the inclusion of people on a list is up to whether they are included in Wikipedia. However, that may not be appropriate here. What do you think? jps (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

jps, thanks. These proposed lists are intended to help provide greater clarity to the reader, through specific examples of who falls under the category of Afrocentricity.

In the case of the Temple Circle list, it is intended to provide specific reference to who, in addition to Asante, helped to develop Afrocentricity – examples of early Africologists.

In the case of the list of notable persons with academic degrees in Africology, the provided source containing a list of 180 persons with PhDs was intended to be a starting point or an example of "persons with academic degrees in Africology" – persons who recently/currently develop Afrocentricity – examples of recent/current Africologists.

Per WP:LISTCRIT, both proposed lists seem to have high topical relevance within the notable encyclopedic topic of Afrocentricity and adds to the detail of differences between Afrocentricity and Afrocentrism by providing clear and specific examples of who falls under the category of Afrocentricity, via a list section with two list subsections – a list of early Africologists and a list of recent/current Africologists; this seems to demonstrate its encyclopedic usefulness. Overall, this can be understood as two topical lists of Africologists [(Professionals in the academic field/discipline of Afrocentricity) – as indicated by two of Asante's 2017 works, The Philosophy of Afrocentricity and Afrocentricity: Critical Intercultural Communication Theories, Issues, and Concepts, found in the Definition and Differences sections of the article].

Given the historic role of the Temple Circle/Early Africologists in the early development of Afrocentricity during the late 1980s and early 1990s, this distinguishes them from (more) Recent/Current Africologists; this also makes creating a list for the Temple Circle, distinct from latter Africologists, apparently valid and likely to not be as numerous.

As is apparent with the provided source for Recent/Current Africologists, it is rather numerous – listing close to two hundred persons, and with a potential to grow even larger as other sources and persons are added to it; hence, creation of this list seems to warrant greater prudence and consideration in how to approach it, as it might be disputed for this specific reason. While valid exceptions to the framing/understanding may be able to be found and addressed on a case-by-case basis, for its initial development, the framed/defined purpose for the list can be: a (topical) list of "persons with academic degrees in Africology" (within the notable encyclopedic topic of Afrocentricity); this could be helpful in establishing and maintaining a narrow scope for the list.

As the Temple Circle/Early Africologists list is likely to be less numerous than the Recent/Current Africologists list, the Temple Circle/Early Africologists list could remain within the article, whereas, the Recent/Current Africologists list could become and/or be a standalone list that connects with the Afrocentricity article, via its respective list sub-section and wikilink to the standalone list. Daniel Power of God (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

jps, in addition to other added content, I added the Temple Circle list to the draft, based on the reasoning presented in my previous statements above. What are your thoughts about the present Temple Circle list section and the development of a Recent/Current Africologists list section? Daniel Power of God (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I looked at the new paragraph in the draft and I like it. It helps explain some things that were earlier opaque. Still more work to be done especially on the criticism/response to criticism sections. I hate to get all Hegelian here, but since we've got a lot of sources it would be good to avoid the thesis/antithesis dichotomy that has been set-up and strive for a better synthesis if possible. I may be able to work on that a bit later. jps (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

jps, what do you think of the combined Criticisms and responses to criticisms section?

Right now it reads a bit manufactured and lacks the kind of ease of reading I would like. I would prefer that the criticisms all be explained first with Asante's response which almost always relies on the same instance of "they misunderstand the central idea" separated a bit more. There is a bit of WP:MANDY we have to deal with here. I haven't really begun working on that section yet because I'm still concerned that we don't have a good accounting of the actual ideas above. If we could identify the key features of Afrocentricity in a clearer fashion, the critiques would be easier to follow and the responses to the critiques would be better connected, I think. Also, we need to include a bit more from the first list, I think, including what those authors said about Afrocentricity directly, whether they were criticizing Asante only or the entire enterprise, and what sorts of alternatives might be offered and how. jps (talk) 12:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Where we now stand

Hey guys, I'm sorry I took such a long break. After the pause from the death of my little brother, I had a lot of catching up to do. PhD is finished. New job, etc. Now, to the matter at hand. I've been keeping up here and there. I seem to get the gist that where we now stand is that this article is not getting approved because those who would approve it can not (or unwilling) to differentiate the difference between Afrocentricity and Afrocentrism so they believe it be the same thing. This seems to be because of two issues. It is easier to follow the history of the article(s) and notice that this was a discussion before and the consensus (due to not understanding the difference at that time either) was to merge the two into one. So that's an easy option for an overworked editor trying to decide if they should read through this or not to see if it justifies publication. And further, this article is still much too technical and discipline-specific, which, as I stated earlier, will make one unable or unwilling to understand the difference. Am I following?

I see the suggestion is perhaps to try expanding Afrocentrism and see if that leads to a spin-off? My gut feeling is telling me that may not end up being the case. But I would like to trust you guys' experience on the matter. However, could we also try simply cleaning up the jargon in this article more? I think some of our issue is that we are getting wrapped up in what should be considered is and isn't important to Afrocentricity.

---

Afrocentricity is simply putting African cultural paradigms at the center of any analysis involving Africa and African/a people. But it is not a closed set of ideas. It is an open theory. Thus, you'll have people who will focus on spirituality, but Afrocentricity doesn't say you have to. You'll have people who'll focus on linguistics, but Afrocentricity doesn't say you have to. It is simply saying that any Africana phenomena must be approached using a cultural-historical method that centers how African/a people historically approach that phenomena (and to the best of our ability, find examples unaffected by or critical of Eurasian approaches). Afrocentrists also critique how some African/a groups approach information about others, and especially if that approach is done using colonial/post-colonial methodologies. Some Afrocentrists might see the African world as a network of cultural pan-African unity with various diverse cultures that have overlapping themes stemming from ancient times. Others see the African world as a more modern construction with acknowledgement of ancient antecedents. This is all fine to be considered one who uses Afrocentricity/The Afrocentric Paradigm. The only thing that is supposed to go unchallenged within Afrocentric theory is the centrality of African ideals in any analysis regarding African people. (I'm using African/a to show I mean Africans on the continental and African heritage people in the diaspora, but know that many Afrocentrists prefer instead to use simply "African/Afrikan" to describe any of those groups).

Afrocentrism, plain and simple, is not a theory or a body of methodological works. It is simply the lumping together of aesthetics, scholarly and unscholarly (some terribly unscholarly) ideas into one. Sometimes Afrocentricity is included in that. Sometimes not. Sometimes it's confused for Afrocentricity, even by those who claim to use the theory. But Afrocentrism is not the intellectual enterprise of Molefi Kete Asante or the scholars who have fleshed it out since his coining the term.

---

With all that you guys have read so far, does that help with clearing things up in your minds? I know wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic. So it's going to want published articles that does this type of delineation between the two (perhaps in more scholarly jargon than what I have just displayed lol) but the fact is there is not much of that. Most afrocentrists are more concerned with the issues at hand by which they use Afrocentricity/Afrocentric theory in order to tackle certain questions. The closest you will come to it is Adisa's "Defending the Paradigm" and some articles and chapters of Asante defending the theory from those who misinterpret it. But, say for example Adisa Alkebulan Article, different Afrocentrists would approach "Defending the Paradigm" different ways. Some may not include a section on spirituality at all. Some may make spirituality very relevant. Some may focus more on historical criticism of the theory. Some may focus on the historical relevancy of it. Just as there's varying ways to approach phenomena using Afrocentric theory, there's varying ways to describe how Afrocentric theory is used. Does that make sense? And if so, ideas on where to go from here. If not, please detail to me what does and doesn't make sense. I'm back and ready to assist as much as possible. Africologist (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Welcome back! Sorry again about your brother, congrats on the PhD! I think I agree with the points you are making here and the distinction you are making is one that I think could be decently distilled for inclusion on the Afrocentrism page. Rightly or (in my opinion) wrongly, afrocentrism and afrocentricity get mashed together in ways that sort of demand for a general purpose reference work to make clarifying remarks. If that clarification can be made at the afrocentrism page in a way that makes people understand why there is a distinction, it will be much clearer how and what to include in a spin-out article. As it is, I fear that our draft as it stands probably focuses a bit too much on particular implementations rather than the more expansive description you offer. jps (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Africologist, welcome back, sorry for your loss, and congratulations on your accomplishments. As you are aware, you and jps engaged in discussion about developing a draft for Afrocentricity at Talk:Frances Cress Welsing#Not an Afrocentrist and Talk:Afrocentrism#Afrocentricity and Afrocentrism are not the same. Through our discussions and collaboration, we have the present Draft:Afrocentricity. Given that the first and second time the draft was submitted and rejected (apparently due to the mainspace page for Afrocentricity already existing as a redirect to the mainspace page for Afrocentrism), and the first time the draft was submitted and rejected with more feedback than the second (apparently based on the view that it was spin off article), this apparently resulted in discussion about spin out. Content splitting emerged as an apparently relevant point pertaining to the differences between Afrocentricity and Afrocentrism, which you raised at Talk:Afrocentrism#Afrocentricity and Afrocentrism are not the same.

Your points made at Talk:African American studies#Sub-field? were raised in discussion and also seem to correspond with Okafor (2014). I have found more than ten sources that state that Africology, Africana studies, and African American studies are the same field/discipline. This seems to be relevant as it relates to the topic of spin out from the current mainspace Africology page.

Fundamentally, the discussion regarding best course of action seems to have narrowed down to spin out, such as spin out from Africology or Afrocentrism. However, the option of building consensus at Talk:Afrocentrism#Afrocentricity and Afrocentrism are not the same still seems to remain another option; the discussion there seems to have narrowed down to whether the current mainspace Afrocentricity page should remain a redirect to Afrocentrism or be replaced with a new draft/article. At Talk:Afrocentrism#Afrocentricity and Afrocentrism are not the same, doubt was expressed that there was a clear definition distinguishing Afrocentricity from Afrocentrism, which then was responded to and apparently concluded with agreement to start Draft:Afrocentricity.

There seems to be some degree of consensus among us here that there should be a standalone mainspace article for Afrocentricity. While Draft:Afrocentricity may be an imperfect work in progress, it serves as a draft for this prospective standalone mainspace article.

Considering the idea of spin out and when to split, Afrocentrism seems better suited for spin out when considering to split an article due to its size. While more than ten sources indicate that both should be merged, even if Africology and African American studies are merged, Afrocentrism would still seem to be larger. However, the most important point, as highlighted by Talk:Afrocentrism#Afrocentricity and Afrocentrism are not the same and Draft:Afrocentricity#Differences between Afrocentricity and Afrocentrism, seems to be that Afrocentricity and Afrocentrism are not the same, and are actually different from one another. This seems to bring consideration of spltting back to content splitting.

Draft:Afrocentricity#List of Africologists seems to support the idea that Africology is the most suitable page to spin out from. Even if Draft:Afrocentricity became the standalone mainspace article for Afrocentricity, as it seems to fall under the category of Africology (which is also, technically, equivalent to Category:African-American studies) and not Afrocentrism (Category:Afrocentrism), it still seems that it would likely have its own section on Africology with a main article wikilink that links to the standalone mainspace article of Afrocentricity. What do you think about this, jps? Also, do you think some of the points raised here, such as content splitting, could be raised at Talk:Afrocentrism#Afrocentricity and Afrocentrism are not the same as compelling/effective points for building consensus on the idea of Draft:Afrocentricity becoming the mainspace standalone article of Afrocentricity?

The following excerpt from Asante may hold also some relevance regarding consideration and discussion about category. Asante (2013), p. 23:

Patricia Hill Collins sets up another shell game when she writes “Within American higher education, Asante and other African American academics refashioned the main ideas of black cultural nationalism to guide fledgling Black Studies programs. Despite Afrocentrism’s expression function as a social theory within American higher education, its actual use more closely resembled that of a civil religion” (Hill Collins, 2006, p. 93). There was no “refashioned” anything. Black Studies itself was an outgrowth of the black nationalist tradition; there was no need to refashion any ideas in this regard. Black Studies as an idea pre-dated the development of Afrocentricity so it was not around to “guide” Black Studies.

Daniel Power of God (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

By the way, jps and Africologist, I started a WP:MERGE discussion relating to the points made by Africologist at Talk:African American studies#Sub-field?. It is at Talk:African American studies#Merger proposal. Daniel Power of God (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Daniel Power of God Yes, I noticed the discussion you began. Good job with that. I had forgotten that I raised that particular issue but it is indeed relevant to our discussion here. I agree it should be merged. I also agree that under an Africology, a link to Afrocentricity would be necessary. The field is very young. It is still struggling for THE guiding epistemological and pedagogical stance. Therefore, while they all overlap in various ways, the varying titles of the departments demonstrate the ideals of the faculty who exist there. Anything that is labeled with Africology (which only 3 universities are at the moment) will use Afrocentric methodology. Further, many Africana Studies departments use Afrocentricity (rather strongly or weakly present), African-American, Afro-American, Pan-African, and Black Studies departments will have professors who use it to varying degrees as well. The Afrocentric paradigm is present nearly everywhere in some capacity throughout the field, it's just not always guiding. jps Thanks for your response. How do they both of you envision reworking this article to be incorporated in Afrocentrism for an eventual split? As I see it from your comments, scaling back on implementations and expanding on the "what" this paradigm is? Africologist (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that starting with the subsection improvement of the relevant part of Afrocentrism would be a good thing to do. I also think adding some of the Temple Circle material to Africology (or whatever merge article may happen) would be another good starting point. One way to approach this is to center the resources on the academic development at the institutional level rather than at the intellectual level. jps (talk) 03:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Africologist. Africologist and jps, if it comes down to a spin out, a spin out from Africology seems to be the most suitable and most accurate/appropriate article from which it should occur. However, as the redirect for Afrocentricity currently redirects to Afrocentrism, Afrocentrism seems better suited for a spin out from as far as splitting an article due to size is concerned. Nevertheless, reconsideration of splitting as it relates to content splitting seems to show merit. Talk:Afrocentrism#Afrocentricity and Afrocentrism are not the same and Draft:Afrocentricity#Differences between Afrocentricity and Afrocentrism make the case for and show that Afrocentricity and Afrocentrism are not the same. WP:PRECISION also seems to be another relevant factor. Similar to Talk:Afrocentrism#Afrocentricity and Afrocentrism are not the same raised in 2021, this longstanding issue, as it apparently relates to precision, was previously raised at Talk:Afrocentricity#Merger with Afrocentrism in 2005. The sources in Draft:Afrocentricity are supporting evidence for the conclusion that Afrocentricity and Afrocentrism should not have been merged.

jps, earlier at Draft talk:Afrocentricity#Workshop a sentence, you stated: We can certainly include more academic material at Africology and that may be a more natural spin-out article base while the disambiguation between Afrocentrism and Afrocentricity is more relevant to the Afrocentrism article. I agree with this earlier point, particularly as it relates to the apparent need for disambiguation between Afrocentricity and Afrocentrism. The content relating to Afrocentricity can be split from Afrocentrism into a standalone mainspace article. It can then be merged with Draft:Afrocentricity. Thereafter, a section and wikilink for Afrocentricity can be made at Africology.

The excerpt cited earlier from Asante (2013), p. 23, indicates that the development of Afrocentricity post-dates the development of Black Studies. Passages from Asante (2006), p. 647, Conyers (2004), p. 640-641, Mazama (2021), p. 4-5, and Sams (2010), p. 44-45, help show that Afrocentricity is connected with Africology, and, as Asante (2017), p. 239, states: "Afrocentricity is at the core of Africology." Karenga (2018), p. 587, indicates that the Temple Circle developed Afrocentricity. Asante (2017), p. 1, indicates that the scholars who developed Afrocentricity self-identified as Africologists. Asante (2007), p. 17, Alkebulan (2007), p. 411, which cites Karenga (2002), and Asante (2017), p. 7, indicate that Afrocentricity and Afrocentrism are distinct from one another. Daniel Power of God (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

jps and Africologist, what do you think of the points that were made? Daniel Power of God (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

jps and Africologist, as an update, the two articles, African American studies and Africana studies, have been merged into a single article, Black studies. Daniel Power of God (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Great! I think that some of the work here could be helpful there as well. As for your previous question, I'm afraid I don't have much to add. I think it may be worthwhile to stick to improving the discussion at Black studies first and then return to the question we were attempting to address here. jps (talk) 04:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I see it. Awesome Daniel Power of God. As for your previous question, I'm still ultimately concerned about making sure Afrocentricity becomes it's own article with distinctions made between it and Afrocentrism. Hopefully, all that is being doing between the Afrocentrism and Black Studies pages will help us towards that goal. Africologist (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

jps and Africologist, I have been working on Black studies and added content, including the content from Draft:Afrocentricity. Black studies may now be more suitable for spin out as it relates to splitting an article due to size and the size guideline. Black studies is presently larger than Afrocentrism. jps, do you think the criteria for a spin out has been met? Daniel Power of God (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hard to say. It might be a good idea to make an RfC on that page to ask (a) if it should be spun out (make sure to mention the closing comments from the draft submission) and (b) what could be done to improve the work. jps (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

jps and Africologist, I have continued working on Black studies, including the Differences between Afrocentricity and Afrocentrism section. As it relates to making a request for comment:

• Should the Afrocentricity section be spun out from the Black studies article?
• What changes can be made to improve the Black studies article?

Do you think these questions meet the criteria for a brief and neutral statement, jps? Also, what do you mean specifically by "make sure to mention the closing comments from the draft submission"? Daniel Power of God (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

The first question I would reword to "What part of this article could/should be spun out?" You can offer your opinion that it is Afrocentricity, but perhaps let others think about other options. The second question is really one that is better suited to a WP:Peer review which, as a system, hasn't really worked well on Wikipedia. Better to ask at one of the Wikiprojects for some input. jps (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

If that is the case for the second question, then, perhaps, as it relates to making a request for comment, it can simply be limited to the first question – "What part of this article could/should be spun out?" However, there may be an issue that is being overlooked here - during the Talk:African American studies#Early procedural discussion, WP:RFCNOT was raised; the point might be raised again in this particular scenario. WP:RFCNOT states to follow the procedures described at WP:Splitting; in this case, the procedure, beginning with a split proposal discussion.

In the case of a a split proposal discussion, sources from the Differences between Afrocentricity and Afrocentrism section of the Black studies article, along with the size guideline, can be part of an extended rationale. The extended rationale: The Black studies article is more than 100,000 bytes, and its Afrocentricity section seems to be the largest section of the article. Though Afrocentricity currently serves as a redirect for Afrocentrism, the sources from the Differences between Afrocentricity and Afrocentrism section of the Black studies article show that Afrocentricity and Afrocentrism are not synonymous, are distinct from one another, and should not be mistaken for one another. The sources can be presented in excerpted form, similar to what was done during the Talk:African American studies#Merger proposal, as an extended rationale.

Then again, if a split proposal discussion is the avenue to be taken, the discussion could also be started, using a similar approach as the other alternative consideration, at Talk:Afrocentrism. In this case, highlighting content splitting and that it should not have been merged (#3 - topics are discrete subjects), might be relevant points to be made.

What do you think, jps? Which do you think is the best approach? Or, might there be other approaches not yet considered? Daniel Power of God (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I think a request for comment that asks how to split is perfectly fine. Once consensus of how to split is reached, a split proposal discussion can be done or, if it is clear, simply enacted. The problem with a "split proposal discussion" is that it usually is done when the person knows what they want the new page to be. In this case, you have an idea what you want, but I think it would be good to get other input first to see if other ideas might be had. jps (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

jps, that seems to be a fair distinction and point made. The current framing of the question, as a brief and neutral statement, for the request for comment is: "What part of this article could/should be spun out?" In consideration of the point made about asking how to split the Black studies article, do you think the question should be reframed or do you think the way it is currently framed should be fine? If reframed, how do you think it should be reframed? Daniel Power of God (talk) 08:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it's fine as is. The real question is if there will be enough input to figure out broader consensus -- important for preserving whatever future work. jps (talk) 12:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

jps and Africologist, I started a WP:RFC discussion at Talk:Black studies#Request for comment. Daniel Power of God (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

jps and Africologist, I made a third opinion entry at Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements for Talk:Black studies#Question: What part of this article could/should be spun out?. Daniel Power of God (talk) 12:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

jps and Africologist, per Talk:Black studies#Question: What part of this article could/should be spun out?, I have boldly spun out content from Black studies#Afrocentricity to Afrocentricity. I have also made changes to the following, previously existing, redirects — from Afrocentrism to Afrocentricity — to correspond with this change: Afrocentric, Afrocentrist, Afro-centric, Afrocentrists, Afrocentricities, Africentric, Afrocentrics, Afrocentric views on race, Afrocentrist Egyptology, Afrocentric Egyptology, Radical Afrocentric Historiography, and Afrocentric historiography. Daniel Power of God (talk) 11:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Some of the redirects I'm not sure about. It is unclear to me whether Afrocentrist always refers to a practitioner of Afrocentricity or a epithet for someone who is part of the larger category of Afrocentrism (whether that be due to a canard classification by bad-faith critics or not -- we can't right those wrongs at this website. We just need to be careful with redirects because it should send the reader to the place they are most likely to get the information they need. So while Afrocentric historiography should redirect to Afrocentricity, I'm not sure, for example, Afro-centric is always used in the context of Afrocentricity. jps (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Prior to the spin out, all of the previously mentioned redirects, as well as others, including Afrocentricity, redirected to the article, Afrocentrism; this made those redirects relevant to the spin out. Consequently, the changes of the redirects is/was not a matter of righting wrongs, but is/was a matter of relevance to the spin out of the new article, Afrocentricity. Asante (2010), p. 38-39, discusses details about Afrocentricity, including the terms Afrocentric and Afrocentrist. The current redirects to Afrocentrism, which went unchanged, are as follows: Afrocentricism, Afrocentrism and Ancient Egypt, Africentrism, Criticisms of Afrocentrism, and African-centered.

As you apparently highlight, Afrocentric and Afrocentrist, as terms, may not always be clear and/or may not be exclusive in their use as it relates to Afrocentricity or Afrocentrism — also, the role of redirects as it relates to the reader; these seem to be valid considerations. To address this apparent issue of ambiguity, perhaps, an Afrocentric/Afrocentrist combined term disambiguation page can be made, which then includes wikilinks to both Afrocentricity and Afrocentrism. The reader can then decide from there.

Regarding this proposed disambiguation page, with exception to redirects, such as Afrocentricities and Afrocentric historiography, the redirects that are currently redirected to Afrocentricity can be redirected to this proposed disambiguation page. African-centered might also be better redirected, from Afrocentrism, to this proposed disambiguation page. What do you think, jps? Daniel Power of God (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

jps and Africologist, in case you did not notice, the new spin out article, Afrocentricity, has been reviewed at Talk:Afrocentricity#Notes from New Page Patrol review. Daniel Power of God (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

jps, what do you think of the proposed idea to create a combined term disambiguation page to address the apparent issue? Daniel Power of God (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Seems like a good solution to me. jps (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

jps and Africologist, I created the Afrocentric disambiguation page and made the corresponding changes to the previously mentioned redirects so that they redirect to this disambiguation page. What do you think of the disambiguation page? Daniel Power of God (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks good! I'm glad this settled out the way it did. My hope is that the focus can be maintained and the discourse improved. It's nice that we now have a distinction that is more in line with sources. jps (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

jps and Daniel Power of God This is fantastic. I have been in the middle of a move from the east to the west coast so hadn't had time to check in until now. I did not expect this much advancement in so little time. jps I understand your confusion on Afrocentrist. It is a term that is used in different ways by those who use Afrocentricity as a theory as well as by those who critique/straw-man Afrocentricity and Afrocentrism. The Temple Circle view Afrocentrists as those who are students of the Afrocentric paradigm, building on the works of Asante, Mazama, and others. Others use the term Afrocentrist to refer to anyone who in their minds is remotely similar to Afrocentrism as well as their misunderstanding of Afrocentricity (so due to the confusion, those who utilize Afrocentricity and those who don't are lumped into one). Afrocentric has a similar issue. Used by the Temple Circle and their students in one way and by others in a more broad and unscientific way. African-centered is actually not used by the Temple Circle group that often anymore; preferring the term Afrocentric more. Some who are associated with the Temple Circle group and those who are not use African-Centered. With African-centered and Afrocentric as used among Black Studies scholars in the academy, there are overlaps in scholarship but theoretical/political differences between the scholars that leads to the use of differing terms. Sometimes they switch back and forth. For an in-depth explanation read: Africology and the Question of Disciplinary Language by Ama Mazama published last year in the Journal of Black Studies. Link: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0021934721996431.

I think next we should look at cleaning up the article more. Daniel Power of God Thank you for all your hard work. Do me a favor and look at the article I linked above. I think we should extrapolate from this article a an improved explanation of Afrocentricity. Let me know of any questions or ways I can help guys. Africologist (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, jps and Africologist. I added some prose that draws from Mazama (2021) to the Definition section. Daniel Power of God (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)