Talk:History of Africa
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Africa WikiProject, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of the continent of Africa. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. |
[edit] History and geographical classification?
Well, an article called "history of Africa" should be an article about the history of Africa. It shouldn't be a link page, I think; we certainly should have an article about the history of Africa on this page. It probably shouldn't be on an "outline of the history of Africa" page, because one goes to a "history of Africa" page precisely to get an outline of the history of Africa.
- To link to a topic that doesn't have an obvious focus within one of the regions below, create a link here at the top level and/or link it within multiple region pages.
In a certain way, there is really no such thing as a "top-level" page within Wikipedia. Pages can and should be linked to from a wide variety of other relevant pages.
Anyway, this sort of thing goes without saying on Wikipedia. We want to interlink pages as much as possible--more or less.
An article about "history of Africa" could be a) very big b) an outline c) a link page.
a) is not good I think, since you can't easy link into a big page. You suggest b) which is ok.
But I think the regions should be left as a separate page and linked at the beginning of the article.
-- Hagedis
Seeing as how the other continental history pages are all link pages, I think that the text should be shortened or lost. Also, looking at what's here -- it isn't by any means a history of Aftrica -- it's a history of African regions known to or ruled by other (mostly western) powers. I think it really needs to go, with the text incorporated into more appropriate areas. This exactly why there is so much pressure to teach World History, and a great example of the reasons that many non-western peoples refuse to believe westerners can treat their history witht the proper respect. I am generally very anti-political correctness for its own sake, but as an historian working in the 21st century, I feel very uncomfortable with the 'pedia putting out this article as is. JHK
[edit] Eurocentric? Racist?
This article is Eurocentric to the point of being racist. It’s shocking that any article on African history doesn’t detail black African states like Ghana, Mali, Songhai, Kanem-Bornu, Kano, Ashanti, Oyo, Benin, Ife, Monomontapa, or the Swahili-speaking city-states in East Africa, just to name some of the most notable.
Although the posted content is well-written and fairly comprehensive, the lack of any attempt to address the historical record of literate black societies or reconstruct the histories of pre-literate but highly sophisticated peoples like the Yoruba is far more disconcerting than the moronic antics of Zog, who was Wikipedia’s resident Nazi for a brief period of time prior to his many bannings. At least that kind of racism is blocked with great effort from dozens of contributors, but these little subtle biases go unnoticed.
I'm going to do my best to correct this. Meanwhile, I'm begging other contributors to help.
- Even what little is said of Africans is not always correct. E.g. the distinction between Xhosa en Bantu.. isiXhosa is a Bantu language. Where it says Xhosa probably Khoisan is to be substitutedsd.
-
- Just spotted that, fixing it now -- Cabalamat 03:16, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I have created Wikipedia:Africa-related regional notice board.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 05:28, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Useful Info
Someone put this paragraph in History of Europe:
Also, in 1835, an uprising of German Afrikaners attacked the Dutch army regiment stationed at the town of Neu Scheveningen. This lead to all-out war on the African continent, lodged between the Dutch, English, and French against the Germans and Italians. Eventually, the peace was restored; the Germans were given a geographically-separate colony in which to live, near present-day Lesotho; it was named New Saxony. The war was officially ended in 1837, with the Treaty of Tripoli. The Germans eventually separated, politically, from their homeland, and set up a kingdom. But the new king was eaten by a lion, and the Kingdom of New Saxony was once again swallowed up by the Dutch. No warfare, suprisingly, took place on European soil, and the treaty held for many years.
It obviously doesn't belong there but I thought that maybe this information could be useful here. Kpalion 10:31, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Unified history
I think there does need to be an outline History of Africa page, not just a series of links - even if some matter is duplicated. This is because Africa is thought of far more as a single entity than most other continents. The division of Africa into a large number of small countries also makes it difficult for people without much knowledge of Africa to decide which modern nation's history to investigate in order to get the material they want.
The article certainly does need a far less Euro-centric makeover however.
[edit] Evolution of language
- The Khoisan languages are almost unique in using clicks, and all but one of the few other languages to use them are believed to have acquired them under Khoisan influence. Khoisan languages are now spoken mostly by isolated islands of genetically and culturally distinct populations of hunter-gatherers on marginal lands such as the Kalahari Desert.
I moved the above paragraph, together with its heading, out of the article. The paragraph actually says nothing about the evolution of language and it does not in any way make clear why KhoiSan, or its rarity, would have anything to do with the 'Out of Africa'-hypothesis. - Mark Dingemanse (talk) 22:04, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Fair point. I think it's quite probable that Khoisan (if it's a valid family) was one of the earliest surviving branches off "Proto-World", but it's scarcely more than speculation to say anything much about that at this stage. - Mustafaa 22:24, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Africa-related regional notice board
I have created Wikipedia:Africa-related regional notice board.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 05:29, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] See main articles: how to do it
Hi, I have made the 20th century subsection, and within them different regions (Southern Africa etc.). It should probably be best to link them and delegate their info to their respective articles (considering we're above 43 kB). Problem is that the history sections in these articles span their entire history, not just the 20th century (same about the history of the Sahara). So, what should be done to make sure it won't become a mess? Also, in my opinion, an overview of African history topics shouldn't handle about date Y in country X, like it is now, but about their international relationships, the feel of the time (I'd even like to say: a more essayist viewpoint). The related topics all suffer from redundancy. Phlebas 18:34, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "Startled into new life"?
There's a sentence in one of the paragraphs which reads:
"Railways penetrated the interior, vast areas were opened up to Western occupation, and from Egypt to the Zambezi the continent was startled into new life."
"Startled into new life" is a rather odd phrase. No doubt these were huge changes, but "new life" seems to imply that the whole place was a big old nothing until they started putting in the railways. Can someone with more historical background than me rewrite? Cromis 23:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive
Architecture of Africa is currently nominated on Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. Come to this page and support it with your vote. Help us improve this article to featured status.--Fenice 08:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] passive voice, colonialist mentality
This article has a lot of useful information, but the authors' excessive use of passive voice, coupled with colonialist mentality (e.g. "adventurers", "there was much gold to be had", "filling in the spaces on the African map" <--not exact quote, but something similar) create the impression that Africa was waiting to be "claimed" by European powers, who had nothing but the people's best interest in mind. Obviously, this is a highly biased way of portraying events. (—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.83.100.62 (talk • contribs) .)
- That's because the first half of the article appears to be lifted from a 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica article. Feel free to edit it... - Humansdorpie 22:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sub-Saharan Africa is a myth
The word has two meanings. The political or geographical meaning of the word "African" refers to people who live on the continent of Africa. The anthropological meaning of "African" refers to native Africans, people whose physical appearance and cultural identity is characteristic of the continent of Africa.
The notion of some invisible border, which divides the North of African from the South, is rooted in racism, which in part assumes that a little sand is an obstacle for African people. This barrier of sand hence confines/confined Africans to the bottom of this make-believe location, which exist neither politically or physically. The Sahara is a broad desert belt, which encompasses countries like Mali, Sudan, and Mauritania, and hence they are neither “sub” nor “North Africa.” In addition, many African communities historically have travelled freely across this European barrier set for Africans. Mansa Musa famous Hajj travelled through North Africa in the 13th century so why do we assume Africans would be confined to this nonsensical designation called sub-Saharan Africa. Again, Eurocentric dialectics is at play in the insatiable need to categorize and define things solely on superficial limited physical observation. This is a mindset, which they cannot escape, and the only way they can process reality. Hence, sharp definitions, physical quantities are pre-emphasised in their mental navigation of the world around. Interestingly, most non-European cultures embody a more spiritual approach to reality, which is expressed in language, culture, and perception of the World. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Halaqah (talk • contribs) 18:53, 23 September 2006.
No matter if it is Sub-Sahara or not new evidence point out that mummification, blacksmith of metal, the worship of Horus, among other things were started and found in and "below" the Sahara so once again you can only fool the people but so much. The truth is there.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Halaqah (talk • contribs) 18:53, 23 September 2006.
Also, Nubia is not in "Sub-Saharan" Africa, this is a history of "Africa", separating sections into Sub-Saharan and Northern Africa with no basis is arbitrary and nearly racist. I'm adjoining the sections. Plus, 10,000 years ago there was no "Sahara desert" anyways.. "Sub-Sahara" is a modern geo-political term and has no basis in geography or history. Egypt, Nubia, and Ethiopia are all in Africa and always has been, no separation needed, this is a history of "Africa". There are separate wiki articles for Sub-Saharan and North Africa as it is, refer to them.. Also Kush and Nubia were two different states, there is no "Nubian Kush".Taharqa 03:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
In reference to this quote here from the ancient Egypt section,
The Egyptians reached Crete around 2000 BC and were invaded by Indo-Europeans and Hyksos Semites. They defeated the invaders around 1570 BC and expanded into the Aegean, Sudan, Libya, and much of the Levant, as far as the Euphrates.
^This is a load, no wonder it wasn't cited. I heard about Egypt reaching Crete but Egypt began in 3,300 B.C., so that seems quite irrelevant. Also the chronology is horrible, Indo-Europeans didn't invade until the Greco-Roman era, and Egypt did not expand an empire all the way to the Aegean preceding the expulsion of the Hyksos, nor did they expand as far as the Euphrates.. Ethiopia isn't in North Africa and while contact with the Middle East and North Africa was a reality, more contact was made with inner Africa.
"Ethiopia, closely linked with North Africa and the Middle East"
^There's no evidence for a "Close" link or influence in Ethiopian state building, look up the the article on the Kingdom of Askum and Ethiopia.
Who writes this crap? Someone who doesn't know very much about Africa I'd assume. I rewrote (slightly reworded) it with sources.Taharqa 03:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
