"Eurocentric" and "Afrocetric" Worldviews - Which is more ap

[Anonymous]

The Afrocentric, or African-centered, worldview is very different from the Eurocentric, or Europe-centered, worldview. Afrocentrism is centered around the beliefs that:

--The highest value of life lies in the interpersonal relationships between men;

--One gains knowledge through symbolic imagery and rhythm;

--One should live in harmony with nature;

--There is a oneness between humans and nature;

--The survival of the group holds the utmost importance;

--Men should appropriately utilize the materials around them;

--One's self is complementary to others;

--Change occurs in a natural, evolutionary cycle;

--Spirituality and inner divinities hold the most significance;

--There are a plethora of deities to worship;

--Cooperation, collective responsibility, and interdependence are the key values to which all should strive to achieve;

--All men are considered to: be equal, share a common bond, and be a part of the group;

--The Afrocentric worldview is a circular one, in which all events are tied together with one another.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Eurocentric worldview is centered around the beliefs that:

--The highest value of life lies in the object, or in the acquisition of the object;

--One gains knowledge through counting and measuring;

--One should control and dominate nature;

--There is a dichotomy, or separateness, between nature and humans;

--The survival of the fittest holds the utmost importance;

--Men should have an unlimited exploitation of the materials around them;

--One's self is distinct from others;

--Change occurs to meet the immediate objectives, and is quite arbitrary;

--A distant, impersonal god holds the most significance;
There is only one supreme deity to worship;

--Competition, independence, separateness, and individual rights are the key values to which all should strive to achieve;

--All men are considered to be individualistic, unique, and different;

--The Eurocentric worldview is a linear one, in which all events are separate and there is no togetherness.


Obviously, I choose the latter. Which do you commies find more appealing?

[Xvall]

Which one do you think? The former, of course.

[Umoja]

Afro-centric view seems almost to good. So sad it didn't work like that in theory. *Sobs*

[Sabocat]

How can any rational person not see the beauty of the Afro-centric view? What a wonderful world it would be.

[LOIC]

between "One should live in harmony with nature; " ,"There is a oneness between humans and nature; " and "One should control and dominate nature;" I don't hesitate, I choose the first belief which is much more wise.
How can you control and dominate nature anyway?
You can't control earthquakes, volcanos, tornados...
You can have the illusion to control them, but that's just an illusion.

[革命者]

and what is the US-centered worldview, DC??

[革命者]

«by Gunter Grass; Los Angeles Times; April 07, 2003

BEHLENDORF, Germany. A war long sought and planned for is now underway.
All deliberations and warnings of the United Nations notwithstanding, an
overpowering military apparatus has attacked preemptively in violation of
international law. No objections were heeded. The Security Council was
disdained and scorned as irrelevant. As the bombs fall and the battle for
Baghdad continues, the law of might prevails.

And based on this injustice, the mighty have the power to buy and reward
those who might be willing and to disdain and even punish the unwilling. The
words of the current American president -- "Those not with us are against
us" -- weighs on current events with the resonance of barbaric times. It is
hardly surprising that the rhetoric of the aggressor increasingly resembles
that of his enemy. Religious fundamentalism leads both sides to abuse what
belongs to all religions, taking the notion of "God" hostage in accordance
with their own fanatical understanding. Even the passionate warnings of the
pope, who knows from experience how lasting and devastating the disasters
wrought by the mentality and actions of Christian crusaders have been, were
unsuccessful.

Disturbed and powerless, but also filled with anger, we are witnessing the
moral decline of the world's only superpower, burdened by the knowledge that
only one consequence of this organized madness is certain: Motivation for
more terrorism is being provided, for more violence and counter-violence. Is
this really the United States of America, the country we fondly remember for
any number of reasons? The generous benefactor of the Marshall Plan? The
forbearing instructor in the lessons of democracy? The candid self-critic?
The country that once made use of the teachings of the European
Enlightenment to throw off its colonial masters and to provide itself with
an exemplary constitution? Is this the country that made freedom of speech
an incontrovertible human right?

It is not just foreigners who cringe as this ideal pales to the point
where it is now a caricature of itself. There are many Americans who love
their country too, people who are horrified by the betrayal of their
founding values and by the hubris of those holding the reins of power. I
stand with them. By their side, I declare myself pro-American. I protest
with them against the brutalities brought about by the injustice of the
mighty, against all restrictions of the freedom of expression, against
information control reminiscent of the practices of totalitarian states and
against the cynical equations that make the death of thousands of women and
children acceptable so long as economic and political interests are
protected.

No, it is not anti-Americanism that is damaging the image of the United
States; nor do the dictator Saddam Hussein and his extensively disarmed
country endanger the most powerful country in the world. It is President
Bush and his government that are diminishing democratic values, bringing
sure disaster to their own country, ignoring the United Nations, and that
are now terrifying the world with a war in violation of international law.

We Germans often are asked if we are proud of our country. To answer this
question has always been a burden. There were reasons for our doubts. But
now I can say that the rejection of this preemptive war on the part of a
majority in my country has made me proud of Germany. After having been
largely responsible for two world wars and their criminal consequences, we
seem to have made a difficult step. We seem to have learned from history.

The Federal Republic of Germany has been a sovereign country since 1990.
Our government made use of this sovereignty by having the courage to object
to those allied in this cause, the courage to protect Germany from a step
back to a kind of adolescent behavior. I thank Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder
and his foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, for their fortitude in spite of
all the attacks and accusations, from abroad and from within.

Many people find themselves in a state of despair these days, and with
good reason. Yet we must not let our voices, our no to war and yes to peace,
be silenced. What has happened? The stone that we pushed to the peak is once
again at the foot of the mountain. But we must push it back up, even with
the knowledge that we can expect it to roll back down again.



«Bloodthursty» Paul»

[redstar2000]

I suggest that such terms as "Afro-centric" and "Euro-centric" are not simply arbitrary over-simplifications but are designed to obscure the real division in the world today.

Workers vs. Bosses, remember?

:cool:

[Show me the Money]

No, it is not anti-Americanism that is damaging the image of the United
States; nor do the dictator Saddam Hussein and his extensively disarmed
country endanger the most powerful country in the world. It is President
Bush and his government that are diminishing democratic values, bringing
sure disaster to their own country, ignoring the United Nations, and that
are now terrifying the world with a war in violation of international law.

[suffianr]

Nice one, redstar. Workers Vs. Bosses; the quintessential issue at hand. :)

But are you suggesting a comparative analysis based on anthropological beliefs, DC?

Because comparative analysis is always bollocks. It will somehow boil down to relativism, in this case, cultural relativism, and that is ultimately bollocks, too.

Your beliefs are always molded by your experiences, your own logic, your own idealism, your own rational thinking, blah, blah, blah...No matter how you see it, your set of beliefs is always better than mine, and my set of beliefs are always better than yours. In other words, neither Afro-centric nor Euro-centric views really count, because, when it comes to the crunch, we're both right. And we're both wrong.

But at least we're not talking about how great a military leader Bush is, for once, and for that, give yourself Five Brownie Points and a Mocha from Starbucks, DC.

And while we're still clear of the topic of the war in Iraq, well come on fellas, let's keep this one running. Mis-direction is the key.

Now, what would you like with that piece of toast, again?

[Totalitarian]

The former is by far the most wise.

In ancient times, the europeans followed similar views to the africans. They were earth and nature-based, cyclical, polytheistic, and in harmony with the envrionment

Then alone came christianity and well, you know the rest....

[El Che]

Utter-Rubbish.

[dopediana]

the afro philosophy of course.

people need to mellow out. it's not about competition and being the best you can be for your own good. it's about being the best you can be for eachother. ah, for utilitarianism......

humans suck.

i say no to ethnic cleansing.

but i think some ethical cleansing ought to be done.....

[Hodgo]

Quote: from Umoja on 2:33 am on April 8, 2003
Afro-centric view seems almost to good. So sad it didn't work like that in theory. *Sobs*


I guess you mean "didnt work in practice". Seriously though, do you know how long African society thrived for before the British invasion? It had been around thousands of years, and showed no signs of weakening before the invasion.

So actualy it did work in theory, it was prevailent for a lot longer than Euro-centrism has been prevailent.

(Edited by Hodgo at 2:57 pm on April 10, 2003)

[Boris Moskovitz]

Afro-centric... It is way better... Oh well... I can't think of anything else to type. Except:

Shut up, Chiak

[Umoja]

I did mean after the British, it couldn't survive to western 'values', but indeed you are correct, Hodgo.

[Totalitarian]

Quote: from Umoja on 10:02 pm on April 10, 2003
I did mean after the British, it couldn't survive to western 'values', but indeed you are correct, Hodgo.

I think euros and negros could both have learned from each other.

Europeans introduced lots of technology and knowledge to africans, but they didn't seem to bother to learn much from the africans.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Europeans introduced lots of technology and knowledge to africans, but they didn't seem to bother to learn much from the africans.

Because they thought they were 'savages'
Rascist wankers.

[Umoja]

And the only real important "technology" they introduced were weapons and how to write bibles (writting was already in use in much of Africa).