preeminent scholar

anonymous asked:

Linguistics question—is there any rhyme or reason to why accents develop the way they do? I’m thinking of like, the difference between the Chicago midwestern accent versus the Minnesota midwestern accent, what would account for that. Thanks!

There’s a million reasons for that, whole books have been written about the evolution of accents. In America there tends to be a lot rooted in where various immigrant groups came from. Minnesota has a unique accent because it was the only part of America with a large Scandinavian population (they also have certain ways of speaking which match Scandinavian/Germanic syntax.) The preeminent scholar in this field is William Labov, look him up for the reams he’s written on the topic of American regional dialects and accents.

The Problem with Hotep Ankh Mathmatics

In the wake of this Gazi Kodzo character, these are the main problems with the behaviors of these “conscious” ankh types in a listicle form. Let’s call their antics “Hotep Ankh Mathematics”.

If you encounter Hotep Ankh Mathematics, here are 10 points to keep in mind.

1. Ankhs think they are beyond reproach, even when the people reproaching them are Africans. They think they know more about Africa than Africans.

2. Speaking of knowing things, here’s the thing; they don’t actually know much. The kicker however is that they think they do. They’ve watched tons of youtube videos from people like John Henri Clark, Runoko Rashidi, Phil Valentine, Ben-Jochannan and others on African identity. Maybe they read many of these “Afrakan” centered websites and books. This is their scholarship. The problem is that the people they hold in high regard are often wrong about a whole lot, but they are venerated within the “conscious” community as preeminent scholars on Africa. It’s a very insular community and it becomes an echo chamber without checks and balances. What you get is massive group think.

3. Most of the “scholars” ankhs “study” are not continental Africans. If they have studied African historians beyond someone like maybe Cheikh Anta Diop, then I’d be surprised. There is a lot of pseudoscience babble in their research, and here’s the thing; when you think these are the go to voices on African history, then it should come as little surprise that this revisionist nonsense becomes near and dear to the hearts of the ankhs who swallowed it all. This is their truth. This information “awakened” them. 

4. By default, there is a patronizing and paternalistic tone “conscious” ankh types take when addressing Africans. They think they have unlocked the truth on African identity, history and faith/spiritual systems. Africans are just these lost people who have been swallowed up by Abrahamic faith systems and colonialism from the white man and Arabs and they have the answers, knowledge and truth. That’s offensive in many ways, but what it boils down to is western exceptionalism. The rescuing and maintaining of “Afrakan” ways of life is to be done by people who probably haven’t stepped one foot on the continent, yet somehow know more than the Africans themselves. How does that work?

5. Ankhs are very literal. It’s always Islam and Christianity destroyed “Afrakan” spirituality. They live in a very black and white world. A world where the idea of syncretic faith systems or duality as a concept is lost on them. They would know about these practices if they actually shut up for once and spoke to Africans to learn a thing or two.

6. Ankhs do not respect the autonomy and agency of Africans. I’ll say it again. Ankhs do not respect the autonomy and agency of Africans. If they did, they would listen to Africans. In fact, if they did, then continental African scholars would be centered in their movements. It’s quite weird to practice Pan-Africanism, yet be completely dismissive of African people.

7. Pan-Africanism that dismisses African voices is what exactly? Well, for one thing, you’re likely to spell Africa as Afraka because based on your “studies” mired in pseudo-scientific research, you’ve come to understand that this is how things were and it’s a path to liberation and freedom to spell it as Afraka or whatever alternate spellings exist. They really believe this too. Revolution by spelling Africa with a K. The joke writes itself.

8. The thing about Abrahamic religions and Africans is that most of the preeminent stalwarts of Pan Africanism in the continent were religious. Sekou Toure and Cham Joof were Muslims. Jomo Kenyatta and Kwame Nkrumah were Christians. Julius Nyerere and Thomas Sankara were Catholics for goodness sake. I assure you, folks spouting off like Gazi Kodzo are not more with the program than these individuals…lol. It’s laughable to start talking about revolution when the biggest revolutionary fighters were in fact religious themselves. I wonder whether ankhs think they are more revolutionary or “Afrakan” than these people.

9. Ankhs discount actual African languages, spellings and writing systems. For instance, the people in what is now Southeastern Nigeria were not spelling Afraka in Nsibidi and did not refer to themselves as Afrakans. Does your average ankh even know what Nsibidi is? What is Afraka to our ancestors in Southeastern Nigeria? Absolutely nothing, but ankhs will use their kemetic pseudoscience and understanding/spelling of “Afraka” to blanket the entire continent as Afrakans.

10. You’re not going to have a sensible conversation with someone with a degree in watching youtube videos who thinks spelling Africa as “Afraka” actually does something. Save yourself the aggravation, just point and laugh. No clear thinking person (especially Africans) takes them seriously. 

There is a reason why most Africans aren’t cosigning this bullshit. We know better. I hope you will too in time. 

I’ll say this, if your “Afraka” centered movement is void of Africans or has a loud vocal opposition from Africans, you should maybe consider that there’s something wrong with it. 

Alas, what would Africans know about Africa? hahaha