web site hit counter
aAfrican Kingdoms Portal
Motherland DVD
500 Years Later DVD
FAQ'sFacebook Motherland
African Holocaust | We shall never forget the Greatest Holocaust in History


    In Development Notice



Until lions tell their tale, the story of the hunt will always glorify the hunter

African Proverb

Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will

– Frederick Douglass

The most pathetic thing is for a slave who doesn't know that he is a slave

– Malcolm X

Every man is rich in excuses to safeguard his prejudices, his instincts, and his opinions.

– Ancient Egypt

Continually viewing history through a modern racial lens distorts the historical timeline and creates anachronism.

– 'Alik Shahadah

What kind of world do we live in when the views of the oppressed are expressed at the convenience of their oppressors?

– Owen 'Alik Shahadah

We are not Africans because we are born in Africa, we are Africans because Africa is born in us.

– Chester Higgins Jr.

Leave no brother or sister behind the enemy line of poverty.

– Harriet Tubman


A Dying Pseudohistory or an Asset?

General African Authors
Compiled by Ben Levi Yahweh Jan - 2005-2012

Populist Afrocentrism was the perfect social theory for the upwardly mobile black petty bourgeoisie. It gave them a sense of ethnic superiority and cultural originality, without requiring the hard, critical study of historical realities. It provided a philosophical blueprint to avoid concrete struggle within the real world.... It was, in short, only the latest theoretical construct of a politics of racial identity, a world-view designed to discuss the world but never really to change it
Manning Marable

Afrocentricity was born in an academia in the West in contemporary times, rising to minor notability out of the Critical Race Theory era. While Afrocentrism attempts to create a legacy for its ideological core back to Ancient Egypt, it is really a critical response to barrage of academic racism. The Western historical view, and indeed the dominant African view, was that Africans have made no contribution to anything civilized.

Afrocentrism decontrcuts the notion of colorless accounts of history and politics, where the European worldview and paradigms are the norm and the benchmark, rendering everything else fringe. Afrocentrism, as a theory, challenges this and brought into the Western national discourse a plural race-centric approach to history. It is almost exclusively a Diasporic lens on a distant African continent. That in itself has advantages for Pan-Africanism, but also many fatal flaws for an authentic African experience. Afrocentrism added to the critical notion, that history's interpretation was influenced by race. Because even today Eurocentrism is posited as the standard lens for everyone. But clearly the worldview of the Chinese is constructed around the way Chinese culturally and ideological perceive their reality. Arab historians inherently would speak favorable of Arabs. But the Chinese, or any world-view, is influenced by external factors; by external religions (Islam and Buddhism), and by external cultures. But Afrocentric claims seem more purist; in search of that isolated filtered African experience.

Just as no one seriously interested in economics would read only the solution-less writings of Karl Marx, so to, no one serious about Africa depends only on Afrocentrism: It might offer a new lens but while rich in rhetoric, it is not that rich in content. And while many African scholars are sympathetic to its function giving the African a sense of self, beyond that people, with ever increasing frequency, do not want to be associated with it. And a lot of this sympathy is because Afrocentrism is very clear when it comes to the African political world-view, without apology, and we must be grateful for that.

But capitalist in making their argument for why capitalism is best, put forward all the work that capitalism has built, socialist put forward the legacy of socialism, Islamist put forward the great works of Al-Ghazali, the cities of Timbuktu, Baghdad and the splendor of Andalusia as testimony to what Islam can build. The point here is all ideologies, religions, positions have a legacy of "here is what we built with it". Afrocentrism seems to be asking us to trust it to build something in the future once everyone African signs up for membership. Because to-date, at the time of writing, it has little work in the real African world of bread and butter issues. It has zero authority in the engagements of business in the African world. It boast no monuments or universities carrying its ideology.

Afrocenrticm is Dead It is hard to put your finger on why Afrocentrism was necessary, it seems to have had its glory days as an 1980 fad where mainstream academia needed to look progressive, politically correct, and inclusive (CRT)—so it was tolerated as an intellectual fringe. But while its politics are sharp and refreshing but fatally empty for specific understanding of anything nuanced; It is overtly binary, fundamentalist, tendentious, simplistic in its analysis, and therapeutic.

And often has a counterintuitive habit of denying African agency and further generalizing and over trivializing African culture and religion. But it has served a very useful role in shaping African Diaspora world view and paradigms of analysis on the pathology of Whiteness.

And the worry modus operandi about Afrocentrism is how it revisions Africa's history of "victory" to the credit of some transhistorical Afrocentric ideology. And it attributes most of African people' s failures to lack of that Afrocentric ideology. Therefore building the pyramids was due to "Afrocentrism", the destruction of Africa was due to (you guessed it) "Lack of Afrocentrism." This is of course a simplified analysis to make a point of how Afrocentrism is anachronistically into the "Glory" of African history.

Afrocentrism is a new contributor to African consciousness, and certainly not the only pathway to African consciousness, and certainly not the summit of the African conscious experience. If anything it is entry level pre-school to African consciousness, and becoming more lip-service divorced from its own teachings. Afrocentrism, especially the populous kind, behaves almost like a cult, with very predictable un-evolved arguments spread across its congregation. And this is why they have a obsessive fixation on religion, with the same zealotism as a born-again Christian. It is so obsessed with religion, which it isolates and deems critical to an African revolution, that it tramples all other considerations; especially Pan-African unity. While ironically having the very same blind fundamentalism of the worst born-again Christian.

There are groups/cults that claim to embody consciousness, but have become the New Churches of blind binarism. With cult like fan-bases of infallible hero/scholars/icons worshiped by their followers—less about actually history and more about personalities—like a boy band groupie. And though their words seem to preach liberation and a departure from the old Bible bashing fire and brimstone pastor, their methodologies, and modus operandi are identical: Them and Us, their truth vs. everyone else's Falsehood, Salvation in what they say vs Damnation in everything outside of what they say. [7]

NegroScopy is a French Facebook page which is vocal against the misdirection of Afrocentrism

Unfortunately, Afrocentrism has largely become an excuse for anything goes scholarship; making it a source of derision from academics of all backgrounds. it has failed to self-check. It has become just as hypocritical as all the things it attacks. How many of them invest in Africa? How many of them even seen Africa, except as a footnote in some academics book, which they copy, paste, and twist into their own writings.  They view Africa from CNN feeds, and out of the window of some 5 star European owned hotel; while attending yet another paper revolution conference for members only.

This video by Dr. Amos Wilson is over two decades old, yet Afrocentrism today rarely heades any of his teachings

The closest they get to business is the ubiquitous tours to Ghana and Egypt, and maybe a book that only members buy and read. It is good they do these tours, but why stop there? But sometimes the most disturbing is how arrogant, how doctrinaire they can be about African history and culture, identical to Eurocentrism. And its far extremes can only be classified as a hate-group; identical to the Neo Nazi, but dressed up in the guise of Africa first. While every group has extremes and fundamentalist, considering Afrocentrisms low numbers, the degrees of the fundamentalist attitude account for a sizable percentage: So much so, that hate and binarism has become the archetypal personality of Afrocentric ideology.

But If one was the collate the best of Asante, and others it would be next to impossible to thwart their intention, or completely deny some of their arguments. And this is very important because the arguments create a strong intellectual defense to rampant Eurocentrism. Also no serious Afrocentric would have supported the South African rainbow project, or deliberately advocate NATO's invasion of Libya. So these are the good things Afrocentrism brings to the table. And we must, do what they don't, and be balanced— even when in critique mode.

African Kings African Kings African Kings

The word "Afrocentric" has been traced by Derrick Alridge to the American historian W.E.B. Du Bois, who employed it in the early 1960s. During the 1970s, Molefi Kete Asante appropriated the term, insisting that he was the only person equipped to define it, and asserting that even the holy archangels Du Bois and Cheikh Anta Diop had an imperfect and immature grasp of a concept that finds ultimate expression in his own pontifications. Subsequently, it became a catchall "floating signifier," nebulous, unstable, and infinitely mutable
Ibrahim Sundiata

The first challenge to all, new and old to Afrocentricity, is what is Afrocentricty. Because if we Google the term we see only see one consistent reputable advocate, Wikipedia, and a bunch of cheap blogs, clothing, and forums (even a porn site). Others use the terms in lieu of African centered, as a representation of “African consciousness” or just “Black power." But having in elements of African consciousness does not make African consciousness Afrocentric. No more than elements of good governance contained in democracy make all forms of good governance democratic. Most progressive African scholars are definitely not Afrocentric, while they might be sympathetic.

Therefore, the answer to what it is—Well, that depends on who you ask. Afrocentricity is so much, and so little, depending upon the mood of its club; it almost escapes definition.  And Afrocentrics have a beautiful defense to critique; it is near perfect, because it is a nebulous construction any attack can be deflected by saying "you didn't understand Afrocentrism." The problem is nobody understands it, not even its creators. What it does is "evolves" itself out of problems (and into new ones) by changing its position every time it is attacked (mutable). It almost exist to exist, it is relevant because it needs to be relevant as a pluralist, dissenting intellectual black offering. In other words. you get postmodernism, critical theory, anarchist, the rants of Heidegger, Nietzsche, etc, so the African American intellectual gives you Afrocentric or "Afrology" racialist revisionist lab theory.

Afrocentrism and its history have long been disputed and controversial. In this important book, Wilson Moses presents a critical and nuanced view of the issues. Tracing the origins of Afrocentrism since the eighteenth century, he examines the combination of various popular mythologies, some of them mystical and sentimental, others perfectly reasonable. A level presentation in what is often a shouting match, Afrotopia is a rich history of black intellectual life and the concept of race And you will notice in all aspects of Afrocentric "hi-brow" writing a excessive celebratory dependence on a Greek substructure for paradigms and compartmentalization of thought (Ontology, Epistemology, etc), strange way of articulating Africa through the world view of Greece. And very strange how quick they are to reference the one and two Europeans who gives validity to their view ( Herskovits, Robert Farris Thompson, Bernal, Basil, etc). Do they not have confidence in Africans anymore? It is not a problem, only a problem because of their binary set-up and threshold of a "Pure African."But under this patina of intellectualism it is a take-away fast-food simplistic supplement for one's intellectual needs, with trite child like comprehension of a complex world, full of human nature and multi-layered issues. Yet regardless of the issue, they always find a way to make reality prove their Afrocentric mantra (doctrinaire).

In its most basic and therefore agreeable form, it is just Africans must see the world through their own self-interest. Now that only needs to be stated because Africans, unlike Europeans, because of the African Holocaust, do not behave in a “natural” way. In other words, Africans because their history and culture has been devalued, can sometimes join in with the old racist canards or even attack things of African origin, or blatantly deny Africans can create anything without help from non-African forces. So world view might be automatic for everyone else, but not those under the terms of an African Holocaust. The problem with Afrocentrism's Pan-African self-interest is that "self-interest" is not static, the self-interest of Islamic Mali under the Mansas or the Sunnis(kings) is not the "self-interest" of African Americans in Chicago today. Also that self-interest cannot be seriously and exclusively verified by people who are up in Western Universities eating "white money" with an ideology that has built nothing in Ancient Africa and not even 0.0001% of modern Africa.

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye
Alik Matthew 7:3-5

African and centred means holding up a mirror to our own flaws, our own vulgar contradictions, and blossoming into new humans. Afrocentrics live in a house full of broken mirrors, unable to see their own odious conflicted reflection. They cannot see how the very thing they accuse the Europeans of doing--they also do.

It was divisiveness and ignorance that caused the African Holocaust, that is the biggest lesson we take from histories lessons. Yet they promote division, Muslims and Africans, Christians and Africans, non-Afrocentric and Afrocentrics. They use the same vile research methods of zero balance, failing to give credit where credit has been earned. It takes nothing away from our humanity to say another people have also contributed. How can that weaken us? Not everything in Africa was productive, we can not dress it up as sell it as holy. And those who study deep, have a born again moment, when they realize that much of Afrocentrism has very little to offer the advanced mind.


Holocaust     Holocaust
I reject false choice and fundamentalism in all its forms, whether it be ideological, political, cultural, national, philosophical, feminist, religious, theistic, atheistic, non-theistic or secular because I believe that all fundamentalism is reactionary, does not welcome questioning and critical thinking or inquiry and comes about as a result of fear and a loss of equilibrium Holocaust
Holocaust Holocaust
Holocaust Esther Stanford-Xosei

Destruction of Black Civilization : I can see how someone in a repressive situation can be inspired by a folklore such as this, but the reality is that it's a political work masquerading as a historical one. Slavery left behind a terrible situation that only started to dissipate in the late 60s and early 70s with civil rights. Black empowerment ideas were an offshoot of this movement which often created 'falling from grace' mythologies to inspire young African  people to action -- a method of removing the stigma of 'victim' and replacing it with the indignation of the 'betrayed super race.' I give this a one star because of the race-baiting, Nazi-esque superior race nonsense, and the fact that the history appears to be based more on myth-making and wishful thinking than it does on any archeological scholarship -- perhaps it was expedient during the time and perhaps necessary, but I dislike it nevertheless. It also doesn't speak well for the text that it isn't used in any history departments in the US (including the traditionally black ones). Populist Afrocentrism has no problem with false information, they can twist reality to serve their agenda. This explains why they put out newsletters about Mali, and do not have a clue about anything in Mali. It does not matter, because those reading also do not know, and trust them like the congregation trust an evangelical priest. Absolute faith is given to the "teacher," not the content--only the Afrocentric teacher, who is beyond reproach and incorruptible. And when caught in error they start speaking in Afrocentric tongues with the same old trite diatribes from 20 years ago. And if you know information is bad, why pretend to be an authority? Is that not a violation of the core tenant of Maat?

And why do they often uncritically support other nonsense scholarship just because the author is part of the All Black Afrocentric church? It goes back to the bases of Afrocentric unity is not truth, or good work but icons and personalities. And this is why Chancellor Williams is so celebrated, regardless of the obvious race-centric political pseudo-history. Sure the work is of its era, and was important at a time when people had nothing else about themselves; Just like Elijah Muhammad and his Dr. Yakub theory. But fortunately the world, and information of the world, has come a very long way since then. And it is totally against the interest of growth, maturity and critical thinking to cling to error out of nostalgia.

In 1994 the Manhattan Institute, a public policy forum, published Alternatives to Afrocentrism, a collection of highly critical essays by, among others, Lefkowitz (an over celebrated African detractor), Gerald Early, Stanley Crouch (another version of Henry Gates but more vulgar and obnoxious), Wilson Moses, and Frank Yurco. Early, an African American, has been especially vitriolic, dismissing Afrocentrism as just another North American experiment in "group therapy," intellectual fast food for his less sophisticated brethren. In the academic world Afrocentricity has become a dirty word because of the activities of an increasing number of pseudo-historians who marred authentic research. This ultimately undermined the seriousness of Afrocentrism. But too much bad research and lazy scholarship has been a global problem, and most Afrocentrics are guilty of this.
AfrocenTrick by NegroScopy The thing that gets Afrocentrics in trouble is they are defending and building, but not listening at the same time. They read each other, or they read looking for arguments that complement their agendas— that is not scholarship! They have no idea how far scholarship has advanced since the 80's when Africa was the envougue. Scholarship has moved far beyond "Arabs and Europeans destroyed African culture"—no one seemed to have told them. And these 'hidden truths' they expose are all found in mainstream books for decades before Afrocentrism arrived.

But what is confusing is this mix message, an incongruous statement of accepting diversity (Asante praises Nation of Islam from its usage (Africanizing) of Islam, Malcolm, etc), but then how come all the fruit from the Afrocentric tree is so hostile to non-Afrocentric certified faiths and methodologies? To then still state that Afrocentrism is the only way for African people and they must reject Islam and Christianity! And go so far as to state the problem in Africa is these "foreign religions." Darfur, has nothing to do with resources, and tribalism— no it must be Arabs who hate blacks. Mali, nothing to do with a complex political tension, which goes back a 1000 years, no — foreign religions. Talk about nuance erudition. Feel good lies are easier to sell than complex truths that cannot be twisted to fit into feel good pre-assembled binary boxes.

Afrocentricity is the only ideology that can guide us out of our confusion
Alik Afrocentricity International

* Loaded Question: If Afrocentricity is the ONLY solution, then where is all the fruit of this liberation? Why is it not building schools and hospitals, why can't it even build websites, or create jobs and its own universities?

And sometimes what shocks the most, is not only there binary dictum, but the utter ignorance of information they hold on to. In a world running with information, how do they always keep churning out erroneous statements about Africa?

One critical example, if salvation lied in ancestors, and native faiths, and some Diaspora notion of "The Africa I remembered 400 years ago." Mills and Boons history has no value to any serious seeker of the truth. And why is it, that Benin and Togo are not the epicenters of African consciousness? Why, for argument sake the sense of strong pride in self is found in places like Mali, Ethiopia, etc? Why was Gaddafi and not the King of Benin, the strongest advocate of Pan-Africanism? Because if the secret, was in following ancestors and native faiths, how did these places become so destroyed? It is a complex question, but one thing it does it utterly throws out is this canard that African spirituality and ATR produce African consciousness and Pan-Africanism, more so than Abrahamic faiths.


Afrocentrism is the orphan child of Eurocentrism--it is a reaction to Eurocentrism. That is the most concise reality few can deal with. But while Eurocentrism is defined and used by its detractors, Afrocentrism is defined and promoted by its advocates. Ideally, or in theory, Afrocentrism would never destroy other civilizations like Eurocentrism does. But without Afrocentrism ever having any legacy in the tangible world that boast could be claimed by any ideology. Even Democracy, Islam and Christianity "ideally" should make the world better, reality is another cannibal. So Afrocentrism does have a fundamental difference in that it does not attempt to colonize non-African people. If it ever got out of the lab that might change.


Alik Shahadah Quote     Alik Shahadah Quote
Binary race-centrism, creates generations of degraded ideologies each further divorced from consciousness, productivity and reality Alik Shahadah Quote
  Alik Shahadah Quote
Alik Shahadah Quote Alik Shahadah Quote
Holocaust 'Alik Shahadah
Alik Shahadah Quote

There is a shared agenda, and shared histories between Afrocentrism and the African centred movement. Afrocentric is a proprietary ideology, African centered is generic and open source. To the casual observer they all seem the same: The root words making them up looks the same. However, it is like Anti-Judaism, Anti-Jews, Anti-Semitic and Antisemitism; certainly they overlap but they all express sometimes radically different things. For in the above example one can be anti-Judaism, but against antisemitism, (many Zionist Jews reject God). While Anti-Semitic might mean against people who speak a Semitic language, such as the Ethiopian Amhara and the Arabized Palestinians.

Alik Shahadah Quote     Alik Shahadah Quote
If Europe has lies and Africa has lies, know that European lies have military, merchant, missionary, and especially media as ground support Alik Shahadah Quote
  Alik Shahadah Quote
Alik Shahadah Quote Alik Shahadah Quote
Holocaust African Agency
Alik Shahadah Quote

Now African centered means viewing the world from within the framework of an African lens. Afrocentric means the world orbits around a very focused definition of "Afro race", a highly exclusive definition of an authentic true African. So being African centered might mean a perspective due to one's African cultural orientation, it would impact how you see the world, the priorities you put on material vs. spiritual. It is no different to how a Muslim would see the world, through the Islamic lens, through the lens of an Islamic ordered universe. No one can therefore escape their center, because we all belong to some nation, or identity. So we all have some center or centers which have a profound influence on our outlook, and they are complex and never monolithic. It would be very strange, as an example, if Africans created existentialism, or nihilism, because these philosophies are largely alien to philosophies found in native Africa--they are not the product of a communal worldview.

The progressive African is TRUTH CENTRIC, what is true being a dialectically determined truth. However, the lens on the analysis or the lens on the worldview is via an African worldview, where African means an autonomous identity found within the cultural traditions of African people as free agents of their mind. That is a plural space, not one defined by a dude at Temple. In other words, an African who is able to own their own mind and understand their own self-interest, in any given situation, and produce perspectives based on that cultural identity and cultural interest. And this is where it gets tricky, because when Ethiopia as a nation destroyed Nubia as a nation, who was African centered? Ans: Both of them. Who was Afrocentric? None of them.

Afrocentrics are our brothers and sisters,, collegues, and supporters, family and friends but what kind of love would it be if we did not to speak to these issues?

So what this means in a debate about culture and religion and African centred progressive looks at the same facts which are deemed truthfully accurate about say the Dogon people, but then how these facts are applied, extended understood are within the context of the African lens (which is a diverse lens, and depends on the specific African user). Therefore, the mission objective is a quest for truth— not myth—or what sounds nice to the ear, followed by an appreciation of that truth within the framework of African agency. So for example, we might say there is no hard dichotomy between spirituality and the cultural inventiveness of a people: A perspective, which might be alien to European scholars, but natural to Africans. The facts are not in debate, the analysis is dependent on the cultural lens of the scholar. Unfortunately what Afrocentrism does is twist every fact to glorify its version of what an authentic African should look like and in the process creates the most vulgar anachronisms and false perceptions.

The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract
Oliver Wendell Holmes

African centered people, like progressive people all over the world (including most intellectual Afrocentrics) deal with professional critique as a blessing. It strengthens their character and makes their position more refined. immature people cannot handle disagreement, even if that disagreement was over what shade of black to paint the roof. The mind lacks a way to contain and over view the disagreement to frame it into notable and not notable categories. So with many populous Afrocentrics or the non-notable in academia, disagreement means traitor.

Afrocentrism comes in two varieties: Populous Afrocentrism and its academic or intellectual variant. Both strains cause mainstream Western academia to throw up in their mouth. But not for the same reasons it offends the progressive African scholar. And not all the vitriol launched at Afrocentrism is deserved. Much of the hatred comes from the notion of "how dare you speak so boldly about scholarship - you are not a memeber of our intellectual club?" There is a very derogatory attitude to anything that does not line up with Eurocentrism, or even liberal mainstream opinions on Africa. To the point where unless some European somewhere comes up with an argument "African has history", it is defaulted to the fringe basket. Afrocentrism should be praised, or cursed on the merit of its statements, not by the color/politics of the author.

Populous Afrocentrism

Pseudo history is a drug. Because as soon as you get out into reality you cannot use that mythology/pseudo history to build anything——It is for the moment. The drug quickly wears off and then more dosages of myth and conspiracy are needed to dull the pain of accounatblity. So what next? Africans were the first people on the moon. Then after it wears off what will you tell them? Africans invented the universe?

AfrocenTrick by NegroScopy Blinded by hatred, fuelled by ignorance, totally out of balanced, missing consciousness and hopelessly embedded in the thing they claim to hate—hate. Made and distributed by their oppressors tools. Populous Afrocentrism feeds off of KFC finger licking scholarship, very low in nutrition and a whole load of salt. It suffers terribly from groupthink, its evolution is solely based on reacting to attack and reforming its ideology to defend and sustain previous errors. It puts the "G" in "generalization", effectively reaffirming the myths of a monolithic Africa. 2,000 possible African traditional religions are now described in one breath, in single statements. All sentences start with sweeping generalization: "In Africa we did not have ..."

They have this habit of being experts on history based on orphan quotes. Now historically a quote was extracted from a book, which gave a detail of the subject it covered. The quote was a summarization or a potent point extracted (this is key) from that extensive writing. You could go back to the quote in the book and find 2000 words explaining it. Today with YouTube you get these orphan sound-bites from the icons of Afrocentrism, which now become orphan quotes to rebuild the entire African historiography.

BIG BAD BLACK BASEMENT Scholars that live in the impossible universe of myth carved from the romance in which it spins itself into its own web of choas. It is almost hypocritical in the way it celebrates KMT yet takes issue with invasion—as if KMT—like all superpowers, including Axum, did not practiced invasion as an integral part of nation building—ALL empires do this. (Europe is just the biggest and badest of the bunch) All civilizations, unfortunately for those in their way, are created by degrees of conquest and destruction. And this is not African history—but human history. Either you join and create a bigger state, or you are conquered by the stronger state. There are no tears for the victims who failed to create adequate defenses.

They spend all day telling you about African spirituality, but themselves have nothing; No Ubuntu, no Ma'at, not Huq, no Beatitudes, NADA but a head-wrap and a dashiki and a long triple barrel name from everywhere East, West, and South of the Nile. Where are the African virtues when under pressure? Where is the respect for the work that you have done but they are liberal when insulting solid work? Where is the ancestors when you speak ill of others? Where are these virtues of African consciousness when you slander and disunite Africa? And if these spiritual systems are so right for Africans spend time developing them as oppose to talking about them like a fictional romance.

One global ubiquitous feature of the populous Afrocentric, like the radical semi-illiterate Muslim, or the radical JHW, or any other crazed radical is absolute THEM AND US. If you think that you can argue with them with the tools of dialectic scholarship you are in for a shock. They will have none of it. At the drop of the hat a Traitor, your site is Negro controlled --white owned, you are a sell-out, you work for the CIA: This could be over any disagreement. They have a peculiar strategy, one which works for their arguments which can be retracted at will if you try to use it to extend yours. There is absolutely nothing called disagreement. If you disagree with Asante, Cress Welsin, Obenga, Diop, or any of of the people they themselves do not read you are out. You could have just united all of Africa — You are out. You could have just ended economic apartheid—you are out. You could have just created the first Pan-African university—you are still a Negro sell out.

A Guide to populous Afrocentric arguments: 1. Make any crazy statement, when asked about a source say "I don't use that White man academics, all the real books are hidden" 2. Make sweeping generalizations about AFRICA: "In Africa we didn't have money, we didn't have doors, we didn't have contracts." Hoping that because so little is known about ancient Africa (by most) you can lay anything at its door and it will be valid. If you do not like it, blame it on invaders who corrupted Africa. If something negative about African culture comes up, accuse the person who takes issue with it as being Westernized and brainwashed. (note not one of them can live in the Africa they celebrate, especially not the Africa of the Neolithic hunter gather they romanticize as the "pure African".)

Another trait is, please do not disgree with them, because the entire African Holocaust society and our contributions go down the toilet in one single flush for not swinging from the same bat. You will never be able to fix Africa with binary blinkers on, it takes another level of consciousness to heal us. It takes another level of engagement to understand what is big and what is not so big in a given moment. And the wisdom to know the difference. They have lost all of this in the fog of war. Almost like Paul and salvation in Christ above Matthews salvation in work. You can do the work but for the Afrocentric that is nothing against the repetition of binary rhetoric. So nothing African Holocaust Society can be trusted because we do not scream VICTIM VICTIM VICTIM loud enough. They can always show us their work.

Then that also means we should reject those religions and cultures, which sold us into slavery--by the science of that ridiculous premise. But that is not the end, because by extension everything, which stinks of slavery should be rejected with force. Language, TV, ships, scripts, row boats, rope, iron chains, democracy, money, paper, oars, insurance, banks, navigation charts, guns, rum, etc. It was the alcohol and other trinkets that we were sold for, so why give up Christianity on that principle of 'tools of the oppressor' and hang onto the Jack Daniels and all the Western trappings? The arguments are so immature it takes really dropping ones standards to even deal with it. Unfortunately even some intellectual Afrocentrics make these egregious arguments.
Arab Myths of Slavery
Victim Victim and Victim
Populist Afrocentrism has to be separated from Intellectual Afrocentrism out of respect. But it gets stuck with it because Afrocentrism proper, has been responsible for misguiding its minions. The arguments are denigrated Intellectual arguments which are dressed up with intellectual Afrocentrism. Take for example their beef with religion: Why is everything invade, and force? Because that is the African American experience. So it is true for the Diaspora it is now true for everyone in Africa, including North Eastern Africa (Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and Ethiopia). So we get "Islam enslaved our people how can you be loyal to your oppressors religion" (as if Islam acted alone) but let us assume that argument is valid, i.e. the premise of how it creates a conclusion. What then happens to being African, when we find out that almost no religion in any major Kingdoms in Africa had an issue with slavery? And how then can we be loyal to anything or anyone when Zulu, Amahara, Akan all have blood on their hands at some point in history?

So if Muslims should abandon Islam because of the Arab slave trade and that sordid history. Or Christians should burn the Bible because of the Atlantic slave system, then everyone would have to abandon everything, by that logic.

If for one second one strays of the Afrocentric universal map of things to say and do, you are instantly a sell out, an apologist, a mental slave, a colonial puppet, Eurocentric, and anti-African. Unlike the Intellectual Afrocentric, disagreement and debate is not part of their repertoire. Despite not personally studied or read most of the people they worship as high priest, to disagree with any aspect of populous Afrocentric ideology is to be in their cross hairs and treated with vitriol.

Intellectual Afrocentrism

Afrocentrism is a modern re-pacakaging of Africa's greatest thinkers while filtering out their root ideologies, and replacing it with Afrocentric interpritation. So Malcolm and Elijah, but without Islam. Garvey, but without Christianity. Timbuktu, Axsum now all become Afrocentric boasting pointsfiltered free of "external foreign" forces

Intellectual Afrocentrism is what Molefi Asante engages in. It is far more rational and progressive, but some how always gives that wisdom up, in any given situation, to go into diatribe mode. At its worse, and usually when trying to discuss African history, It is almost a refinement of populous Afrocentrism, it uses fancy Eurocentric concepts such as ontology, critical thinking, etc. as the foundation to grow what are still egregiously flawed arguments. It has the habit, to the novice onlooker, looking refined and intellectual. But clear all the nebulous verbose words out of the way and it is devoid of authentic substance and groundbreaking revelations. Its almost creates a new world for the sake of doing so, a world that does not exist in reality. Not every Afrocentric, but most. This does not apply to all the semminal work of Marimba Ani, Karenga, Browder, Diop, most of Obenga, etc. (which stands as scholarship to be critiqued for what is written on the page, or praised for what is written on the page)

But when someone proposing a new term, Afrology, and then collates all the great ideas of greater men and women into that term, maybe it should be called Afro-plagiarism. Because there is nothing fresh about the concepts. How then do you get, as Asante claims, these "Afrocentric people" when all the gems of Afrocentrism are Stolen (using their terminology) from everywhere on God's green Earth, especially the religions, races they despise. (See Asante on consciousness, which is straight out of the Islamic philosophy of primary and secondary resistance, Ibn Tamiya in the 13th century). To the unread person, all of this seems like his genius. As stated before none of this is a problem, it becomes a problem when you are coming off like you are creating something new, while cursing the fountains you yourself are drawing from; consciously or unconsciously. We stand on each other shoulders. The Greeks stood on the work of Ancient Egypt, the Muslim golden age stood on the Greeks, the Jewish Golden age stood on the Moorish Islamic golden age which ultimately came out of Islamic Persia, and then the European renaissance came out of the Moorish Islamic genius. Thats how the world has always worked. Credit where credit is due, do not insult the foundation of what built the libraries of Timbuktu and the honor of Malcolm X and then claim its treasure as the spoils of an intellectual war.

Alik Shahadah Quote     Alik Shahadah Quote

Do not insult the foundation of what built the libraries of Timbuktu and then claim its treasure as the spoils of an intellectual war

Alik Shahadah Quote
  Alik Shahadah Quote
Alik Shahadah Quote Alik Shahadah Quote
Holocaust Ben Levi Yahweh
Alik Shahadah Quote

With Afrocentrism, Its objectives come before its study. Whatever the results for say African religion, they always neatly fit into the pre-constructed Afrocentric box. And saying this does not mean that mainstream European scholarship is much different. They just have the unique ablity to normalize their agendas as the benchmark of truth and good scholarship.

Academic Afrocentrism is a wannabe, it wants to be the new intellectual on the block, like Max Weber or any other name. As much as it tries to "speak for the African people" it seems overtly concerned with impressing the White academics to accept it as a legitimate paradigm shift. As we shall see it is anything but a paradigm shift. It has a tendency to be complex for the sake of complexity, without imparting any useful clarity on any topic. But as stated before, it comes into its own when repelling Eurocentric pedagogy and epistemology.

One irony that is perplexing, most populous Afrocentrics can rattle off Ivan van Sertima, Cheikh Anta Diop, John H. Clarke, Asa Hilliard, Amos Wilson and Booker T. Coleman. You would be shocked to find that, despite this, they probably never even read these people beyond the videos on YouTube. Per Amazon books sales they are not buying Molefi Asante's book on Africa. And this is not only a problem for Asante, but for all of us Africans. Because what ever newness he is writing about is not even known by the common folk who scream his name. They sum him up in quotes. So this is also why when an article like this is presented you get a knee jerk reaction from some segments, but Asante encourages critique.

Intentionally Repeated | And you will notice in all aspects of Afrocentric "hi-brow" writing a excessive celebratory dependence on a Greek substructure for paradigms and compartmentalization of thought (Ontology, Epistemology, etc), strange way of articulating Africa through the world view of Greece.

Afrocentrism is not only about African consciousness, it has a unique pathway to that "consciousness" truth, rigorous critical examination, and objectivity dont really bother it much: these things are not in its objective outlook, not on the to-do list. Afrocentrism is not critical of self; an important aspect of any theory. In one breath it celebrates and in the other it takes away, all to reconcile and justify what is a bad grammatical theory. It is loyal to making sense of what never made sense. Eating its own tail in the process, burning and destroying African history, African religion and African nuance in its path. It is intolerant, bigoted and often unproductive, conflicted and hostile to true Pan-Africanism. And in the long run a minion to Eurocentrism.

What Afrocentrism and Eurocentrism share in common is the rigidity in which they orbit their race-politics with religious devotion. While Afrocentrism has a lot of "inner dialectics", the dialectics are horizontal within very static concepts; very little vertical shift, a very short dynamic range. This is what stunts its growth, because they are having a debate within 10 degrees North and South of the same 20 year old line. The same way Eurocentrism or Capitalism has internal debate. And as a point of contrast, compare it to the dynamics in Islamic or Jewish theology, and it becomes clear how narrow Afrocentrism is.

Dealing with populous Afrocentrics is actually easier than one thinks because their information has a unnaturally high recycle rate. You can read the identical rants from scholar to scholar. It always is full of diatribe and hyperbole. Invaders, rape, destruction have are favorite words. Yet reticent on the intra-African carnage, rape in Congo (unless blaming it on the European), African traditional religions role in slavery, evils inside African culture, backwardness and primitivism where it occurs. And make no mistake Africa is no moral choir boy. Like everyone else, for reasons of our own doing we are capable of unspeakable horror, historically sometimes only limited by the limits of our technological power to exact violence—And nothing else. No moral law or divine revelation creates any impasse to the full face of horror when it occurs. (just like everyone else).

The sentence chains are uniform across most of the group. Foreign, is one of their favorite words. So to deconstruct one thread of rhetoric is to throw the entire group argument to the wolves. Anyone who disagrees with their copy-paste scholarship is either an apologist, Eurocentric, confused, or just a plain old traitor.

Afrocentrics intent in scholarship is presenting evidence which they find to support previously drawn conclusion, and neglecting evidence which runs counter—or explaining such evidence into the wind. And what really happened in the 80's and early 90's was their was a public void in information about Africa. Afrocentrics knew that their audience did not know, they also knew that their audience did not know, that they did not know also. It was degrees of ignorance, in which the best able to throw two facts together got crowned scholar. But the problem with that is history has been recorded, we can watch the videos on YouTube and stare in shock as we hear some of the most pseudohistorical rants from acclaimed scholars. So respected to almost be saints—well intentioned—yes, correct? No. But this is not a problem in itself, because no scholar is free from flaw. But the greatest flaw is for this generation not to challenge these errors.

Of all of their actual Afrocentric scholars (not the ones they absorb posthumously) very few can read anything on the walls of Ancient Egypt, none of them really speak African languages, very few can even understand or read Ajami manuscripts of Timbuktu. They might understand West Africa and Ghana, but are next to clueless about places outside the 'traditional black zone" Somalia and especially Ethiopia. They are largely angry orphans of the white scholars of old. Absorbing not only orientalism, but blatant fallacies and methodologies as well.


Ideologies might have names, but that name does not mean a monolith of values and ideas. Because at one end of that ideology you can have progressive intellectuals who change paradigms and give us a new understanding of self (like Amos Wilson). And the other end you can have anti-unity, myth-history, racist black orientalist bigots. It is true for every single ideology. It is certainly true for Muslims, Jews and Christians; Pan-Africanism, Socialist, Leninist. Inside of those names are people who are symbols of great work and great things and also (claiming to use the very same ideology) are the most odious people on the planet. Some ideologies have no good in them like Satanism, Zionism and White Supremacy. Afrocentrism (while hard to measure) is starting to tip towards that side also. While growth has occurred in other ideologies, Afrocentrism seems to be backsliding into the same category as Aryanism. The Abrahamic religions are a good example because there are far more dynamics inside of the faith, extremes and counter extremes to balance the ideology. Afrocentrism is characteristically lacking in this kind of balance--especially today. To encounter a balanced Afrocentric is 50/50, yet the average socialist you find walking around Soho is going to be balanced.


The White man and Arab made us do it

Take everything Afrocentrics label as a foreign problem and put them on the moon. Give it 1000 years and let us see if Africa heal? We already know putting White people and everything foreign on the moon will not solve Africa's problems; Africa had a problem before anyone showed up, or anything showed up. And this is true for humanity in general. This simplistic binary unrefined scholarship has no hope of explaining why people rape, why people kill, why they needed no help from anything to do it. It ignores human beings and denies our own African agency; and therefore our humanity.

Without anyone remotely European Arab or anything foreign, the Bantu people committed a genocide against the Native people of South Africa. The Khoi were primitive and the Bantu were superior, again in West Africa, the invading Bantu were superior and the Baka were inferior. But because we cannot put it into boxes of foreign and local, indigenous and alien wit factors low or is ignored altogether. It is so much easier to point at someone else isn't it? So in a conversation about the problems of Africa we return to victims, brainwashed, and conquered people, as if Africans are little programmable toys. How can these "foreign religions" be the source of so much conflict, and internal hate, when history testifies to the fact that humans, with or without any Abrahamic faiths commit brutality? When we see in Africa now an then, the odious notion of the inferior other exist as rabid parts of human nature without any assistance from the cross or the crescent moon? [War Myth].

On and on and on in a circle like a robot, failing at every junction to deal with the human in the mirror. And why Africa is always going to be exploited until we heal from disunity. They create the chaos of not understanding plurality, diversity and diverse methodologies. Reason, rational and all of these things are suspended to focus on a Afrocentric diatribe. "These foreigners, these invaders." Yes, yes and yes, Africa has been a victim of these things, but why? And how do we say "Never again"? We first must then acknowledge the historical truth of what Europeans did and why they did it (not out of some eternal hatred). That being the case, we should never apologies or keep this central, but at the same time, in the same moment we also have to deal with self. Blaming them, and acknowledging historical facts is two different paradigms. They did not make anyone in the Congo rape men, women, and children. You can get rid of them from our affairs and that would be wise, but how do we get rid of our own culpability?


There is an principle of if one must speak critically of something, do justice and speak first of the good of a thing. It is polemic to disagree with something, yet selectively, by using straw man and other fallacies try to debunk it. The saying is “Credit where credit is due” and therefore we must begin by crediting what Afrocentrism has given this era of African though.

And despite taking issue with Afrocentrism, it has to be stated that not every detractor (Tunde Adeleke, Appiah) is equally sincere in their disagreement. Some blatantly do not understand African history, African culture, national identity, and so forth. It is ridiculous to select Afrocentrism for serious critique and make no mention of its nemesis, Eurocentrism. One detractor said "African Americans" are not African, in an attempt to debunk Afrocentrism. Afrocentrism has many flaws but this is not one of them. Being born in the African continent is not the criteria for identity. An Arab born in modern Israel is not an "Israeli," a European born in China is not Chinese.

There is no error in connecting these Europeans born in China with the broader cultural pool in Mother Europe. If people of African ancestry live in America and continue an African culture and world view, how does that new location alter what they are? What about African in Africa that have no African language and dress and behave identical to African American rappers? So these are some of the ignorant challenges which need to be cleared away. Critique of a thing has to not straw man or confuse other academic debates. Critique of Afrocentrism must deal with its practices not only its conclusions. If we disagree with the linguistic analysis of Obenga then his Afrocentric status is minor compared to his scholarship. We can agree or disagree with it point-by-point.

Sometimes Afrocentrism is pure genius, but because of its root in binary bigotry sometimes, it does not heed its own wisdoms. In a discussion about spirituality how can you see an interconnected ethic but then be some hateful of others? It does not actually make sense to speak of Justice (Ma’at) but then turn around and write what is not accurate because it proves your point. Maat should hold your pen dead in its tracks for fear of causing harm. Where is this basic principle? There seems to be some disconnect. Speak from wisdoms, not from emotions. Speak to build up not to tear down. We can search thousands of African proverbs and find a wisdom that is at odds with some Afrocentric practice.

There was a time we were so low in "humanity", just out of being called chattel that we need to believe, the White man was the devil in order to balance out the ingrained notion that the White man was not God. Hopefully, that treatment has worked and we can commute this necessary but expired part of our journey. Then came another time when we had to overstate an “African worldview,” (80-90’s) but now we can accept Africans naturally have an African worldview as long as we have identity and agency; so some of us must forge ahead. We are now in the progressive phase of our journey. So confident we can be self-critical, plural and full of agency. Afrocentric though was a paradigm shift; past tense usage is both deliberate an critical to this debate. Afrocentrism is restorative in the sense it restores a damaged people, who have lost love of self, to an orientation which produces love of self. Pride in the “self”. It defends the historical claims of African people. It validates Africa as a contributor to world history. It rightfully rejects Eurocentrism as a benchmark of academia. But these great things are not the invenstion of sole claim of Afrocentricity, long before we ever heard the word “Afrocentrism” all of these things were being done in the great work of many African Diasporas at the turn of the century. Blyden, Dellany, Garvey, Du Bois, etc. So Afrocentrism comes out of the general African greatness and just re-articulates it and tries to coin a term for this post modernistic look at an African worldview. It is not original and it is not a genius, it is merely a part of a greater whole. A stepping block to reverse mental slavery.


Afrocentrism is a puritanical  Africanist. Sometimes Pseudo Africanist since it hardly and rarely matches up with any authentic record in Africa. And there is this tendency with some radical aspects of Afrocentrism to demand a perfect revolution, failing getting it black enough they discard everything and attack everyone.

Some read to better understand, Afrocentrics read to better argue their theory. But maybe the theory fails, doesn’t matter. So every fact they read is compiled into their binary outcome. They read and assign things into two boxes, us and them.  They read complex history and skip every nuance to come away with us and them. So Nasr ul-Din an Muslim African fights other Africans and Nasr goes into the them box, the other Africans the “us” box. Sunni Ali Ber is Muslim fighting another Muslim Askia. So it gets tricky, so they see Sunni is a little less orthodox than Askia, Askia goes into the “Them” box and Sunni into the “Us” box. If KMT uses force to unify Egypt, it is great. If Askia uses force to unify Songhai then it is “bad.” If Rwanda has a pogrom they look for the nearest oppressor (Europe in this case) to blame it on. And that is the Afrocentric definition of worldview.


Most European historians will find a million routes to destroy the notion that civilization had its genius in Africa, and that Ancient Egypt could had native African authors.  But no one is seriously denying Greece was the genius of European civilization, despite the caveats with using the term European in historical Mediterranean civilizations. There is a legacy from Greek, to Roman, right up to the British Empire. While in Africa that legacy is not as pan-African as some would like to believe, it would be very strange and illogical if KMT only extended its influence North and out of Africa. Clearly, it would have been impacted by Southern influences, East and West. It was not an alien island floating in an African indigenous sea.

No degree of genetics or artistic skull re-shaping has disputed the fact that native does not mean 18th century orientalist definitions of “black” so they prove their case by defining Black first as “not Egyptian” and then attacking others for including African in the Egyptian race model. Which one is it? Race did not exist or Egyptians were not Native Africans? Because it cannot be both. If the ancient Egyptians were non-African, then it is convenient since they had to be something, so naturally they become Caucasoid. However, if race is irrelevant or subjective, then why this hostility to the Africanist claims of an African Egypt? It seems like walking in every direction only leads back to Eurocentrism.


Facebook is the perfect tool for destroying Pan-Africanism Ancient Egypt is a sensitive topic because we, as a Holocausted people, have to see ourselves as being capable of greatness. But let us also pause and understand something about Ancient Egypt. Claiming ancient Empires that never claimed you is problematic. So swallow this pill and understand the point. There is no direct genetic relationship between most of us (esp the Diaspora, West, Central, and Southern Africa) and Ancient Egypt, or even Ancient Ethiopia. It is all political. And you need to understand that. "Looking like us" is political. And to make this point complete, ALL of Western Europe stands on the legacy of Greco-Roman accomplishments, they claim it as part of their civilization. Without having direct genetic claim to the past.

The Founding fathers of America attached themselves to the Roman democracy as a continuation of their legacy. Everyone does this, especially the Jews who claimed to be the Ancient Biblical Hebrews--yet are totally different people. Napoleon said he had Roman blood to embody the greatness of Rome. No shame in that. The only shame is when you attach yourself to legacy and do nothing else. So Ancient Egypt is ours when we decide to embody their greatness--not just putting a dark skin man with locks in Pharaonic dress on a Facebook page--And nothing else.

And even if was a blood relationship, as in Sudan and Southern Egypt what of it? You still have to embody what made them great if you are truly "of them." It is like being the child of Malcolm X or Bob Marley, so what? If you do not live in their legacy.


If someone read the writings of Afrocentrics, and they were new to Earth, the most shocking thing would be when they went to look up all these Afrocentric authors. They would first probably, after reading Asante, go and look for him in Africa (he isn’t there), they would then at least expect him to be head of some major African owned university (he isn’t there also), so then they would think – oh he is gone beyond that, let us look for him in some major cultural university like an African Holocaust museum institute (he is not there also, strange), Okay, so let us then find him running some major religious organization preaching and shouting Orisha, Ife, Rog, and Candoble (not there). Okay, then the final place to find him is involved in some massive trans-Atlantic business that creates wealth for the disenfranchised people of America and Africa. But again he is not there. Where forth is Mr. Afrocentricity? Up in some White man’s university getting a check signed by the old master (Like Teresa S. Soufas). It would not be so bad, had they not shouted so loud about being the big solution. It would not be so bad, had they been only 1 of them there. But 98% of all hardline noisy Afrocentrics work for the man. 1% that don’t want to work for the man but didn’t get hired. And 1% probably are honest enough to actually practice what they preach.

Perhaps the most shameful thing about this so-called Ancestors they uses as a sound bite, is go and look at how all those the quote so much died. Go and see who had to bury Clarke, the very people he insulted with such venom. Yes the “crazy” Hebrews in Israel. What about Ivan Van Seritma, what about Garvey? Is this how ancestors are treated? Caruthers, died how?

THE CHOIR – Safe and Warm

Powerful, yes, convincing yes, but among who. More refined Afrocentrics can escape this because they do produce a higher degree of writing, especially when they are not discussing Afrocentrism. But for the lower class of followers there is a despicable trail of ignorant blind following the blind. The old canards from 40 years ago, debunked by all serious intellectuals is still their calling card. Not only is it old, it is tired, stale and dead among any serious well-read group. But that has never been the target of that group. ½ info and twisted facts molded into position on a skewed chessboard, for a game in private that lets them win. But what about on a public intellectual world platform? What about up against serious scholarship. Where is there peer review, references to their work by others outside their cult?

If you throw hatred into a mindless mob they will cheer, if you throw love—they will cheer. If you are someone in a position of leadership then have the profound duty, and responsibility, of guiding-- and not misguiding, of making productive---not unproductive, the people who trust you.

We are responsible for our words, we have a moral obligation to understand the real world consequences of our statements. The Africa Afrocentrism is creating is one of suspicion and intolerance. It is no different from the born again Church or the Salaafi Muslim radical.


Bigoted Afrocentrism is like a black version of Daniel Pipes. Racism in black sheets. You can scan a diverse group of Afrocentrics and what you will find is the same errors in the same places almost verbatim. The same quotes, the same sentence structure, the exact same rhetoric. The same assumptions, like a broken record it keeps repeating without any variation. Take for example the way in which they recall the destruction of African culture and identity but always state it without any nuance. What culture, what spirituality? It is less about true or false but where is it discussed beyond an opinion. They quote Clarke, but Clarke is just stating an opinion. So how can you really critique a statement like this : “Foreign religions destroyed African culture

When culture is not defined, when identity is not defined, when religion is not defined. What exactly did it destroy? Did it only destroy or did it also build as well. Now with the coming of the CD the record was destroyed. Some good elements of the records were lost. The tactile, the imperfections were lost with the coming of the CD. Now we do not as sincere balanced people discuss that destruction without also talking about the benefits of the CD over the record. Now the CD has been “destroyed” (using their political polemic language) by the Mp3. Again we know it was not “destroyed” in an alarmist way but “replaced” and it was replaced for good reason. Some good things were lost with the exit of the CD, but more was gained.

With every single change in the world there is good and bad. And at every junction people who are self-determined use agency to make choices about their world. We accept that as the natural course of human history which can be found the word over. With the coming of the Europeans to America, the native Americans saw the benefits of the horse and adopted it into their culture. They became a great horse riding nation. With the coming of the Europeans and Arab trade the Maasai say the colorful beds and adopted it into their culture to create a new Maasai identity which we celebrate and photography.

  • Greeks STOLE (Everyone gets technology by diffusion)
  • Arabs RAPED (People rape)
  • Europeans DESTROYED (By themselves?)
  • Islam Murders Blacks (what a wonderfully refined statement, Zionist would 2nd this)
  • Christianity killed millions of black people (Did they physically hit them with the Bible?)

This is the tone. Naturally Africans have done none of the above. And in the rare cases this happens they are:

  • Influenced by Islam and Christianity (So reject all influences and live with the Khoi Khoi)
  • Agents and puppets of imperialism (So leave America and come to Africa)
  • Agents and friends (traitors) of Arabs and Europeans.

Why do you persist to make your noise into Music? Because they have nothing else to base their race based pride. They have made enemies of Whites, of Muslims, of Christians, of Jews. Anything, which smells slightly Semitic, slightly Islamic, Slightly foreign sends them to the hills. Now the problem they have is after discounting these "foreign things" the White man now, on the intellectual chess board ask them what is "What has Africa given the world." The Afrocentric cannot throw back the Ifa he so proudly shouts from the hills at Temple University, he has to start talking about African Moors, Noble Ethiopians. Hold up a second, you mean the same Islamic Moors you called invaders and destroyers of African culture two seconds ago?


Afro-centricism is are not a Pan-African ideology, in terms of its ideological root. It is the Afro-American experience imposed on the Pan-African world. It is the victims narrative which anachronistically makes what is true for the enslaved African American -- true for every African that ever lived. If they are black, so to is Ancient Egypt and Ethiopia. If they hate Christianity as the "Slave master's religion" then this sentiment is imposed on everything in Africa.

Disunity is a curse and a disease, it is impossible to divide and unite at the same time. A lack of comprehension 500 years ago got Africans into the slave ships, but despite that hard and obvious lesson, Africans have the same elements in the group who shout Pan-Africanism under the condition that you become like me. Sure we have to agree on some core tenants, but one does not have to be identical to get along. Because then that's not Pan-Africanism--that is not unity that is unanimity. That is not even civilizations is the ideology that creates so much conflict in this world. Pan Africanism is not all of us Zulu get together. It is not all of us Vodon or Orisha or Kemetic people get together. It is all of us who have been victims (because of race, not anything else) get together and protect ourselves from the African Holocaust. Now that Holocaust did not care if your God was Allah, Jah, or G-D, it didnt care if your passport was blue, green or pink, it didn't care if you spoke Zulu, Arabic, Amharic or English, it did not care if you were socialist or capitalist. It only cared you were African. If anyone therefore is unclear on this then they are not Pan-Africanist, but Anti-Pan-Africanist. They are agents which allow African exploitation. Because what happens is as oppose to trust an African striving for a better world, they distrust them because they maybe Christian or Islamic. But what about their work? And when it comes to work, none have proven a direct relationship between Afrocentrism and good work, that excludes everyone else.


Taken from Art of Revolution

Alik Shahadah Quote     Alik Shahadah Quote
A slave will attack the fountain that gives him water, and even feel "conscious" after it has been destroyed. Preferring nothingness to legacy. Preferring to be in a state of perpetual complaining than in a state of solutions and good works Alik Shahadah Quote
  Alik Shahadah Quote
Alik Shahadah Quote Alik Shahadah Quote
Holocaust 'Alik Shahadah
Alik Shahadah Quote

There was a time when we needed to only see the Pyramids at Giza, because we were so crushed by mental slavery and swamped with images of backwardness and savagery. But in our maturity we can consider a more diverse Africa, we can appreciate so-called pre-modern cultures and peoples. We can understand and take from some of their traditions. But there is only unproductive romance in saying "In Africa we ..." just to escape or critique modernity. Living in a mud hut (that the flood easily washes away) vs. a warm house, is not desirable. Fetching water from a river and dying of a water bourne parasite is avoidable. Spending all day hunting is a life not lived. Further more recent research has completly smashed the myth of peaceful "tribes" on its head. Contrary to popular belief many groups in Africa, pre-Islam, pre-Christianity, pre-Arabs and Europeans, were constantly at war with each other (Thornton, 2007) (Diamond). So this ridiculous notion of a yam collecting peaceful people is romance, not history. But this does not justify genocide by the other, as many Europeans are doing with this info. Because just because people have chaos on confusion doesn't mean you come and make it worse.

True or False: Dogon and Sirius B discovery. Did the Dogon people of Mali really have advanced knowledge of the Dogon star system? A lot of Afrocentrics have this as a fact in their boasting bag. But how many have actually researched it? By research we mean NOT YOUTUBE. Now the other point we need to make is when you do the research and dig deep into the evidence whose sources are we reading? Where are our African primary sources? Its funny, that 90% of the things many YouTube Afrocentric scholars talk about are the research findings of the very same Europeans who they say hide our history.

It is hilarious hearing some Afrocentrics talk about "Traditional this and that" after a one week stint in the Hilton hotel in Ghana. Try spending two weeks in Southern Nations, Nationalities and People's Region of Ethiopia with the Mursi or the Hamer people. This over romantized Africa is a developmental issue because very few could hang in this so-called "Traditional Africa" they always advocate when critiquing Abrahamic religions and Industrialization. Technology is what built Kemet, the same Kemet postered as 'Great African accomplishments.' So we need to quickly decide where we chose our African models from in absorbing our historical contributions. Because we cannot have our cake and eat it too. There is a ritual among the Hamer where the women are ritually beaten by men, they beg the men to beat them until blood is dripping down their backs; just like the Shiite Muslims. The Mursi women cut the bottom of their lip and insert a plate so those repulsed by FGM, need to witness some traditional African ritual scarification and lip stretching. In the Southern Sudan the Dinka women wash their babies in cow urine for medicinal purposes. So appreciate how the Northern people would view these people when we discuss "Arabs destroying African culture." The point here is to those romantics that talk about "In Africa before invaders", "In the Africa of our ancestors", "In the real Africa". All of these things also come with that package. And while we must not turn our noses up at these rituals, we should at least appreciate this is also a part of Africa that most of us do not have a stomach for.


Afrocentrism Expired The problem for the self-loving African, is that Afrocentrism has poisoned the serious discourse on Africa. It makes a mockery out of the thing it claims to defend. And While credit is given to some of its reforms in the 80’s and 90’s it has become a liability, it undelibertly cheapens African studies. As oppose to becoming self-critical it tries to extend itself and pass itself off as a authoritative discourse.

The problem is that a little knowledge is still a little knowledge. Copy and paste scholarship is visible to any serious intellectual. Because certain ideas come in groups.

You can trace understanding by tracing arguments. For example the origin of the semitic languages in modern Ethiopia. What the Afrocentric does is look at any argument, regardless of merit, which favors their politics and runs with it. So you start to get inconsistencies. So this is why they need to praise Timbuktu (because of its significance) but curse Islam because it is not an indigenous faith, they also need to buddy up Islam to the Arab slave trade, and to Arab culture. So they cherry pick history and create a terrible track record of inconsistencies. Praise one victory as AFRICAN and cursing another, which they perceive as too Islamic. They bump in to the complex Sahel and the politics starts to try to impose modern race issues on ancient histories. Again the criteria for celebration is the Afrocentric idea of if it is African we celebrate it. If it is not we curse it. And that is how the History of Africa is written, with a modern Pseudohistorical lens of authors cherry picking. It is not loyal to truth and accuracy when accuracy means diminishing their argument of the centrality of Afrocentricity. 

  • Afrocentricity can stand its ground among any ideology or religion:Marxism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, or Judaism. Your Afrocentricity will emerge in the presence of these other ideologies because it is from you.(Asante)
  • Afrocentrism is the only ideology that can liberate African people.(Afrocentric International)



The victim stays up at night licking his wounds fabricating stories from the web of denial to sooth and explain away their plight. In doing so, they fail to look into a mirror which reflects their own agency. And because of this denial they will never seek steps to solve it, because the road to a solution first means coming to terms with the cancer within
Alik African Agency[1]

Victimhood and agency are two critical areas which need some serious examination when it comes to Afrocentricity. Because it is ironic that they use the term agency quiet liberally and yet the more you look it is African agency they are often denying when they blame the world for Africa’s condition. So Darfur, could not be the fault of African people, it must be because of Arabs and Islam. The war between Ethiopia and Eritrea, could not be the fault of the leadership, it must also be blamed on the Berlin conference. Everything wrong with Africa is located outside of Africa, therefore the boast that Africa has agency is quickly washed away.

What does agency mean? Constantine had agency, he was powerful not weak. He looked at the rising tide of Christianity in his kingdom and made the politically wise choice; “if I cannot beat them I will join them and lead them,” and so he did. Was he a victim of Christianity? Or a free agent making a very wise choice?  Now Islam entered North Africa in the 7th century and almost overnight swept across the vast deserts and Mediterranean coastal cities. Since Afrocentrics have great issue with "invasion" when their preferred team is not doing the invasion, they talk about the destruction of African civilization.  On closer examination we see with many of the Berbers, such as the Sanhaja, not so much a forceful conversion to Islam, but an political acceptance. In the tradition of Berbers once the leadership accepts a religion or a new custom the entire “tribe” follows. It is a adaptive and critical aspect of desert nomadic life: Part of their identity and allegiance. But this does not help the Afrocentric or the Eurocentric argument so this subtlety is lost. Far better page turner to redraft it into a Hollywood sounding flick of Muslims swing swords and screaming Allah Akbar. Nuance is dead. Critical history is dead. Scholarship is dead when its analysis creates caveats in Afrocentrism. Some sophisticated Afrocentrics are more honest, but this is a critique of populous Afrocentricity and its real world behavior. Afrocentrism has a perpectual antagonism with history and truth. Where truth is less about “I am right you are wrong” but the historical honest necessary for some sort of quality scholarship. Much of the details have been lost, so we always have to admit we do not know everything. But Afrocentrism rellying on third party accounts in languages they cannot read, fills in the blankets and any opportunity with their revisionism.

Now returning to the Sanhaja would it be accurate to say they had agency? Would it be accurate to say Ezna had agency when Ethiopia went from “pagan” to Christian? Now if they had agency the choices they made were informed and African centered. Then Christianity in Ethiopia is an African centred choice. We cannot re-write history with our modern phobias and impose our politics on ancient people. Just because 500 Years ago Christianity enslaved the ancestors of Afrocentrics does not demonize Christianity in Ethiopia, makes no sense. What about Vodon, what about Serer god Fat Rog who commands the killing of non-Serer’s? What about the human sacrifice? What about Dahomey, What about Imbanglan cult? If we apply the same standards then we would have to equally reject everything that has ever hurt African people. Starting with language, media and all the tools Afroentrics use so happily without complaint.

Molefie Kete Asante Institute and Afrocentricity International, Inc,, shall never stop asking our brothers and sisters to reconsider their misplaced adoration of the god of people who enslaved, tortured, oppressed, insulted, and are still killing African people. Allah, in our view, is not any better than the Christian god for our people
Alik Afrocentricity International

This is religious supremacy. The same variety taken by so many so-Islamist. It assumes Asante and some mythical Afrocentric international inc has some higher clairvoyance into the dilemma of all African people. It is beyond arrogant, it is also ignorant because they have constantly been exposed of putting out factually erroneous press releases. So embarrassing they could not comment. Confusing issues in Africa, calling things by the wrong name. depending on CNN for news. How can the blind and illinformed be liberators?

The history of the Victim is offensive. The history of Africans as so weak and unfocused that any and everything can come and impose itself on us. Our hand is so weak that we are easily tricked, easily fooled, not able to impose back, not able to fight back is the most vulgar type of racism. And in this vein Afrocentrism can actually be as racist as Eurocentrism for undermining the agency of African people to make choices and live by those choices. If Afrocentrism in 2000 decides to sculpt its world view as hostile to religion, what does that have to do with Songhai, Sokoto, Mali, Ghana? Do we re-write history to make Ancient Ghana a victim nation? Just to explain the confused ideology of the cult of Afrocentricity?

A scan of the top 20 most powerful nations (by size and power): Britain, modern Israel, Byzantine, Ottomans, Qing Dynasty, Ummayids, Moors, etc. There is one thing most of them have in common--Not one of them has a religious majority made up of their own indigenous faiths. That means the British empire was dominated by Christians--A Middle Eastern faith. Ottomans were obviously Muslim -- not indigenous to Turkey. Qing Dynasty was Muslims, Buddhist, etc, a plural religious constitution with most of the faiths "foreign" to the Chinese. We could go on and go, to show that the overwhelming majority of major empires in modern history did not have an indigenous religion at their core. So it is amazing how the Afrocentric argument of native religion and success adds up in academic or even basic logical circles. It is ahistorical and ridiculous.


According to Afrocentrics anyone with a Thick Nose must be Black
The standard of Pseudohistory is anyone with a broad nose is evidence of them being African.
Populus Afrocentrics (the kind found on forums, esp Youtube, and 1 man blogs) have a neat magic trick they use to confuse the ignorant audience they satisfy. They copy and paste scholarly statements (see below) and then insert one seriously debatable "fact" and then that proves the entire case. Now the problem is they have left out 1 million other considerations. Are African people the only people with broad noses? Many Africans in East Africa and parts of West Africa have very narrow bone structure. Also dark or black skin is rare among Ancient African groups, so skin color is a misguide to African identity. So they will paste facts about Ancient Greece or Rome, show one picture with someone with a broad nose and that is it... Ancient Rome was BLACK!!!. Bombarding the reader with pseudo-intelligence and apparent detail only to draw some amazing conclusions. And anyone can do it, to say anything and prove everything. It fails at every level to stand up to intellectual scrutiny.

The Romans are also known as Latin's: But the Latin's (or Latini, as they called themselves) [Amazing detail gives the apprence the author knows the subject] were an "Original" people of ancient Italy [ During the copper age four waves of population from north to the Alps have been identified by archeological evidence, so which original?] Quite different from the White invaders from Central Asia. [White invaders, who would that be?] The most common hypothesis is that the Italic peoples migrated into the Italian peninsula from Central Asia, sometime during the Italian Bronze Age (ca. 1800-900 BC). (copy paste info) The most likely route for the Italic migration was from the Balkan peninsula along the Adriatic coast. But it is already accepted that the original Europeans were Black people (and no, they did not turn into White people because of vitamin D deficiency), [What a jump from agreed fact to a massive conclusion, accepted by who and with what evidence?] People like the "Iceman" below, whose mitochondrial DNA belongs to the K1 subcluster of the mitochondrial haplogroup K, which appears abundantly in ancient North Africa. [The Iceman also has in Neanderthals DNA, K also appears in West Eurasia, North Africa, South Asia and Palestine, but no where in what is called Sub-Saharan Africa][4] Also, the Latin's already existed in Italy BEFORE the White people we call Romans arrived - thus the people we call Romans could not have been italics either! [Where did these whites come from and how did they become white?] - Taken from realhistoryww.com

Short Cut Scholarship: Do you want to be an instant "Black" scholar? Here is what to do, get 2 books on any topic, preferable written by White people. So if J.D. Fage (1975), writes "In 1591, a Moroccan expeditionary force defeated the Songhai and took Timbuktu." All you now need to do is this: "In 1591, a the Arab invaders sent by their White master invaded and destroyed the Africans of Songhay as part of their grand global plan to destroy Black Civilization" you see how easy that was.

The art of magic of the Afrocentric (populous) is by stitching together (they call it research) all manner of facts and misunderstood information to give the appearance of a multidisciplinary discovery of HIDDEN TRUTHS!! (usually capitalized). It has no references, the sources and conclusions are unproven; just thrown in with other peoples work. And it is dangerous because misinformation is of no real use to a people who need to learn about themselves and be confident about the truths in that information about self.


Contrary to popular belief, Afrocentricity is not a paradigm shift: It is Eurocentrism in blackfac. Nothing in it actually constitutes a different paradigm. It is a shift in articulation, a shift in historical emphasis, but it inherits the pedagogy, tactics, and the methodologies of Eurocentrism. "Things of African invention are better for Africans" is not always logically true. Certainly not so, if Africa has never invented Jumbo Jets and we need to get from Addis to Niamey. Not true if we want to light up Nairobi at night and all we have is candles.

The Afrocentric has put his head down in histories closet and tore up everything with a smudge of foreign on it. By the time he raises his head he realizes that not only is the African historical cupboard bare, and he is the fool that did it. To the applaud of his Eurocentric peers the Afrocentric following an odd rendition of Willy Lyncy has just washed everything African down the toilet. All that is left is a few stones and trees in the jungle. And of course some mythical notion of Kemet. Well no one in Kemet looked like them so the Eurocentric comes in a takes the last and only thing left out of the cupboard. The end of African historical contributions to the world at the hands of a reckless child that in his haste never asked, what is the purpose of this?


Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye
Alik Matthew 7:3-5

The worst thing about most Afrocentric is practice what you preach. But do you think they are at home pouring libation to the ancestors? Ask the Mumbo sister about one ancestor, did she attend the rituals of the Oromo or the people of Benin, asked them about Chukwu, do they do the immolation like the Baka people? Do they cut the females like the Nuer people or practice scarification like the Zulus and the tattooing of the Gurage in Ethiopia? Nothing, not one thing. What about Rites of passage? One could argue Muslims and Jews do more than Afrocentrics do; at least they sacrifice and circumcise. And this is a problem, because no one would expect this from Afrocentrics in the early days of their evolution, but today it is even less relevant than when it started. Even Clarke said they do not go deep. (not that he did). The same is true for everyone, it seems society is fracturing from its principles. Muslims who read the Qur'an but do not bother to understand it, Christians who are content with what the pastor says, but never look at the life of Jesus.

How much money do Afrocentrics spend in African development? So you see the Hebrews building a factory and they have farms in South Africa. Some how, despite their loyalty to Israel as a homeland, and the Bible as a holy book, they somehow have built something real. Some how with all those trips to Mecca, something Afrocentrics in their economic liberation policy take issue with. But it is Muslims and Christians in Ethiopia building up national stadiums and roads and hospitals. Some how certain Muslims go in their pocket anytime Ethiopia needs something. Let us look at the credit card statements of the top 10 Afrocentrics and see their investment in this continent? Do they stay in the African owned hotels in Ghana when they go to a conference? NO. They at the Hilton. Do they eat where the people eat? Can they even eat with their hands (they put both hands in the food when eating--totally unAfrican)? Do they do the ritual sacrifices in their backyards in the suburbs? Do they pray before eating? Half of them are atheists. Do they circumscise the boys? Do they fly Ethiopian Airlines as an economic principle? No. Where do they live? Where do their children go to school? Where do they vacation? So it is all lip service with a cheek. Two mask from Congo on their wall and everything else is Lilly white. So it is vulgar to tell people about wasting money at Mecca and Jerusalem when nothing in their White stamped salary comes back to Africa. And again, it would not be so much of an issue had they not been the hypocrites they are, when telling someone they should be visiting some grave yard in Congo; They themselves do not visit these places.


Lies are the worst thing to use to build pride on, because all lies have to live in fear of one day being exposed
' Alik Shahadah

It would be wrong not to thank the good in Afrocentrism, for making academics more inclusive and pushing the boundaries in Critical Race Theory. For inspiring rebellion to the White dominated study of Africa.

But every ideology, whatever it is called, has to reevaluate itself if it is to remain relevant and reach its full potential. This is an internal process determined by internal disagreement, but also a re-evaluation based on external (non-group members) observations. This article is aimed at healing the bad habits and hypocrisies that have become modern populous Afrocentrism. It does not speak for all Afrocentrics; some are very balanced and great scholars. Nonetheless, there is a trend inside of Afrocentrism, which has become grossly intolerant, bigoted and pseudo-historical. A new generation of people who wish to salvage the best parts of Afrocentrism must put on a brave new face and carry out a serious reform.

You see while Afrocentrism was patting itself on its back, after scoring a victory against Eurocentrism. But Eurocentrism was regrouping for a counter-assault. Caught with trite binary arguments it is now, alas, a dying discipline. The world knows so much more about Africa it is impossible to pass off bad scholarship as progressive.

As Africans, we have to deal with bigger problems than a handful of Afrocentrics. We have Nationalist, Muslims, Christians, Socialist, Hebrews, all kinds of major problems with all these groups. But one major anecdotal difference is when Muslims and Christians embrace Pan-Africanism, and African consciousness you do not get these issues seen with the so-called conscious Afrocentric community-- why? Why are people, who claim enlightenment, so incapable of seeing their destructive ways?

Our mission as conscious beings is to guide, not add to the morass

But the biggest problem which must instantly be addressed is the divisiveness of Afrocentrism in our Pan-African struggle. They fight for crumbs while losing the cake. They focus on the minutia at the expense of serious bread and butter issues. No one in Africa cares anymore if you worship Chukwi or Allah, the core issue is the defense of living Africa from a global onslaught, which takes issue with us because a. we have something they need, b. we are vulnerable because of constant disunity and tangent agendas.

The confusion it creates in youth, who are not able to discern its greater aims, feed on the ignorance and intolerance it creates. It is only our work that matter, whatever path you had to take to want to build a hospital or a school for Africans is the most important thing, not a daski with a bad attitude. Despite the difference of Europe, they found ways to find a common thread of interest from which to form spheres shared intention and shared objectives and shared action to keep Europe supreme; all other considerations and internal issues were rescinded. We must have a hierarchy of priorities: What is important to us in this moment? And It is not Pan-Africanism if it causes me to hate, or be suspicious of another African. These things are poison to unity, and the door that opened the African Holocaust.

Afrocentrics are our brothers and sisters,, collegues, and supporters, family and friends but what kind of love would it be if we did not to speak to these issues?

Afrocentrics are our brothers and sisters, collegues, and supporters, family and friends, but what kind of love would it be if we did not to speak to these issues? So we all are blessed with the challenge of putting on a brave face, dealing with the strengths and the weakness, and deciding what must be cursed and what must be applauded. How else will we continue our African journey towards a fuller liberation and understanding of self?


Afrocentrism and its history have long been disputed and controversial. In this important book, Wilson Moses presents a critical and nuanced view of the issues. Tracing the origins of Afrocentrism since the eighteenth century, he examines the combination of various popular mythologies, some of them mystical and sentimental, others perfectly reasonable. A level presentation in what is often a shouting match, Afrotopia is a rich history of black intellectual life and the concept of race


Ben Yahweh (Pen name) is an African-American with a Hebrew Israelite background, he lived in both America and Israel. He is the primary editor and compiler of this document. Not all of this content is his authorship but edited together from other published and unpublished articles/research owned by the African Holocaust Society and edited on a contribution bases (like Wikipedia).

We have been pressured to live up to the principles of our website, to show no partiality. We therefore cannot continue to claim balance, and be reticent on the illness closest to home. If it is wrong for Europeans to distort history, and for Zionist to twist history, then it must also --by that very principle-- be wrong when Africans do it. If the charge is generalizations, well we have gone far beyond the balance most Afrocentrics show in their treatment of the non-Afrocentric universe. So we do not claim to speak about every single Afrocentric, but certainly this document sums up what is becoming a clear Afrocentric trend, evident in the works of most of them to different degrees. The shoddy scholarship impacts us all; the intolerance and binary politics destroys us all.

We at the African Holocaust Society have learned from these errors, and adjusted and reformed our message over the years, to make sure we never inspire people to go out into the world and create further untruths, imbalance, division and conflict. We strive to write every sentence with the fear of being wrong, but a duty to be as honest and justice as we humanily can.

Any Substancial errors will be corrected immediately when reported via our contact page.

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within groups of people. It is the mode of thinking that happens when the desire for harmony in a decision-making group overrides a realistic appraisal of alternatives. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints. Antecedent factors such as group cohesiveness, structural faults, and situational context play into the likelihood of whether or not groupthink will impact the decision-making process.


African Kings African Kings African Kings

We are living in a time when image-making has become a science. Someone can create a certain image and then use that image to twist your mind and lead you right up a blind path
Malcolm X

"white" depends for its stability on its negation, "black." Neither exists without the other, and both come into being at the moment of imperial conquest.
Franz Fanon


African Holocaust on ITunes

Motherland Film - Owen 'Alik Shahadah

500 Years Later - Owen Alik Shahadah

Africa and Islam : History | Culture |

The Art of Revolution