I am a damn Smoker!
- Sep 16, 2013
Hoo boy, historical revisionists. I'm amazed it took this long for them to get a thread.
Out of all types of historical revisionism, Afro-centrism confuses me the most. The most avowed Afro-centrists claim that before colonization, Africans built powerful empires and cities far greater than anything the West had ever seen, were beacons of tolerance and progressivism, and contributed more to science, math, and collective human knowledge than any whiteys ever did... But they still managed to get enslaved and conquered by primitive, backwards honkeys with almost no resistance.
I'm not at all justifying slavery or colonialism, but seriously, how can anyone claim all those things but then then turn around and blame white people for everything?
A lot of alternative historians remind me Jon Stewart's "Lupus of News" criticism of Fox News. Stewart claimed that Fox detected a slight liberal bias in mainstream news and drowned it in crazy conservatism. Likewise these people, probably legitimately, detect Eurocentrism in a lot of "mainstream" history and drown it in batshit.
As far as how some would say Africans were the founders of some Indian empire, the only ground the African thing would hold (and this would no doubt be a wild guess) is that for those that know of evolution in how humans came about, the pre-human ancestor was from Africa and its offspring migrated through the world. While in a way we are all African through that one pre-human ancestor, an SJW using that would still fall since as mentioned, it had offspring that migrated out of Africa.
If you believe that your version of history has been supressed you have a different standard of evidence.
Suppose they read about some guy in indian history. Most sources say he is Indian. But that evidence is completely inconclusive, since if he were black, that fact would be covered up.
One source calls him black. Most of us figure that there is some explanation: weird translation, description of a dark complexion, description of a personality trait. But you conclude that is conclusive evidence he must be black.
Basically, you go in with the hypothesis that if any major character in world history was actually black (or a woman, or somethine else) that fact would be covered up. So you would expect most sources to hide it but maybe one source might let it slip through. Thus when you see one slightly contradictory thing, you see that as exact confirmation of your hypothesis.