Jump to content

Talk:History of Africa

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eurocentric periodization

[edit]

The article is applying a clearly Eurocentric and irrelevant periodization on the entirety of African history. There's really no excuse for doing this. The classic-medieval-modern periodization isn't even fixed for Europe but varies depending on region and historical theme.

Africa as a continent doesn't really have a single megahistorical periodization scheme and it's not appropriate to try to make one up out of thin air just because it's convenient. In fact, I'd say it's very much not a global perspective.

Here are some quotes from several volumes of The Cambridge History of Africa regarding periodization:

  • "There is obviously no scheme of periodization which is valid for Africa as a whole, and the opening and closing dates of this volume are not intended to be more than notional." (Oliver, "Introduction: some interregional themes", Volume 3: From c.1050 to c.1600)[1]
  • "As is remarked in the Introduction to the third volume of the Cambridge History of Africa, there are obvious pitfalls in marking out periods of African history which are equally valid for all parts of the continent." (Fage, "Introduction" Volume 2: From c.500 BC to AD 1050)[2]

There's likely more commonality towards the 19th century and the development of hallmarks of modernity (including colonialism) but that's still probably not something that can be applied to the continent as a whole. Peter Isotalo 21:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about this earlier today. I’m mostly going off of the periodisation in the General History of Africa. The academic discipline of history is naturally Eurocentric in the assumptions it makes. At the end of the day this is English Wikipedia and it makes sense to show African history through these European conventions. We’re still a long way off from historians unpicking colonial histories and localising the study of history, so I don’t think this concern can be addressed. Is your concern about using the 16th century as a period break? Kowal2701 (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This’ll all be written from the African perspective, I’m trying to be very careful in that, only European conquest and colonisation will have them as subjects of sentences Kowal2701 (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do have European constructs which makes this very problematic, but this page was practically empty, a slightly Eurocentric history is better than none. I can only go off of what I read Kowal2701 (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m going to extend the ancient period to the 6th century, with the 7th century as the period break due to the coming of Islam (this is a very common break). The 16th century is also very common as a period break. I think the issue is more with their names, I’ll just have the dates Kowal2701 (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no quick fix to this, especially not by simply removing the labels but keeping the dates.
And you seem to be missing the point here: Africa doesn't have a single applicable periodization scheme. There's no quick fix to this either. The article needs to be restructured. Peter Isotalo 22:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't just remove the label. The periodisation reflects reliable sources. The General History of Africa was solely written to be an Afrocentric general history of Africa, and it uses these periodisations. Vague assertions are useless. This is how history articles are structured on wikipedia. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just pick and choose periodizations. As you can see, I've provided very citations that the matter is more complicated than you're trying to make it out to be.
Please engage in discussion here based on the sources here and leave your own opinions on the matter out of it. Peter Isotalo 22:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is very complicated, but fortunately we just have to follow reliable sources. The General History of Africa is what this page is being based off of, as it is reliably Afrocentric. It uses the 7th, 12th, and 16th centuries as period breaks.
  • The 7th century makes a lot of sense because it is the coming of Islam and the Muslim conquest of North Africa. This is followed by our first written history of west Africa, allowing for a natural break in the speculative tone of the prior centuries to a firmer tone and stronger narrative. The Muslim expansion harmed Aksum’s trade in East Africa, hastening its decline from being a major global power. It also simultaneously caused a trade expansion in the Swahili coast. It doesn’t work for Central Africa unfortunately, but it coincidentally works for Southern Africa as it’s when Leopard’s Kopje was founded, the predecessor for the Kingdom of Mapungubwe.
  • The 12th century only works for North Africa and West Africa. It’s laughably bad for East Africa and Central Africa.
  • The 16th century works generally very well. It’s just before the first European written records with Sub-Saharan Africa, giving us an opportunity to showcase African history without European interference in the previous section. It’s just before the Ottoman conquest of North Africa, and the rise of the Songhai Empire in west Africa. It’s also just before the Portuguese campaigns across the African coast, which includes the Kongo-Portuguese, Kilwa-Portuguese, and Somali-Portuguese wars. We also see the first kingdoms in Madagascar. It’s also just after the founding of Mutapa in Sohthern Africa, allowing for some nice foreshadowing.
This is why these are the most common periodisations in reliable sources and why I’ve gone with them (I’m sure there are other reasons I’ve not touched upon) Kowal2701 (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously implying that The Cambridge History of Africa is not a reliable source? Peter Isotalo 23:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When did I say that? Kowal2701 (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the first volume of the GHoA it says that the Cambridge general history doesn’t challenge the colonial narratives and comes down quite hard. It is still a very useful resource, but not what this page should be based off of if your concern is Eurocentrism. Kowal2701 (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you’re interested in African history I recommend reading a GHoA volume and then the corresponding Cambridge one, but remember they are 40 years old, lots of advancements have been made in the last few decades. I could always do with more input from other editors, although I struggle to work collaboratively on creating from scratch Kowal2701 (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with GHoA from when I took a course on African history as part of my bachelor's in history. I haven't dived deep into the topic, but it's not completely new to me either.
You're making some very bold claims about the superiority of one source over another. It's possible that either source takes on the topic from rather different perspectives, but that's not something we can decide just on our own. Both are clearly standard references in this topic and are equally valid. The only reason for us here at Wikipedia to lean more into one source over another is if there's some sort of consensus about it in the historical community. Unless you have plenty of solid third party sources (books reviews, critical articles and books, conference papers, etc) claiming Cambridge is outright unreliable, you can't just ignore it in favor of GHoA. It's possible that both sources are also heavily outdated, but that's also a matter of looking at what more recent sources claim. Some 40-year-old sources are hopelessly outdated while others are still perfectly relevant; some fields of history change faster than others.
Either way, the issue of periodization that we're discussing here isn't a Eurocentric vs Afrocentric, but simply that the history of Africa is much too varied to be squeezed into a single periodization scheme. The way GHoA is structured as a published work doesn't seem to be an overt attempt to present itself as the periodization scheme for all of African history. In fact, you have quotes like this from Volume 3:

Historical research over the last thirty years has taught us, especially for Africa, that there are no uniform models and no automatic periodizations that can be safely applied, especially for the period w e are dealing with here. (Devisse & Vansina "Africa from the seventh to the eleventh century: five formative centuries"[3])

I genuinely think we need to look at how we can find a somewhat different structure for the article other than just a simply pan-African chronology for the entire continent. Rather than simply copying the multi-volume structure of a GHoA, what would be a more balanced way to structure the information in this article? Peter Isotalo 09:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think there is a better way to structure this article, we could structure by region but that wouldn’t work since the regions being talked about change, for example Nubia is a topic in post-classical period but not early modern period because it wouldn’t make sense. Is your issue largely pan-Africanism? Kowal2701 (talk) 09:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original discussion was about Eurocentrism vs Afrocentrism, which matters most when selecting narratives. We should absolutely prioritise Afrocentric ones over Eurocentric ones just like History of Europe favours Eurocentric over others. Therefore we should be more inclined to use the GHoA. An example of a Eurocentric narrative is that the 7th crusade caused the Ayyubids to rely on Mamluks giving rise to the Mamluks, when the reality is that it was because of Mongol expansion. An Arab-centric one is that the Almoravids caused the collapse of the Ghana Empire, when in reality it was caused by changing trade routes and epicentres strengthening their vassals due to climate change. An example of an Afrocentric one is that the Zanj Rebellion contributed to the collapse of the Abbasids and rise of the Fatimids. We should recognise the trend and prioritise Afrocentric narratives and therefore sources in this climate. Kowal2701 (talk) 09:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously we should weight different narratives depending on their veracity, and I read lots of different sources and do so accordingly, but this needs to have an overarching source to make the skeleton Kowal2701 (talk) 10:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find the page but they said that the Cambridge History of Africa doesn't challenge colonial narratives enough, and that a senior history professor in 1981 said that because history requires movement and change, Africa has no history, with this indicative of problematic bias (although not a brilliant point). Kowal2701 (talk) 10:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the Eurocentricism isn't the primary issue, but rather the concept of having a single periodization for all of Africa or not. And in this case, I need to stress that you simply don't have any source support, not even GHoA. So you really need to stop trying to argue that your favored periodization scheme is the most appropriate, because that's not how WP:NPOV works. Again, we can't just declare this or that source more superior and then favor it over others, both in terms of choice of content and periodization.
But I do agree that this article should absolutely focus on sources that are overarching for the entire continent or major regions, so we're talking about the following kinds of sources:
I think we should also as much as possible avoid light-weight general encyclopedias like Encyclopedia of African Nations and Civilization and older, general history works like Encyclopedia of World History. Same with non-academic popular histories like Shillington (1995).
I also think it's advisable to also weed out overly specific sources like Osypińska (2021) and Vogel (1978). Not saying these two specifically are unreliable, but on a macrolevel like "history of Africa", an article can very quickly get buried in overly specific sources. What's definitely overkill and unnecessary is 5 citations for detailed statements about early Homo sapiens remains or the development of iron smelting around the Great Lakes. Peter Isotalo 12:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These period breaks do have source support, as I've explained. The 16th century is an almost universal period break, although the 7th century is more debateable. I use Oxford Research Encyclopedias and specific books via internet archive, such as [4] and [5], and use journals where I feel more detail is needed. I'm incredibly careful when writing and aim to have a consistent level of detail for all regions. I treat every entry as a work of art, but I'm only an amateur and these are only first drafts. The post-classical section for north Africa needs to be trimmed 500 words.
The prehistory section could do with some work, I'd like to trim it by 500 words and have it subdivided into the different macro regions, but I'm not familiar with prehistory and its study. That'd be a good place to start. I'm currently writing the post-classical section for the Swahili coast and Madagascar. Ignore the Horn of Africa section, it needs to be completely rewritten, I was trying to make a skeleton. Kowal2701 (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we’ve got to go with a broad periodisation, as that’s what RSs do, but I agree it lends itself to pan-Africanism and homogeneity Kowal2701 (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I’ve been combative, I’ve gotten too comfortable on this page and have a vision for what I’d like it to be, but obviously that is just the opinion of one editor Kowal2701 (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be interested in looking into the possibility of splitting the article up article thematically or regionally? I'm thinking the article could be improved, for example, Southern Africa and Northern Africa aren't tied to the same timeline.
Are you against the idea of treating the article like the history of closely related topics rather than just one monolithic topic? Peter Isotalo 11:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not against that, but there was some interaction between the regions and there do seem to be general themes such as the use of oral tradition and lack of writing and social organisation/collectivism. Tbh it might be good to sandbox what splitting it into macro regions looks like, although there was interaction between west Africa and the Maghreb, and the central Sahel and Nubia. It makes most sense to split into regions for Central Africa and very south of the Zambezi, but less so for North, West and East. I think if we do stick with the status quo, how isolated certain civilisations were would need to emphasised, it also works as an explanatory factor for their later development Kowal2701 (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe in the lede we can discuss the interactions or relations/isolation of certain regions? Kowal2701 (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
tbh I'm leaning towards splitting it into regions, although the other continental history pages don't do that, History of Europe, History of Asia, History of North America Kowal2701 (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

[edit]

@DaniCBP: I already explained what the problem is (WP:OR), so you not "seeing it" doesn't make much sense to me. Why should we resort to original research when we have plenty of properly sourced maps to choose from? M.Bitton (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not able to cite tertiary sources like other sourced maps on WikiCommons? I haven't studied that period in depth, but I can't find fault with it Kowal2701 (talk) 11:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maps are like any other content, WP:VERIFY and WP:SYNTH apply to them too so that we don't have to check for errors ourselves. M.Bitton (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know which is your problem man.
If I have done in depth research of the topic, I’ve researched into the sources of the content from Commons, where is the problem to begin with? A 25-page list of sources where only in a couple of regions you can find something referencing Commons, does that invalidate all the work?
”We don’t have to check for errors ourselves”, aren’t you unable to think properly to maybe acknowledge that I myself may have checked for errors?
“ Why should we resort to original research when we have plenty of properly sourced maps to choose from?” Yeah, sure, why improve, why make better content, let’s hate innovation and people working hard for the good of the readers and research. DaniCBP (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem and I would really appreciate it if you could refrain from trying to personalize the discussion.
let’s hate innovation it's not our job to innovate. In fact, it's against our policies. M.Bitton (talk) 12:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, let's not personalize.
Let me go to the point: it is claimed (by you) that my map, which is properly sourced on its description, is OC and thus shouldn't be included.
Let me tell you some unsourced or partially unsourced maps used in this same page without complaints:
File:The Kingdom of Aksum.png
File:Ghana successor map 1200-es.svg
File:Ghana empire map.png
These maps have been used here for years without full sources nor complaints.
I'm telling you again, my map isn't OC, you have a file with a full list of its sources on its description. Again, I'm not claiming that the map is 100% correct and accurate (it's impossible to do that for 1880's Africa), but every region has been researched as you can look up on the source list.
If you find it necessary, I'll copy here the full list of sources if you don't want to check the PDF file. DaniCBP (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because other OR maps exist (though, I'll note that those are about small areas and not the whole continent), doesn't mean that we can add more to the article.
every region has been researched researched and combined (by yourself) into a map that hasn't been published by reliable sources is where the issue lies. I understand that there are times when some minor OR is tolerated (because no maps exist for the period), but this isn't one of them, and while I sympathise with what you're trying to achieve, you also need to understand that the rules are have been created for a reason. M.Bitton (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

[edit]

@Zoocat56 the phrase "the revolution of history is commonplace" is meant to there was a lot of movement and change with lots of states rising and falling, but I can't think of a better way of saying it Kowal2701 (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial historiography

[edit]

@M.Bitton how is it factually incorrect? Kowal2701 (talk) 09:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kowal2701: stating (in Wikipedia's voice) that "the academic discipline of history arrived with conquest and colonisation of Africa" cannot be right given that Ibn Khaldun is considered (by some) to be the "father of history".
Out of interest: which page of the cited source says that? M.Bitton (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton you're right to flag it up, the source cited [6] doesn't say anything close to that. The sentence "African historiography became organised at the academic level in the mid 20th century" also contradicts it. Kowal2701 (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that. Saved me the trouble of reading the whole document. M.Bitton (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries thanks for pointing it out :) Kowal2701 (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Periodisation

[edit]

There's no agreed upon periodisation for African history. ([7], [8]) Currently we have Ancient Africa, Medieval and early modern Africa, Colonial Africa, Postcolonial Africa. Below is what I propose.

I'd be interested to hear what people think, it's all very contentious Kowal2701 (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is much better. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 03:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Africa&oldid=1253644167"