---

This is the place where you can interact with other people. Say what you think, listen to what others think, and then draw your conclusions. There is a huge range of areas of concern that you can talk about from politics to culture, arts, religion, education... and, of course, raise your local issues from were you are and discuss them with other intellectuals. You can also take this opportunity to discuss the themes tackled in Joe Mintsa's book and thus be in complete interactive connection with the author and all the other participants of the Diaspora... Click here to enter.

---

Please be acquainted with this important briefing:

for The Millennium & Foundation Movement's contributors

Note that the basic supporting material upon which I wrote this briefing is my book, Third Mind - which is now known to be the most striking African History Book of its kind. This book poses, with the sharpest tone ever rendered and in the most technical fashion ever achieved, the fundamental question of the injustices of the modern world, and more particularly those exercised on Black and Africans, both in African and in the world. So, my main aim in writing this book was to delve as deeper as I could into the hunt for the real motives for the grievances endured by Africans in modern history. The disclosure of the true face of their historical misadventures and political struggles is expected to be brought sharply into focus in order for us to put the case fairly and squarely for a greater understanding of the needs and aspirations of Africans in today's society.

First of all, I should begin to recognise that, indeed, Black Africa is well jostling around in search of a definitive answer to its present social and political condition. And I am happy to see all these diatribes going on in almost all social strata of every single black African country, because it traduces the evidence that the Negro-African genus is not totally insensible to its present condition. And I do salute all initiatives related to the idea of improving Africa in this 21st century, with an almost obsequious vehemence. Meanwhile, it remains true, as I see it, that all these hot disputes may still not produce any results as long as some key technical issues are not properly dealt with, despite the present boiling tantrums between Africans who nowadays fight so relentlessly - be it intellectually, academically, politically or militarily.

In order for you to begin to make sense of what I am presently most likely to reproach today's African intellectuals and politicians for, I would first like to refer you to an article that I recently wrote, a critical overview on the deceptive character of the different approaches that have been adopted by the African intellectual Diaspora over the past 50 years in search of practical ways and means by which the present decadence of the continent could be resolved. That critical article was personally directed to Professor Kapet de Bana, one of the most prominent African intellectuals of our time, a monument that is now respected in Africa more than anyone else.

Professor Kapet, seems, in fact, to be the initiator of a new branch of the Afro-centrist movement now known as The African Renaissance. He is now completing the first African History Encyclopedia with 240 volumes. His unreserved attack on the 500 years of spiritual, cultural and economic alienation that has crippled the African continent since colonialism was launched by the Europeans, his critical approach to the slave trade as well as the commercial distribution of Africans that resulted from that ignoble enterprise over the 5 continents of the globe and in which, until this day, their condition remains extremely critical - not to mention the sharing of Black Africa as a result of the 1885 Berlin convention, are some of the main topics that professor Kapet has dedicated his life to address.

However, after taking a close look at Professor Kapet's most acclaimed preamble, I soon realised that Professor Kapet's adhesion to Afro-centrism together with the African Renaissance that is now so intricately connected to it, as the prime measures to be considered if Africa should ever come out of the slippery quagmires of colonial captivity, has left me pretty weary about his work. Because, in my appreciation, this Afro-centrist passion has, thus far, posed to Africa a serious problem of philosophical disorientation. This is even the reason why I dedicated the last seven years of my life to write in order to make an intelligible contribution to the case of today's Black Africa in opposition to all these Afro-centric recommendations that I am now concentrated to elucidate. This will, surely, sound repelling, at first sight. But the reasons why I decided to address a letter to Professor Kapet may not actually be without some considerable relevance.

Indeed, there seems to be there, in Professor Kapet's vision, like in that of any other Afrocentric trend, a certain number of conceptual technicalities that escape Afrocentrism and that I am keen on settling.

Like Professor Cheikh Anta Diop, Kwame Nkrumah, Professor Théophile Obenga, Guy Makaya and many others that one would not begin to mention, Professor Kapet, whose work recently gained a pretty good publicity on many African Intellectual Diasporas, seems, judging by his words, very rooted in the Afro-centric ideology from which his idea of ‘African Renaissance' holds. This ideology is ramified into two main paths that are believed to be susceptible to lead towards a possible liberation of the African continent and, with it, the African Negro from colonial captivity. These are Pan-Africanism and Egyptology; the former being the object of an immediate political solution while the latter rather strives for a much remoter and, perhaps too, much deeper cultural exploration. But how does Kapet and his sympathisers understand the ideal of an African continent that needs to be born again out of this ideology?

First of all, the movement seems to be of the opinion that psychological reparation is a prerequisite to Black Africa's rebirth. For this, they believe in what they call ‘monumentalization' and ‘pantheonization' of Negro-African vestiges in the Western world that they accuse of having tricked and destroyed Black Africa's history. This, in their view, would translate an importing flap of the African Renaissance in the sense that once today's ‘Black Africa's European Mother cultures' (France, England, Portugal, Spain Germany), have accepted to recognise the part played by Africans in their own history, then Black Africa's place in history will be acknowledged and Black Africans themselves will, therefore, cease to be treated as sub-humans in these Western nations.

In principle, they seem to believe that If Black Africans are the objects of exploitation, mistreatment and disrespect today by the Europeans, this is because the contribution of Africans in European and world history has never been acknowledged, and, therefore, that the Europeans have a moral duty to pay tribute to Africa by planting African monuments in European cities so that the disdainful perception of what the African genus stands for today in the eyes of the Europeans would be revisited.

This is the first premise that I am not willing to take on board in my analysis of facts. It is, for me, too naïve a way to see things. And the reason for this is because the explanation provided by Professor Kapet, on behalf of Afro-centrism, is too childish. They seem to be of the view that, ‘if today's Africans believe that they are somehow sub-humans, this is because they are told so by the Europeans and treated as such by them. Professor Bedford Numez had also tried to asset this view by publishing ‘Educated to feel Inferior' (2003). This is even more relevant as they illustrate this perception by quoting what they consider to be a psychological reality that, "if you keep telling a child how stupid it is, you will grow it into a stupid adult".

As far as I am concerned, I believe, on the other hand, that the perpetuation of such arguments in the Afro-centric movement will only confirm what some Anglo-Saxons once called "The Psychology of a Child Race" as it seems to be vastly characteristic of the Black African race: the one that keeps believing that unless its “Parent Race” educates it to be a sensible adult, it will not be so. This psychology seems, too, in me view, to be an important factor in encouraging what I now call “The Politics of Infiltration” that marks the strife of today's Africans in being much likelier to seek to define themselves through Western history and civilisations. It is this psychology that constitutes the cornerstone of the Afro-centric vision all the way through; and this is what is crystallised in Professor Kapet's own endeavour.

Professor Kapet does quite well when he criticises Léopold Sédar Senghor, who, in his life as an intellectual and politician, prioritised France and in his works and wanted to transport Black Africa toward his Great Francophonie the object of which was rather to alienate Black Africa culturally and politically. However, to assign the obligation to the French to recognise the 'big historic figures' of Africa or to pay them tribute so that the efforts of the continent would be recognisable on the historical plan doest but plunge Black Africa straight towards this same francophohic alienation and servitude. It is an explicit way to beg the recognition of Africa 's historical status from the Europeans. It is this child race psychology that I, quite openly, stigmatise: the one that disposes the Negro race to always seek to put the burden of its realisation in the hands of another race, considered as ‘Parent Race'. What this implies is that Afro-centrism is of the view that the Negro cannot achieve his own historical recognition without it having to beg for the French to achieve it for him.

I am not convinced that such an approach can turn over the condition of today's African Negro. Because, if we explore history with objectivity, we will find that when a nation enacts the pantheonisation of great foreign personality with which the aforesaid nation has had good historical, cultural, diplomatic or political relations, or even for quite another reason, it is never on the basis of an international civic claim. It is a question of will to honour. It is not something you claim of force someone into. No one had protested put any complaints of any type for the English parliament to passes a bill to plant a bust of Nelson Mandela at Waterloo East or a painting of Milton Oboté in the Royal Gallery.

Besides, although there are enough Negro pantheons in several Western civilisations (Mary Seacole, who is so gloriously venerated in the Florence Nightingale's Museum, in Piccadilly Circus, in London , and quite may others), on what grounds could this free the African continent? Would the exhibition of Sheik Anta Diop's face in a Parisian subway stop political brutalities, starvation and pandemics in Africa ? – Are we seeking a consolation or a liberation? – Of course, this is only a psychological, a consolatory argument, but that not only seems to keep educating Africans towards inferiority, it also does not envisage any pragmatic and effective orientation for a true liberation of today's Africans.

It is not a bad thing to insist, as Professor Kapet does so well, that human history will not exist as such until the Negro is integrated into it. However, if it is by trying to infiltrate the Negro into a French or an English historical catalogue that Afrocentrists intend to integrate the Negro in human history, then they are strictly in line with the same Senghorian logic of FançAfrica and recognizes that the Negro will not be able to rise to the rank historical being unless the French or the English get him into it. Whatever the meaning that Afro-centrists want to give to their claim, it seems to me that there is a problem of ‘black parasitism' that they would not completely eliminate from their proposition. And it is this that appears to be quite disturbing to me: the ridiculous type of human recognition and dignity that Afro-centrism is trying to establish for Black Africa and the African Negro. So, this is really not good politics.

Secondly, when Professor Kapet poses the problem of the African Renaissance in terms of cultural revolution, he rather seems to fall inexorably into the pitfalls of the in instinct of racial congeniality and its ideological ramifications, and becomes so blind that he even fails to observe some sense of dialectic technicality in the use of the concepts that he employs to make his point.

It is sometimes beautiful to resort to conceptual amalgamation if one only wants to make oneself a voice to be heard. But conceptual amalgamation is not profitable when it comes to constructing something rational and sound. A concept is a tool for putting ideas together as is a trowel a tool for putting an architectural structure together. A thinker who makes bad use of concepts is like a mason who makes bad use of a trowel. Both of them lead to the infinite impossibilities of achieving their construction project. But in order to make an adequate use of a tool of some type, it is necessary to begin by defining its virtues and its functions first, and then use it in a suitable technical manner for anything to be built out of its use.

The word ‘Africa' refers to the designation of a continent and not of a nation, as does the word ‘Black' refer to the designation of a race and not of a people. The fact that Professor Kapet wants to transpose ‘Pan-Africanism' as well as its ‘African Renaissance' into a popular or nationalistic movement, in the instance, as he does mention it, of the Italian popular and nationalist movement of the 19th century does, quite abruptly distort the virtues of Pan-Africanism. Professor Kapet should have remembered that the Italian revolution to which he refers was risen from what had been known in 1878 as ‘Irredentismo Italiano' and the object of which was to identify, recognise and recuperate all people whose mother tongue was the Italian language for their territorial and political regrouping into a typically Italian nation in order for them to strengthen their Italian culture and build their Italian civilization on the basis of their language.

Several Western and Asian cultural and linguistic communities have treaded into the footsteps of that movement today, as well as those that already existed far before the Italian irredentist movement, to fight against the cultural amalgamations that they had inherited from the European and Asian classical and medieval empires up to the latest conquests achieved by some European and Asian nations on some of their neighbouring nations. It is for this reason that the political map of Europe can't stop being modified year after year. It is due to the fact of the pressure exercised by European peoples that had fallen into territorial and political structures that didn't do justice to their cultural integrity as nations on the basis of their languages. It is for this reason that the residue of the Ottoman block ended up collapsing to give rise to nations such as Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria; and even the Czecho-Slovakian alliance that did try to survive came to finally express its irredentism and therefore divide into two nations: the Czech nation and the Slovakian nation… We see the continual vindication of that current today even in such cases as the Corsican irredentism in France, that of the Basques in Spain, Galicia, that of the Cornish in England, the downfall of Yugoslavia into 5 countries: Macedonia, Serbia, the Croatia, Albania; and even Serbia and Monte Negro are to grow separate now; the downfall of the soviet block etc. etc. This is even the reason why we are now coming to European countries that are the size of an African country's province, because every European cultural community, as a language, however small it may be, is determined to be recognised as a sovereign nation.

It is, therefore, necessary to begin to understand what concepts stand for before using them in an intellectual, academic or political argument. If Professor Kapet wants Africa to copy Europe , I do not see any problem in such an approach. But he first needs to learn about Europe before copying it.

Europe fights for cultural individualism, which means the integrity, the sovereignty, and the development of every European cultural community in its individuality, by its language. This is the reason why each European country, as bizarrely chanceful as it may appear to some of us, happens to be named after its language, and is engaged to develop itself by it, this is to say, achieve its literary, philosophical, artistic, scientific, technological and spiritual affirmation in its own sovereign political context in its own language. The European Union is only an economic and commercial lobby – this is, besides, the reason why the accession to this lobby requires a certain economic status to its members, and not merely because they are located on the European continent or on the account of the skin colour of their inhabitants – in opposition to the African Union that, on the other hand, does not impose any economic requirements or any performance criteria to its members; which makes it come across as a structure without any real objectives.

Therefore, to try and assimilate political movements based on cultural and linguistic claims to a widely continental (and even racial) intellectualist movement is a philosophical and anthropological misconception that Afro-cantrism needs to review. Africa cannot fight for a nationalistic regrouping around a language, as Italy did, because the word ‘Africa' does not refer to the name of a language as does the word ‘Italian' refer to the name of a language. So, the analogy is therefore completely erroneous!

This misconception is even more relevant when Professor Kapet indulges in denouncing ‘Francophonie', which he accuses of having committed a crime against what he calls ‘the African culture', and pledges what he calls ‘Africaphonie' instead. It has been staggeringly surprising to me that, in saying this, Professor Kapet did not even realise that the term ‘Francophonie' refers to the practice of a language: the French language. The question could, thus, go as to what the linguistic bases of his ‘Africaphonie' are in order for it to stand against or even compete with the ‘Francophonie'.

I remember President Museveni of Uganda committing that same error in 1997 by saying that people should stop looking at him as an ‘English speaker'. He said: ‘I am a Bantu speaker'. It is great to come with such revolutionary and anti-colonial phrases. But I don't know if Mr Museveni had taken some time to think twice before saying this. Because, contrary to his belief, the word ‘Bantu' does not refer to a language as does the word ‘English'.

All Africans academics and political figures commit this error, which consists in using the wrong words to end up with the fallacious idea that the entire African continent is a nation or a culture. But they do not see that there is no successful continent that has ever achieved historical and civilisational prowess on the basis of a ‘generalised' continental collectivism. This Afro-centrist mentality goes even beyond the borders of continental collectivism to squarely embrace the psychological meanders of a purely racial instinct.

The attempt to build bridges between all Black people, be they from Africa, the Caribbeans, America or Europe , is one of the most prominent pieces of evidence for this mentality. Little wonder Afro-centrists stand for the promotion of a wide range of showcase catalogues of what they call ‘Black Excellence' or ‘Black Inventors' to cure the civilisational achievement and technological development vacuum that they feel the African continent is suffering today.

I have no particular problem with human being who feel close to one another showing reciprocal sympathy and sharing social, economic, political or even ideological interests. All Europeans have well shown the need to share economic, commercial and military interests to one another through the European Union. The Cubans, the Chinese and the Russians have also shown certain close ideological ties over the past forty years due to the fact that they have share the communist ideology together etc. We see the same type of alliances of mutual sympathy swarming the whole globe today for various reasons, be they ideological, historical, religious, economic etc.

However, none of the nations involved in any of such alliances has offered to essentially try and defend its own development status or historical pride on the grounds of one of its partners' achievements without counting on its own efforts to face its own challenges. The fact that the Afro-centrist movement, and especially the Black African wing of the moment, tends to try and assert its historical pride by publicising catalogues of what it calls ‘black inventors' on the grounds of such names as George Carver, Daniel Williams, Frederick Jones etc., although they can see that all these names are rather Anglo-American names and not African names and whose inventions no African nation can claim paternity today nor has any of these inventions contributed to the improvement of Africa but rather to that of America, cannot find my support on any angle.

I do not object to people paying their respect to whoever might have achieved anything impressive in history. If some English museums pay respect to Karl Linnaeus, this is not to say that the English would count on the Swedish scientific excellence to have a place in history, although the Swedish and the English are all white. The English need to produce their own scientists to develop England although other white nations or white individuals from other nations may be excelling. My view is, therefore, such that Afro-centrism must learn to understand that the European, American or Caribbean scientists and inventors (if there are any in the Caribbeans at all) in whom they take pride today in their wranglings will not help develop Africa on the sole account of them being as black as the Africans as long as they are simply not Africans. Chanting the greatness of Martin Luther King, Jr. will not pay the ransom of the decrepitness of the African continent, because Rev King is simply not an African. He is an Anglo-Saxon who fought for the liberation of a section of the Anglo-Saxon population in North America , brutalised by their own fellow countrymen. And he did not do this for Africa . He did it for America , although he was the same colour as the vast majority of Africans.

People do not have to be different colours for them to be foreigners to one another. Neither do people have to be compatriots for being the same colour. So, the advancement of a nation has never been, nor will it ever be, a foreign obligation or responsibility.

In consequence, the African Renaissance as well as its ambition to develop Africa will not be realised through the Afro-centrist intent to always seek to incorporate into the African affairs some American, European and Caribbean figures such as Aimé Césaire, who is only a Frenchman who knows nothing about Africa (who cannot even speak any African language to communicate authentically with Africans without making use of this very “Francophonie' that Professor Kapet seems to be rejecting).

My problem is that I do not condone mere inconsequential intellectual gossip. If Afro-centrism declared itself as a purely aimless intellectual show without any practical objectives, I would surely not have anything to reproach it for, no more than I would have to reproach a merely entertaining theatre company for anything. But as long as Afro-centrism seems to stand for some important historical and political challenges for Black Africa, I shall suggest that the challenge that awaits today's African Negro for his exaltation in human history will not be attained until each African nation bids to face its own call to advancement through its own cultural, political and economic initiatives rather than seeking to gain historical recognition for Black Africa in a Parisian museum or in Anglo-Saxons inventors.

Thridly, when Proffessor Kapet looks back much deeper into the issue, and in reference to Egyptology, which is the backbone of today's Afro-centrist movement, he seems to be inexorably tripping into Professor Cheikh Anta Diop's nexal wrangle between the Egyptian Negro and the Sub-saharan Negro to argue, contrary to Professor Numez, that Africans needn't ‘feel inferior' to any other race or people in terms of civilisational capabilities in the light of recent archaeological demonstrations of the ‘blackness' of the greatest and oldest civilisation of human history - the Egyptian Civilisation.

I have no problem recognising that there is, of course, a substantial amount of historical investigation that seems to confirm the Negro's own ability to perform civilisation in his own authentic context when taking into account the reference to the Egyptian civilisation, which has copiously been declared ‘a Negro civilisation'. And I do need to make it clear here. I have a duty to pay my respect to Pr Cheikh Anta Diop, that particular Senegalese scholar, the only Negro who had the courage to launch the categorical dismissal of the Hegelian diagram of the reading of human history.

To sum it up, Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel (1770-1831), a German philosopher who explored history on a particularly artistic angle, had refused to recognise the sense of civilisational affirmation to the Negro due to his total absence from the scenes of the advanced and civilised poles of the world: a view that was approved, with a dose of racism, by almost all of the Western historians of the time. This was the position that Professor Cheikh Anta Diop's archaeological investigations, published in his famous title: Antériorité des Civilisations Nègres (1967) - or ‘anteriority of Negro civilisations' - , seem to have overruled by bringing forward the evidence that the Egyptian civilisation was Negro and, by so doing, prove the distorting character of the Western historians' interpretations of the Egyptian history together with their indiscriminate disdain for the Negro's alleged inability to perform civilisation.

Pr Diop's new order against that Western historical vision thus launched with, in its turn, a dose of resentment towards the Euro-centrist tendency, an unprecedented fight for the historical restitution of the Negro-African world. This new literary version of the African past seems to have imposed, with authority, an intelligible deal of data retracing the evolution of Negro civilisations ‘from the ancient Egyptian Negroes to the cultural problems of contemporary Africa .' The Afro-centrist movement that was then born out of that new order automatically inherited from the sentimental dispositions of a scientific trend founded on a discriminatory basis in the fight for the Negro to re-appropriate the ‘stolen legacy.'

However - and this is the main point that I am trying to make in this briefing -, if we look very carefully at Professor Diop's investigation, it seems to me that there may be there something to be revised, not necessarily because I do not believe in Pr Diop, but because there seems to be there something like a missing link in his story and that I am trying to uncover. The question as to whether it is enough to for us to look up to Ancient Egypt to conclude that Africa does really have any civilisational and development capabilities. I know that it has always been very hard to get on with many Afro-centrists on this argument; and I suppose that it is also going to be hard to get on with you, dear reader, for the same reasons.

I remember Dr Daniel Mengara Minko - a young Fanghishman from the Mvèñ region, then reading at Montclair State University , in the New Jersey , USA - who once asked me: ‘where did you get such a ‘strange' idea from?'

Of course, Dr Mengara was extremely petrified by the idea of the Negro probably failing to qualify for human fullness in terms of civilisational advancement whereas ancient Egypt - so clearly known to have been Negro – was the oldest and greatest human civilisation. So, my position did - and because it has not changed at all – does appear to be extremely controversial, in respect to Pr Diop's publication about which all intellectual Negroes feel so strongly passionate.

I feel that I have a duty to explain my position as clearly as I possibly can in order to show what forces me to say what I say. I remember reading The Souls of the Black Folk by Dr WEB Du Bois where he wrote that ‘after the Egyptian and the Indian, the Greek and the Roman, the Teuton and the Mongolian, the Negro is a seventh son, born with a veil, and gifted with second sight in a world which yields him no true self-consciousness.' This sentence is of such importance that if we examine it closely, we will surely see that Du Bois forces us, to a certain extent, to question the racial identity of ancient Egypt , especially civilised Egypt . Because, if she were Negro, how can we justify Du Bois' introduction of such a distinction between the Egyptian and the Negro in which the Egyptian seems to be the first son of creation whereas the Negro is the seventh? Where did Du Bois get such a ‘strange' distinction between the Egyptian and the Negro from? Where the Egyptians not Negroes?

The objective of this line of investigation is not to question the existence of Negroes as Egyptian citizens at a time when ancient Egypt experienced her civilisational explosion, as depicted by Professor Cheikh Anta Diop (1993). However, since Professor Diop did finally admit that civilised Egypt was a ‘melting pot' inhabited by blacks and whites all known as Egyptian citizens, I will try to suggest why the presence of Negroes in Egypt at that particular point of Egyptian history would not necessarily imply that the Egyptian civilisation was founded by Negroes. Because this is, indeed, the problem of Afro-centrism: the deduction that if we can establish that civilised Egypt was inhabited by Negroes then this should systematically amount to conclude that the Egyptian civilisation was founded by Negroes. Therefore, there would be no point in trying to question the Negro's ability to build a great civilisation. We really need to check this twice before we indulge in any kind of self-gratification.

I will begin to phase out one by one of the most obvious arguments that lead many Negro intellectuals to attribute the paternity of the Egyptian civilisation to Negroes. I will do this by using more practical instances of modern history that, in my view, corroborate quite perfectly with the Egyptian situation as described by Egyptologists. I suppose that my counter-arguments may appear to be more sarcastic than philosophical to some people at first glance. But I will do all the best that I can to move forward to more serious demonstrations.

I will begin to recognise that, of course, there were Negroes as official citizens of Egypt at the time when the Egyptian civilisation was still at its upmost flourishing standing. However, if we take a look at our modern civilisations, we will surely see that, today, there is a considerable number of black Germans. But I do not think that we can automatically assert that, because we have Negroes as official citizens of Germany , the German civilisation must, therefore, have been founded by Negroes. I am not saying that this could not be a probability. But it is not the case.

Alain Engau, one of my philosophy lecturers, would often remind us, to instil the same Afro-centrist position as Dr Mengara, that the Greek themselves had confessed having been taught by dark-skinned people with wiggly hair - therefore Negroes - when they would go to Egypt to study there. But even in the light of such noble testimonies given by such distinguished figures as Herodotus, the fact that the Greek had been taught by such men in Egypt would not automatically establish a Negro paternity to the Egyptian civilisation. And my reasons for saying this are quite simple.

If one imagines oneself today as a student in South Africa , one may encounter many black lecturers. And yet, these lecturers will be speaking in English when the English language itself is not a Negro language. The South African black lecturers would be nothing more than a receptacle of individuals who had been tamed by the English colonists and the English culture or language may appear to the foreign students as if it were the culture or the language of these black lecturers.

If the foreign students did not know anything about South African history, they would probably hold the English language for the language of a black lecturer who would surely be a Zulu. When I began to teach foreign languages in Gabon , the authorities of the higher education ministry made me a proposition for a sabbatical year of English language teaching practice in Zimbabwe , which I refused on ethical grounds. If I had taken the deal, I suspect, some of my lecturers in Zimbabwe would have been black, colonised and educated by the English and given licence to lecture me about how to build an effective curriculum in English language teaching.

A naïve foreign student, in such a situation, would certainly assume such individuals to be originally or ‘naturally' English, whatever their skin colour, in so far as they would have acquired the authority to lecture in English to people from distant horizons as if the English language were their own language. I am most likely to be of the view that this is probably what happened to Herodotus in Egypt, although this view cannot be conclusive just yet, because I am aware that the picture of Zimbabwe, or even that of South Africa , may appear to bear some imperfections of principle in so far as, in these particular contexts, the English language is not fully-fledged over local languages that are still spoken by original inhabitants. The Zulu people of South Africa , for instance, still speak Zulu to a certain extent between themselves. In which case, a foreign student would not be completely ignorant of the fact that the English language in which a Zulu lecturer expresses himself is not, in fact, his true language.

The United States would probably take over from this level to help us see more clearly into the reasons why it would be premature to conclude that the Egyptian civilisation was a Negro civilisation. If one closes one's eyes on the deportation of Africans to North America, one may see that the United States , known as a melting pot, is a crossroads, inhabited by both blacks and whites, all known to us as Anglo-Americans in the sense that no original African languages are spoken in the USA . It would, in my view, be quite difficult for a foreign student who would know nothing about the history of that country to make sense of any antecedents that would have led blacks and whites to be all Anglo-Americans, sharing and running a common political destiny together. It might even be more difficult if the USA carried out some fuzzy anti-racial home policy that would not allow visitors to get to the marrow of the country's past.

Again, in the case of the USA , it might equally be improbable to divert a visitor's attention since the whole world is well aware of the deportation of millions of Africans to the American world because of the revolution of information at the time of these developments. But in the case of a timely mysterious nation such as ancient Egypt , starting an investigation into what really happened for people of different colours to be citizens of the same nation would not have been an easy enterprise to take up. The Egyptians, as mysterious and enigmatic as we know they were, could have concealed their history to the Greek students in a perfectly anti-discriminatory domestic policy.

It remains important, however, to acknowledge that such a position would not be comfortable. It would not be easy to throw into question a history that has been so well consumed by a good part of the globe, if not the whole globe. But what I am trying to focus on with the assistance of Professor Du Bois, is that finding Negroes or Negro vestiges in Egypt , or even finding Negroes as kings of Egypt at some point of Egyptian history, does not tell us the whole story. For example, the fact that we can find Negroes as heads of state in South Africa or Secretary of State in North America would not in any possible way imply that these countries had been founded by Negroes or on the basis of cultures originally developed among Negroes.

There are many instances in human history of people being colonised, adopted or tamed in foreign cultures and, therefore, becoming completely transcultured. They always end up losing their culture of origin and become members of a new culture by adoption and first through language - once their language of origin withers away - then through many other aspects of their mode of existence such as lifestyle, morals, convictions and the practice of traditions. It is, for example, this type of transformation that was achieved on Malinké slaves or any other African stock that exists under the Anglo-American way today. In the meantime, if historical information is released, it will always be recognised that such or such a man or group of men are somewhat original or adoptive members of their current identity. That way, it is clear to us that the Anglo-American culture or identity in which a dark-skinned individual with frizzy hair would claim to belong today was not originally developed in a Negro historical context, but rather in the Caucasian world, between the Angles and the Saxons. Thus, unless historical documents or transmitting traditions vanish completely, the presence of men of different colours in a certain culture cannot be taken with a similar degree of naivety to the Greek students concerning their black Egyptian teachers.

It is this line of reasoning that establishes a critical overview on the Afro-centrists and Egyptologists' conclusions. It has not been demonstrated that the mother-culture of ancient Egypt - the Egypto-Kemetic culture - was originally developed among Negroes, although a great number of Negroes did turn out to be Kemets just the way there is a great number of Negroes who now turn out to be Germans.

Of course, it may have been very easy for someone who may have visited Yunu three thousand years ago to choose to conclude that the Kemets were black, just the way it may be very easy for someone who may visit Brixton today to choose to conclude that English people are black. But my point is that the existence of Negroes or Negro vestiges in Egypt has not told us the whole story as for the historical transformations that may have taken place in a remote past before blacks and whites just happened to be all Egyptians, which later led to Egyptian graveyards and memorial busts becoming mottled.

Moreover, there is not only the case of adoption of men originally from different biological stocks by certain cultures developed in certain races, which most often results in multiracial nations. Diplomatic relations can also lead nations to pay tribute to great political figures, famous personalities from other nations. For example, if the English civilisation happens to vanish completely in the wake of a much bigger and more calamitous tsunami, an Afro-centrist investigator may find, probably 3,000 years later, a dilapidated bust of Nelson Mandela planted at Waterloo East. It will be very easy, in a situation where the knowledge of the English history would be limited, to conclude that the English civilisation would surely have been erected by Negroes. Because this is exactly what Professor Diop did by collecting from the ruins of Egyptian monuments some dilapidated busts displaying Negro facial features. But this should not, in my view, be enough, because if the Egyptians had good diplomatic relations with Sudanic Africa, trading with Ethiopians, Nubians, and many other Negroid peoples, it would not be too inappropriate to find graphic representations of Negro personalities in Egypt .

I know that Cheikh Anta Diop had led an authoritative investigation in terms of demographic composition and emerged with some astonishing results in which he showed that about 90 per cent of Egyptian mommies were Negro while only 10 per cent represented the white population. What Professor Diop tried to show by this demographic distribution was the unlikelihood of a vast majority of the population being colonised or tamed by a tiny minority in terms of ‘transculturation'. But if we return to the case of South Africa , we will see that the English make only 10 per cent of the population of the country. This is, quite coincidentally, the same proportion of non-Negro population in Egypt . Yet, it is the English, who represent such a demographic minority, who are the founders of South Africa . The English are not educated by the Zulu, rather it is the other way round. The country's educational, academic and political configuration does not operate in Zulu, but in English.

My only objective is to try to show, through practical instances from more understandable contemporary historical contexts, the inconclusive nature of such findings not only as far as the link between the Egyptian Negro and the Egyptian civilisation is concerned, but also as far as nexus between the Egyptian Negro and the contemporary Negro is concerned. I do not see any direct connection in either case. This is why the debate on the contemporary Negro's quest for civilisational affirmation cannot, in my view, be closed on the grounds of some Egyptian Negroes' hypothetical prowesses, especially if the link between the Egyptian Negro and the contemporary Negro is improbable in itself.

The history of the contemporary sub-Saharan Negro is the very opposite of the history of the Egyptian Negro, and this is what interests me. I do not thing that it would do any justice to dismiss a man's personal insufficiencies over his father's achievements, and especially in the case of a dead father who left no will.

My argument is neither to deny the passage of an Egyptian civilisation nor to deny intelligence to the Negro. My preoccupation is to try to answer the question as to whether or not all Negroes could be regarded as Egyptians. Because, even when we try to take on board the suggestion that the Egyptians were Negroes, the question remains unanswered, though: would the assumption that the Egyptians and the Swahili, for example, are all Negroes amount to claim that we are dealing with the same people? Should we fling the Egyptians and the Zulu into the same box on the grounds of complexion similarity? Because this would be like saying that the fact that the German Negro is a citizen of a powerful civilisation today should amount to conclude that the Kenyan Negro is too, since they are both Negroes; which is completely irrelevant. And this seems, in my perception, to be the case as far as Egypt is concerned.

Professor Diop (1993) did, of course, express a major concern over the demonstration of some kind of link, some cultural nexus between the Egyptian Negro and the sub-Saharan Negro to prove their oneness. He emerged with an extensive catalogue of lifestyle similarities between the Egyptians and many other Negro-African peoples. For example, he points out the excision practice among the Wolof in West Africa , which was equally observed in Egyptian traditions.

I know that, at first glance, my counter-argument to such an approach to sociological phenomena may sound more satirical than philosophical. I believe, however, that different societies can develop similar lifestyles and traditions. Indeed, any society can borrow from any other society's lifestyle or some particular sociocultural practices that would seem interesting, efficient or beneficial. For example, circumcision was in force among Egyptians. It might have appeared to be an interesting practice to the Jews while they were slaves in Egypt . But because slaves were not allowed to practise the masters' traditions, they must have felt free to practise circumcision only after their liberation. Was it a revelation from their God? We cannot really be sure. The only obvious probability is that they saw it in Egypt . In addition, their own leader had grown up as an Egyptian child. One may even advance that Moses, having himself been influenced by the Egyptian culture and traditions as an Egyptian citizen and therefore circumcised, might have been tempted to emulate some interesting aspects of that culture. Now as the leader of the Jews, he might have made use of his power to propose or even impose circumcision to his people, so that they became like him.

But my interest is not to pursue such conjecture. What I am trying to demonstrate is that if two societies seem to display similar cultural practices, it doesn't necessarily imply sameness or common origin. Dr Jeremy Narby stigmatises this methodological fallacy in The Cosmic Serpent (1999) by remarking that one outstanding mistake made by the first anthropologists of the 19 th century was to believe that people living at opposite poles of the globe could not make similar discoveries or have similar practices, or that primitive people didn't know how to emulate. He wrote: ‘these anthropologists found that bagpipes were played in Scotland , Ukraine and Arabia ; and for that they began to draw false connections between these three peoples that don't have a similar origin.'

This seems, in my view, to be the case in Pr Diop's socio-comparative approach. He did even push his argument further to the linguistic field, to point out the similarities between the Egyptian language and some Negro-African languages to try and establish a certain cultural sameness between them. But he seemed, by doing so, to have bluntly ignored the very universal phenomenon of linguistic loans that is always activated every time different cultures come to notch with one another in any form of co-operation. The English language dictionary is packed with Urdu words not because the English and the Urdu languages have a common origin, but because the peoples speaking these languages have undertaken an intense co-operation at some point of their history. Even African languages show a huge amount of linguistic loaning from cultures of different horizons for the same sort of reasons.

To say ‘human being', the Jews use a phrase whose literal translation is ‘son of man' . Quite bizarrely, the Fanghish, from Central Africa , also use he phrase ‘mohn'e mot' for human being, whose literal translation is ‘son of man'. But I am not of the view that such a linguistic similarity would lead us to conclude that the Fanghish and the Jews have a common origin.

There are even some Jewish concepts that have undergone important semantic transformations. The Fanghish world ‘bilen', for example, which is an invariable plural, is now used to designate the bridal cage decorated with curtains and flowers in which a newly-married woman is seated during the wedding ceremony. But this term was borrowed from Bethlehem , which is the name of the ‘city' in which Jesus was born, and that is often represented in the Catholic tradition by a small decorated cage where the doll representing baby Jesus is lain whist symbolically worshiped during the Christmas celebration.

The English have the family name ‘Summer', which stands for the second season of the year. The Fanghish also have the name ‘Oyon', which means exactly the same thing. But the fact that there has been such an identical inspiration between some English families and some Fanghish families in the way of forging their name would not in any way lead one to consider a common denominator between the two cultures.

Armand Lekina Amougou, a Fanghish friend of mine from the Éwondo region whom I met in England once pointed out this same phenomenon one day as we met a man who introduced himself to us as ‘Mr Swallows'. ‘How can someone be called Swallows?' he asked me; to which I responded by asking him what he thought of the Fanghish name ‘Memine'. Armand was lost for words, because, of course, these two names mean precisely the same thing.

There are a lot more lexical borrowings that are still in the process of approval and are used in parallel with the original ones as synonymous input. The Fanghish term ‘angatcha', borrowed from English ‘handkerchief' is used in conjunction with the original tern ‘efula'; so is ‘wuna', from English ‘window', used in conjunction with the original term ‘asángara'. That is also the case of ‘éteble' from either English or French ‘table', that has become more popular than the authentic term ‘aná'.

There are even some historical cases. The Fanghish people, especially those from the Mvèñ region, used the term ‘missikott' to translate the word ‘meeting'. But this term was invented with the advent of an English lady known as Mrs Scott who had worked as an associate missionary around the High Ntem region near the end of the 19 th century. The local populations of the region would often invite their neighbours to Mrs Scott's meetings saying; ‘let's go to the meeting of Mrs Scott.' And progressively, the sentence shortened itself to become: ‘let's go to Mrs Scott.' After her departure, the idea of this type of communal gathering remained associated to her name, and became the word missikott.

Such linguistic borrowings exist in their hundreds and thousands in almost every single language. It is in this sense that the linguistic similarities found between the Egyptian language and some sub-Saharan languages would not be a conclusive argument for sameness or common origin.

I understand that Professor Diop did recognise the co-operative bases of linguistic borrowings between peoples (1978) when he suggested, in the specific case of ancient Egypt, and in response to some Western historians who sought to endorse a rather middle-eastern ancestry to the Egyptian civilisation, that ‘Egypt, being located at a point of convergence of external influences, it is normal that some borrowings have been made from foreign languages; but it is about a few hundred Semitic roots compared to several thousand words [found in African languages].' And I do agree with the subsequent idea that ‘the Egyptian cannot be isolated from his African context, and the Semitic alone cannot be accountable for his birth.'

However, if it is necessary to recognise that the Egyptians were Africans because of their location on the African continent, such a theory can be only a phenomenological truism. Then, to affirm that African peoples must be their nearest neighbours is also an incontestable fact, although the Greek and the Persians are geographically nearer to the Egyptians than the Nguni. But to say that it should be ‘legitimate' for Africans to created some identity or ethnic connections with the Egyptians in a way to find them ‘parents or cousins in Africa' on the basis of a geographical or trans-linguistic argument doesn't do justice to the possible co-operative and interactive sources of such similarities and borrowings, whatever the number of them.

Obviously, it is easy for a culture to borrow from a nearer neighbour, but it is far easier to borrow from a culture with which one has a solid or intensive co-operation. It is easier to find an Urdu word in an English dictionary than it would be for a Polish word. And yet, Poland is closer to England than India . What I mean is that if the Egyptians maintained a more solid and intensive co-operation with the Ethiopians than with the Persians, it is quite normal that they would have borrowed a lot more from the Ethiopians.

Besides, a lot of languages often borrow from others because of their advanced capacity to enrich them in fields where they don't yet express themselves with efficiency. The fact that the English, the French, the Spanish, the Germans the Portuguese, etc. all used the word ‘theology' does not necessarily mean that these people have all the same origin. This is rather because they had all borrowed the idea of a formal study of divinities from a neighbouring people - the Greek - already advanced in that field, that was still quite new to their cultural, religious and educational universes. They just did not need contriving an authentic term for such a science, imported from a foreign world. We find thousands of Greek words of this kind in almost every Western language, not because the Westerners were all Greek in the beginning, but rather because there was not only an important co-operation between the Greeks and several of their neighbours, but also because there was a considerable Greek influence in the academic development of the Western languages.

In parallel, if one considers the level of academic and technological advancement of the Egyptian language, it would not bee too difficult to figure out the way the Egyptians would have played a similar role towards their Sudanic neighbouring nations, reaching to a multitude of other languages of the remote peripheral areas of Black Africa.

So, one cannot ignore the historical existence of an Egyptian culture recognisable as such in its particularity, with its culture and language, expressing its own artistic, philosophical, scientific, technological and spiritual values in its own civilisational mould (of course, also borrowing from neighbouring cultures on some technical and expressive aspects of its mode of development, regardless of the biological similarity between its members and the members of other cultures with which any form of interaction could have been observed).

Dr Mengara himself ended up acknowledging this historical reality of the Egyptian culture, as he put it to me in an e-mail in November 2000. Here are his words: ‘Ancient Egypt - because it was African and located very close to the former Ethiopia, and various conquests were made by the Egyptians on Nubians and by the Nubians on Egyptians, and also because it was the land of refuge for several oriental people (white) persecuted from their nations as testified in the Bible - was undoubtedly black and mixed, but also white. However, for the Greeks, the Egyptian was defined by his culture, his territory and his language, not because he was black or white.'

Dr Mengara's words appear to be quite helpful towards the confirmation of my own position. Because the fact that the Egyptian civilisation can be strictly defined by its own culture, territory and language leaves no room for generalising approximations that can embrace the entire African continent. In fact, the Egyptian culture or civilisation cannot become some sort of general ‘African culture of civilisation' in so far as the Egyptian cultural context can clearly be defined in its own distinctive setting, that unquestionably differs from that of the Wolof, for instance - although these two peoples may have borrowed some aspects of their cultures from one another.

Consequently, a biological resemblance, demonstrated or not, between the Egyptians and the sub-Saharan Africans is not sufficient to establish civilisational sameness to the point of concluding that, since the Egyptian Negro was advanced, it should go without saying that the sub-Saharan Negro was, or is also advanced. Because, this is just not true. The undercivilisation stigma remains irrevocable as far as the rest of the Negro species is concerned irrespective of how powerful the Egyptians may have been.

It is in this sense that the theme of the historical and civilisational restitution of Black Africa is now a debate that bears no pragmatic orientation insofar as it has shifted from the sub-Saharan present to the Mediterranean past. It is more spoken of in Negro-African universities in an intellectual tone to demonstrate the oratorical elegance of those who possess the ability to produce a distinguished rhetoric to turn the tragic failure of the Negro into an artistic opportunity.

But the insufficient survival capabilities of the Negro world will prevail regardless of the existence or not of ancient Egypt . Because if it is necessary or possible to explore any restitution perspective for the sub-Saharan world, so keen on pursuing a profound reflection on its civilisational possibilities, the Egyptian reference in itself makes such a perspective impossible for two main reasons.

First, the Egyptian civilisation cannot pay the ransom for the rest of the Negroes who have failed to erect their own civilisations in their respective cultural contexts as the Egyptians did in their own. It would be like saying that the Slovaks don't need to be developed since the Germans are. Only Negroes can understand that kind of reasoning.

Secondly, that very glorious Egyptian civilisation of which all fallen Negroes are trying to take pride today, to console their own failure in human history, does not even exist [any more]. There exists no such thing as an Egyptian civilisation in our present world. Again, only Negroes can take sensible pride and make practical use of something that does not exist.

For example, I know some Negro intellectuals, such as Dr Mengara, who advise that if Black Africa should seek a path to its civilisational advancement, it would be more appropriate to follow the Egyptian model of civilisation rather than the Western model. Mengara himself wrote to me on the issue in December 2000. The mail said: ‘We must not copy Europe as if we didn't have an authentic African model on which we could base our development. Considering that Europe had borrowed from the Greco-Roman legacy, it is quite natural that Africans, equally, borrow, in their turn, from the Egyptian legacy to define themselves by it. Why would you accept that Europe invent itself, with pride, a cultural identity usurped out of a small city like Athens while denying Africa the right to do the same thing, not with a small city, but a kingdom?'

One may quite clearly see that Dr Mengara's suggestion is dominated by the Afro-centrist mindset with its cortege of discrimination. When he says that it would be more appropriate for Black Africa to follow the Egyptian model of civilisation in the instance of the Europeans who borrowed from Greece, he does not take into account the fact that, first of all, my argument doesn't establish a substantial difference between Europe and Egypt; but secondly, he does not even take notice of the incongruous nature of such a comparison.

Indeed, there is a serious problem of practicality in this suggestion. The Europeans could, quite easily, have copied from the Greek model of development because they had been educated by living Greeks themselves (they are even still alive). The Europeans would go to Greece and study there while observing the Greek model of development in full process the way the Greeks themselves had been in the position to experience and therefore copy from the Egyptian model of development at the time when the Egyptians civilisation was still operational.

In the light of the extinction of the true Egyptian civilisation to which all Egyptological discussions refer, the question that should come up now is as to how the Negroes can be educated by the Egyptian the way in which the Europeans were educated by the Greeks. How would dead Egyptians teach Negroes? Are they going to be educated by fossils and mommies (unless they accept to be educated by the Arabs, since today's Egypt is an Arab country, in which the Arab culture and language happen to be the active medium of development)? - But, I am quite sure that this is not what the Negro wants. Rather, he suffers from a passionate nostalgia for the old good Pharaonic times.

Black Africa is not anymore in the position to invent ‘an usurped identity' for itself out of an Egyptian civilisation that now is only archaeological. When we talk about Egypt today, we talk, in fact, about a civilisation in ruin, an extinct culture, a dead language, a people reduced to nothingness by waves of assaults and occupations perpetrated by neighbouring cultures that left behind them nothing more than dilapidated archives.

Egypt is over. The pride of the contemporary Negro - if there could be any - will not be established in the name of a dead civilisation that, in itself, does not offer any true bond with him. This is, in my view, what amounts to the falsification of the Negro-African civilisational perspective, together with all the dramatic ramifications that are bound to it and that I intend to explain as much as I possibly can.

These are some of the reasons why I would need Afro-centrism to stop and think for a minute. And if you would like to know more about my work and The Millennium & Foundation Movement's project of A New Vision for Africa , please click here to get your copy of the book today, or here to recommend this page to a friend.

Go back to Top of Page or enter The Diaspora

Home | The Author | Work | Philosophy | Your Orders | Your Comments | Contact | Français | Book Press Release | Book Excerpts | Interviews | Articles | Snapshots | Technicalism | Chat | Discussion Forum | Online Press | Our Banner | Culture | Book Announcement | M & F | Key Concepts | Nouveau Livre (Fr.) | Banners | 21st Century Western world | Multicultural world | Editing Services | Translation Services What is Wrong with Black People? - How Post-slave Psychology and Afrocenticity are joining with Colonialism to undermine Black Africa's Cultural Integrity - New books online, black history, African history, African cultures and languages, great philosophers, black identity, African civilisation, new vision for African, African intellectuals, philosophy movements, black heritage, black excellence, black authors and writers, African Renaissance, Afrocentrism, political thinking, development, racism, supremacism, globalisation, Egyptology - What is Wrong with Black People? - How Post-slave Psychology and Afrocenticity are joining with Colonialism to undermine Black Africa's Cultural Integrity - New books online, black history, African history, African cultures and languages, great philosophers, black identity, African civilisation, new vision for African, African intellectuals, philosophy movements, black heritage, black excellence, black authors and writers, African Renaissance, Afrocentrism, political thinking, development, racism, supremacism, globalisation, Egyptology - What is Wrong with Black People? - How Post-slave Psychology and Afrocenticity are joining with Colonialism to undermine Black Africa's Cultural Integrity - New books online, black history, African history, African cultures and languages, great philosophers, black identity, African civilisation, new vision for African, African intellectuals, philosophy movements, black heritage, black excellence, black authors and writers, African Renaissance, Afrocentrism, political thinking, development, racism, supremacism, globalisation, Egyptology - What is Wrong with Black People? - How Post-slave Psychology and Afrocenticity are joining with Colonialism to undermine Black Africa's Cultural Integrity - New books online, black history, African history, African cultures and languages, great philosophers, black identity, African civilisation, new vision for African, African intellectuals, philosophy movements, black heritage, black excellence, black authors and writers, African Renaissance, Afrocentrism, political thinking, development, racism, supremacism, globalisation, Egyptology - What is Wrong with Black People? - How Post-slave Psychology and Afrocenticity are joining with Colonialism to undermine Black Africa's Cultural Integrity - New books online, black history, African history, African cultures and languages, great philosophers, black identity, African civilisation, new vision for African, African intellectuals, philosophy movements, black heritage, black excellence, black authors and writers, African Renaissance, Afrocentrism, political thinking, development, racism, supremacism, globalisation, Egyptology - What is Wrong with Black People? - How Post-slave Psychology and Afrocenticity are joining with Colonialism to undermine Black Africa's Cultural Integrity - New books online, black history, African history, African cultures and languages, great philosophers, black identity, African civilisation, new vision for African, African intellectuals, philosophy movements, black heritage, black excellence, black authors and writers, African Renaissance, Afrocentrism, political thinking, development, racism, supremacism, globalisation, Egyptology - What is Wrong with Black People? - How Post-slave Psychology and Afrocenticity are joining with Colonialism to undermine Black Africa's Cultural Integrity - New books online, black history, African history, African cultures and languages, great philosophers, black identity, African civilisation, new vision for African, African intellectuals, philosophy movements, black heritage, black excellence, black authors and writers, African Renaissance, Afrocentrism, political thinking, development, racism, supremacism, globalisation, Egyptology - What is Wrong with Black People? - How Post-slave Psychology and Afrocenticity are joining with Colonialism to undermine Black Africa's Cultural Integrity - New books online, black history, African history, African cultures and languages, great philosophers, black identity, African civilisation, new vision for African, African intellectuals, philosophy movements, black heritage, black excellence, black authors and writers, African Renaissance, Afrocentrism, political thinking, development, racism, supremacism, globalisation, Egyptology - What is Wrong with Black People? - How Post-slave Psychology and Afrocenticity are joining with Colonialism to undermine Black Africa's Cultural Integrity - New books online, black history, African history, African cultures and languages, great philosophers, black identity, African civilisation, new vision for African, African intellectuals, philosophy movements, black heritage, black excellence, black authors and writers, African Renaissance, Afrocentrism, political thinking, development, racism, supremacism, globalisation, Egyptology - What is Wrong with Black People? - How Post-slave Psychology and Afrocenticity are joining with Colonialism to undermine Black Africa's Cultural Integrity - New books online, black history, African history, African cultures and languages, great philosophers, black identity, African civilisation, new vision for African, African intellectuals, philosophy movements, black heritage, black excellence, black authors and writers, African Renaissance, Afrocentrism, political thinking, development, racism, supremacism, globalisation, Egyptology - What is Wrong with Black People? - How Post-slave Psychology and Afrocenticity are joining with Colonialism to undermine Black Africa's Cultural Integrity - New books online, black history, African history, African cultures and languages, great philosophers, black identity, African civilisation, new vision for African, African intellectuals, philosophy movements, black heritage, black excellence, black authors and writers, African Renaissance, Afrocentrism, political thinking, development, racism, supremacism, globalisation, Egyptology - What is Wrong with Black People? - How Post-slave Psychology and Afrocenticity are joining with Colonialism to undermine Black Africa's Cultural Integrity - New books online, black history, African history, African cultures and languages, great philosophers, black identity, African civilisation, new vision for African, African intellectuals, philosophy movements, black heritage, black excellence, black authors and writers, African Renaissance, Afrocentrism, political thinking, development, racism, supremacism, globalisation, Egyptology - What is Wrong with Black People? - How Post-slave Psychology and Afrocenticity are joining with Colonialism to undermine Black Africa's Cultural Integrity - New books online, black history, African history, African cultures and languages, great philosophers, black identity, African civilisation, new vision for African, African intellectuals, philosophy movements, black heritage, black excellence, black authors and writers, African Renaissance, Afrocentrism, political thinking, development, racism, supremacism, globalisation, Egyptology - What is Wrong with Black People? - How Post-slave Psychology and Afrocenticity are joining with Colonialism to undermine Black Africa's Cultural Integrity - New books online, black history, African history, African cultures and languages, great philosophers, black identity, African civilisation, new vision for African, African intellectuals, philosophy movements, black heritage, black excellence, black authors and writers, African Renaissance, Afrocentrism, political thinking, development, racism, supremacism, globalisation, Egyptology - What is Wrong with Black People? - How Post-slave Psychology and Afrocenticity are joining with Colonialism to undermine Black Africa's Cultural Integrity - New books online, black history, African history, African cultures and languages, great philosophers, black identity, African civilisation, new vision for African, African intellectuals, philosophy movements, black heritage, black excellence, black authors and writers, African Renaissance, Afrocentrism, political thinking, development, racism, supremacism, globalisation, Egyptology - What is Wrong with Black People? - How Post-slave Psychology and Afrocenticity are joining with Colonialism to undermine Black Africa's Cultural Integrity - New books online, black history, African history, African cultures and languages, great philosophers, black identity, African civilisation, new vision for African, African intellectuals, philosophy movements, black heritage, black excellence, black authors and writers, African Renaissance, Afrocentrism, political thinking, development, racism, supremacism, globalisation, Egyptology - What is Wrong with Black People? - How Post-slave Psychology and Afrocenticity are joining with Colonialism to undermine Black Africa's Cultural Integrity - New books online, black history, African history, African cultures and languages, great philosophers, black identity, African civilisation, new vision for African, African intellectuals, philosophy movements, black heritage, black excellence, black authors and writers, African Renaissance, Afrocentrism, political thinking, development, racism, supremacism, globalisation, Egyptology - What is Wrong with Black People? - How Post-slave Psychology and Afrocenticity are joining with Colonialism to undermine Black Africa's Cultural Integrity - New books online, black history, African history, African cultures and languages, great philosophers, black identity, African civilisation, new vision for African, African intellectuals, philosophy movements, black heritage, black excellence, black authors and writers, African Renaissance, Afrocentrism, political thinking, development, racism, supremacism, globalisation, Egyptology - What is Wrong with Black People? - How Post-slave Psychology and Afrocenticity are joining with Colonialism to undermine Black Africa's Cultural Integrity - New books online, black history, African history, African cultures and languages, great philosophers, black identity, African civilisation, new vision for African, African intellectuals, philosophy movements, black heritage, black excellence, black authors and writers, African Renaissance, Afrocentrism, political thinking, development, racism, supremacism, globalisation, Egyptology - What is Wrong with Black People? - How Post-slave Psychology and Afrocenticity are joining with Colonialism to undermine Black Africa's Cultural Integrity - New books online, black history, African history, African cultures and languages, great philosophers, black identity, African civilisation, new vision for African, African intellectuals, philosophy movements, black heritage, black excellence, black authors and writers, African Renaissance, Afrocentrism, political thinking, development, racism, supremacism, globalisation, Egyptology - What is Wrong with Black People? - How Post-slave Psychology and Afrocenticity are joining with Colonialism to undermine Black Africa's Cultural Integrity - New books online, black history, African history, African cultures and languages, great philosophers, black identity, African civilisation, new vision for African, African intellectuals, philosophy movements, black heritage, black excellence, black authors and writers, African Renaissance, Afrocentrism, political thinking, development, racism, supremacism, globalisation, Egyptology - What is Wrong with Black People? - How Post-slave Psychology and Afrocenticity are joining with Colonialism to undermine Black Africa's Cultural Integrity - New books online, black history, African history, African cultures and languages, great philosophers, black identity, African civilisation, new vision for African, African intellectuals, philosophy movements, black heritage, black excellence, black authors and writers, African Renaissance, Afrocentrism, political thinking, development, racism, supremacism, globalisation, Egyptology - What is Wrong with Black People? - How Post-slave Psychology and Afrocenticity are joining with Colonialism to undermine Black Africa's Cultural Integrity - New books online, black history, African history, African cultures and languages, great philosophers, black identity, African civilisation, new vision for African, African intellectuals, philosophy movements, black heritage, black excellence, black authors and writers, African Renaissance, Afrocentrism, political thinking, development, racism, supremacism, globalisation, Egyptology - What is Wrong with Black People? - How Post-slave Psychology and Afrocenticity are joining with Colonialism to undermine Black Africa's Cultural Integrity - New books online, black history, African history, African cultures and languages, great philosophers, black identity, African civilisation, new vision for African, African intellectuals, philosophy movements, black heritage, black excellence, black authors and writers, African Renaissance, Afrocentrism, political thinking, development, racism, supremacism, globalisation, Egyptology - What is Wrong with Black People? - How Post-slave Psychology and Afrocenticity are joining with Colonialism to undermine Black Africa's Cultural Integrity - New books online, black history, African history, African cultures and languages, great philosophers, black identity, African civilisation, new vision for African, African intellectuals, philosophy movements, black heritage, black excellence, black authors and writers, African Renaissance, Afrocentrism, political thinking, development, racism, supremacism, globalisation, Egyptology - What is Wrong with Black People? - How Post-slave Psychology and Afrocenticity are joining with Colonialism to undermine Black Africa's Cultural Integrity - New books online, black history, African history, African cultures and languages, great philosophers, black identity, African civilisation, new vision for African, African intellectuals, philosophy movements, black heritage, black excellence, black authors and writers, African Renaissance, Afrocentrism, political thinking, development, racism, supremacism, globalisation, Egyptology - What is Wrong with Black People? - How Post-slave Psychology and Afrocenticity are joining with Colonialism to undermine Black Africa's Cultural Integrity - New books online, black history, African history, African cultures and languages, great philosophers, black identity, African civilisation, new vision for African, African intellectuals, philosophy movements, black heritage, black excellence, black authors and writers, African Renaissance, Afrocentrism, political thinking, development, racism, supremacism, globalisation, Egyptology - What is Wrong with Black People? - How Post-slave Psychology and Afrocenticity are joining with Colonialism to undermine Black Africa's Cultural Integrity - New books online, black history, African history, African cultures and languages, great philosophers, black identity, African civilisation, new vision for African, African intellectuals, philosophy movements, black heritage, black excellence, black authors and writers, African Renaissance, Afrocentrism, political thinking, development, racism, supremacism, globalisation, Egyptology - What is Wrong with Black People? - How Post-slave Psychology and Afrocenticity are joining with Colonialism to undermine Black Africa's Cultural Integrity - New books online, black history, African history, African cultures and languages, great philosophers, black identity, African civilisation, new vision for African, African intellectuals, philosophy movements, black heritage, black excellence, black authors and writers, African Renaissance, Afrocentrism, political thinking, development, racism, supremacism, globalisation, Egyptology - What is Wrong with Black People? - How Post-slave Psychology and Afrocenticity are joining with Colonialism to undermine Black Africa's Cultural Integrity - New books online, black history, African history, African cultures and languages, great philosophers, black identity, African civilisation, new vision for African, African intellectuals, philosophy movements, black heritage, black excellence, black authors and writers, African Renaissance, Afrocentrism, political thinking, development, racism, supremacism, globalisation, Egyptology - What is Wrong with Black People? - How Post-slave Psychology and Afrocenticity are joining with Colonialism to undermine Black Africa's Cultural Integrity - New books online, black history, African history, African cultures and languages, great philosophers, black identity, African civilisation, new vision for African, African intellectuals, philosophy movements, black heritage, black excellence, black authors and writers, African Renaissance, Afrocentrism, political thinking, development, racism, supremacism, globalisation, Egyptology - What is Wrong with Black People? - How Post-slave Psychology and Afrocenticity are joining with Colonialism to undermine Black Africa's Cultural Integrity - New books online, black history, African history, African cultures and languages, great philosophers, black identity, African civilisation, new vision for African, African intellectuals, philosophy movements, black heritage, black excellence, black authors and writers, African Renaissance, Afrocentrism, political thinking, development, racism, supremacism, globalisation, Egyptology - What is Wrong with Black People? - How Post-slave Psychology and Afrocenticity are joining with Colonialism to undermine Black Africa's Cultural Integrity - New books online, black history, African history, African cultures and languages, great philosophers, black identity, African civilisation, new vision for African, African intellectuals, philosophy movements, black heritage, black excellence, black authors and writers, African Renaissance, Afrocentrism, political thinking, development, racism, supremacism, globalisation, Egyptology - What is Wrong with Black People? - How Post-slave Psychology and Afrocenticity are joining with Colonialism to undermine Black Africa's Cultural Integrity - New books online, black history, African history, African cultures and languages, great philosophers, black identity, African civilisation, new vision for African, African intellectuals, philosophy movements, black heritage, black excellence, black authors and writers, African Renaissance, Afrocentrism, political thinking, development, racism, supremacism, globalisation, Egyptology - What is Wrong with Black People? - How Post-slave Psychology and Afrocenticity are joining with Colonialism to undermine Black Africa's Cultural Integrity - New books online, black history, African history, African cultures and languages, great philosophers, black identity, African civilisation, new vision for African, African intellectuals, philosophy movements, black heritage, black excellence, black authors and writers, African Renaissance, Afrocentrism, political thinking, development, racism, supremacism, globalisation, Egyptology - What is Wrong with Black People? - How Post-slave Psychology and Afrocenticity are joining with Colonialism to undermine Black Africa's Cultural Integrity - New books online, black history, African history, African cultures and languages, great philosophers, black identity, African civilisation, new vision for African, African intellectuals, philosophy movements, black heritage, black excellence, black authors and writers, African Renaissance, Afrocentrism, political thinking, development, racism, supremacism, globalisation, Egyptology - What is Wrong with Black People? - How Post-slave Psychology and Afrocenticity are joining with Colonialism to undermine Black Africa's Cultural Integrity - New books online, black history, African history, African cultures and languages, great philosophers, black identity, African civilisation, new vision for African, African intellectuals, philosophy movements, black heritage, black excellence, black authors and writers, African Renaissance, Afrocentrism, political thinking, development, racism, supremacism, globalisation, Egyptology - What is Wrong with Black People? - How Post-slave Psychology and Afrocenticity are joining with Colonialism to undermine Black Africa's Cultural Integrity - New books online, black history, African history, African cultures and languages, great philosophers, black identity, African civilisation, new vision for African, African intellectuals, philosophy movements, black heritage, black excellence, black authors and writers, African Renaissance, Afrocentrism, political thinking, development, racism, supremacism, globalisation, Egyptology - What is Wrong with Black People? - How Post-slave Psychology and Afrocenticity are joining with Colonialism to undermine Black Africa's Cultural Integrity - New books online, black history, African history, African cultures and languages, great philosophers, black identity, African civilisation, new vis