“The degree to which Christian clergy sought to explain the revelations of another religion by seeing them as diabolic or divine determined the degree to which they would tolerate aspects of that religion. If a religion were discovered to be founded on diabolic revelations, then the Church had no choice but to adopt what I have called an ‘exclusive’ approach to it. All its wisdom must be denied, a course that was clearly reflected in the destruction of Mexican codices. But if some of the revelations of a religion were discovered to be of divine origin, then much of its content would be accepted in an ‘inclusive’ approach, if it could be cleansed of the diabolic elements.”
-John Thornton
This quotation is useful in understanding the orientation of both Henry Louis Gates Jr. and John Thornton in relation to Afrocentricity. This orientation is manifested in Gates’ “Wonders of the African World” and Thornton’s Africa and Africans in the Making of the Atlantic World. The historical roles played by Gates and Thornton with respect to Afrocentricity are analogous to that of the Christian clergy with respect to the “diabolic revelations” of indigenous religions. Similar to strategies adopted by the Christian clergy in its religiocultural and ideological warfare against indigenous religions, only non-threatening elements of Afrocentricity, such as making Africa central, are incorporated. Further, this centrality in discourse is only adhered to when consistent with the “discontinuous revelation” of what may be referred to as “white supremacy.” The orientation of Gates and Thornton towards Afrocentricity constitute what may be termed intellectual warfare.
According to Molefi Kete Asante, who is largely responsible for coining and popularizing the term, “Afrocentricity is a perspective.” For him, “Afrocentricity is the belief in the centrality of Africans in post modern history.” Afrocentricity is vibrant in that, “It is not static, typological or structural; it is dynamic, processual, and flexible; the only rigidity being the centrality of Africa as symbol and spirit.” Thus, for Asante, “Afrocentricity, therefore is only superficially related to color, it is more accurately a philosophical outlook determined by history.” This aspect of Afrocentricity defines it largely as a methodological and functional perspective, a point that was quickly seized upon by the white supremacists. As further delineated by Asante, “Afrocentricity is pro-African and consistent in its belief that technology belongs to the world; Afrocentricity is African genius and African values created, reconstructed and derived from our history and experiences in our best interests” [Emphasis mine].
It is ironic that in the book Afrocentricity, Asante asserts “When tactics become the objective, we fall victims to self-deception. Many of our thinkers have warned us of the danger of this view. There can be but one true objective for us in the contemporary era; to reconstruct our lives on an Afrocentric base.” This is an incongruous line of reasoning because Afrocentricity, as the name itself implies, can be principally defined in terms of its methodological imperatives of placing Africa at the center. This is a tactic that is only scarcely modified by the vague caveats of “pro-African” and “in our best interests.” Gates and Thornton have summarily dispensed with this caveat while at the same time adopting the methodology of putting Africa at the center. This is analogous to what Thornton refers to as the “inclusive approach.” Thus cleansed of “diabolic elements” designed to serve the “best interests” of its creator, a now castrated “Afro-centric” stunt-double is systematically employed in the service of the new religious imperative of white supremacy. white supremacy, in this context, is defined as a historically based, institutionally perpetuated system of exploitation and oppression of continents, nations, and peoples of color by white peoples and nations of the European continent and buffered/supported by carefully selected peoples of color, who are the system’s secondary beneficiaries, for the purpose of establishing, maintaining, expanding, refining and defending a system of wealth, power, and privilege a.k.a. the interlocking static/dynamic system of white world terror domination. One who practices white supremacy is thus a “white supremacist.” white supremacy should not, however be equated with a simple class argument. Indeed, white supremacist tendencies cut across all class lines. The poor Black person for example, albeit a victim of white supremacy, may defend and maintain white supremacist systems of perpetuated wealth, power and privilege in the interests of obtaining the few crumbs, remnants, leftovers and hand-me-downs that powerful white supremacists see fit to provide. In the perpetuation of white supremacy, white supremacists engage in what may be referred to as intellectual warfare: a systematic discrediting, disrupting, misdirecting, and/or neutralization of rival ideologies that may pose a threat to the existing order of the establishment (i.e., Afrocentricity, Black Nationalism, etc.).
In the foreword of Afrocentricity, by Kariamu Welsh, in making the case for Afrocentricity she asks rhetorically, “The question most often encountered is why? Why the need for an Afrocentric philosophy? Why should Africa be at the center? And my question is why not?” Apparently this question was also quickly seized upon and incorporated by the “New Clergy of white supremacy.” Why not put Africa at the center? Especially when doing so perpetuates the “religion” of white supremacy by transferring culpability for the genocide of millions of Africans from the shoulders of whites to those of Africans.
This system of white supremacy should not, however, be mistaken for racism. Racism is at the periphery of the white supremacist worldview. Racism is but a tool utilized by the system of white supremacy in essentially the same way that religion, the “hard” sciences, the social sciences, and more recently, Afrocentricity have been. Afrocentricity is indeed a “dynamic” and “flexible” tactic that can be adapted to serve the interests of anyone who is willing to put Africa at the center of his or her discourse. This is the loophole and the flaw by which the concept, from its very inception, has been plagued.
According to Gates’ own assessment, “Surely all scholars of Africa and its Diaspora are, by definition, ‘Afrocentric,’ if the term signals the recognition that Africa is centrally in the world, as much as the world is in Africa. But this is a source of the problem: all Afrocentrists, alas, do not look alike.” After appropriating the term, Gates is then successful in effectively “othering” the “diabolically inspired” Afrocentrists in his statement, “I am certainly not in the same camp as Molefi Asante and all those guys.” Thus we find the term (or more so a few of its ideological premises) appropriated and thoroughly co-opted while the original theorists and practitioners are vilified and demonized. This is the work of the “clergy of white supremacy” in relation to the potentially threatening “diabolic revelation” of Afrocentricity.
But what evidence is there of any attempt by Gates or Thornton to vilify or demonize Afrocentricity? Their own words are enough to show that they are aware of and are actively participating in intellectual warfare. In Thornton’s case, examine the following excerpt:
Many community activists are well meaning people like those in Gates' barbershop, and their own knowledge is shaped by the struggle of the sixties and nationalism. But they can see where the pressure needs to be applied, and it is in the schools above all. That is why it is they, who have created a lot of quality materials (from an education standpoint) to use in schools.
But a lot of these materials are harmed by nature of their information, which often comes from the more extreme end of the Afro-centric movement. The activist Afrocentrics are not likely to win more than limited victories in these battles. Their agenda is not popular in most of America, and their accuracy is suspect in many circles. Thus, even when they present ideas that most of mainstream scholars would accept, they are rejected as being wrong in content or divisive in tone. Those of us who would prefer to see a more "mainstream" agenda need to present it ourselves.
Perhaps we should be thinking about how to do this and give Gates' his due for producing this year's wake up call for African history.
If we simply examine the language of Thornton, his use of terminology is consistent with that of intellectual warfare. He posits “The activist Afrocentrics are not likely to win more than limited victories in these battles” [Emphasis mine]. Further, strategically unnamed “Afrocentric” scholarship is discredited in regards to accuracy, content and tone. There is again, however, an inclusive approach adopted for the “divinely inspired” “quality materials” if they can be cleansed of their “diabolic elements” of “extreme Afrocentricity” or substituted for the “divine discontinuous revelation” of the “mainstream [white supremacist] agenda.” Such is the nature of the intellectual warfare of white supremacists against the vilified and discredited other: “diabolic” Afrocentricity.
Gates makes a similar statement of war against Afrocentric demagogues and pseudo scholars “...in the raging battle of who will speak for black America” [Emphasis mine]. This labeling as “demagogues and pseudo scholars,” is part and parcel of the warfare against the “diabolic revelations” and “prophets” of Afrocentricity. This labeling is the classic white supremacist modus operandi in which the “pseudo” and “demagogue” of today are analogous to the “diabolic origin” and “witchcraft” of yesterday. This is yet again consistent with our extended metaphor linking modern white supremacy with the Christian Church of yesterday wherein, “All forms of popular revelations (augury, astrology, divination, etc.) [were attributed] to the Devil...All such revelations could then be labeled as witchcraft and their practitioners burned (as indeed thousands were).”
According to Carruthers, in his warfare campaign on behalf of white supremacy, “Gates aggressively submits to the republic’s mandate that U.S. born Africans must be a part of American society and a part acceptable to European American authority.” Such an assessment, if correct, is consistent with our working definition of “white supremacist” although Gates, poor boy, is merely a collaborator, an agent working on behalf of white supremacy.
Thornton further outlines specific war strategies of this intellectual warfare, “As scholars, we or someone we can work with, need to get the scholarship out to the public, specifically through the school system.” “Scholars,” in this context, may be read as “white supremacists.” But with whom can they work? Thornton’s own analysis of the past is useful in understanding today:
[T]he Church still accepted most of the revelations that came under its control or that were not threatening (such as apparitions of saints and the Virgin).
Enter Henry Louis Gates and his “Afrocentric” “Wonders of the African World” and John Thornton’s own contribution to the “battle,” his “agency bestowing” Africa and Africans. The “church” of white supremacy accepts both of these “apparitions” as part and parcel of revelations that come under its control.
“Wonders of the African World” and Africa and Africans represent weapons of mass destruction in the full-scale intellectual warfare of white supremacy against “diabolic” Afrocentrism. Our question now becomes, how has this war on the “diabolic” version of Afrocentricity influenced, nay, infused the work of Gates and Thornton, particularly “Wonders of the African World” and Africa and Africans?
The replacement of the “diabolic” Afrocentricity, a threat to the church of white supremacy, by the church’s approved version is similar to the “ol’ switcheroo” used in Mexico as described by Thornton:
This was exactly the attitude of the Spanish clergy in confronting Mexican religion, for example. When they heard Aztec stories of Quetzalcoatl, a good king (deified by the sixteenth century) who had been driven from Mexico by trickery and would return in glory, they decided that Quetzalcoatl must have been the Apostle Thomas bringing word of Christianity, and those who drove him out must have been inspired by the Devil. Thus, they sought to persuade the Aztecs that they were restoring Quetzalcoatl by bringing Christianity, while at the same time vigorously attacking most current Aztec practices as being diabolically inspired by Quetzalcoatl’s enemies.
“Wonders of the African World” by Henry Louis Gates and sponsored by PBS and the BBC is a part of the continued war of white supremacy on the “diabolic version” of Afrocentricity using a whitewashed version of Afrocentricity as a weapon. In this new version, Africa is indeed placed at the center. To understand the reasoning behind placing Africa and Africans at the center (in this particular context), it is insightful to note Kwame Ture’s statement that, “You can make no analysis in life of an oppressed people and leave out the oppressor. Anytime you make any analysis in any aspect of life of an oppressed people and leave out the oppressor, you will blame the oppressed people for their conditions.” This is the crux of the white supremacist-friendly Afrocentricity. Africa is at the center only when putting Africa at the center absolves the oppressor (i.e. Europeans/Ameripeans) from guilt for the conditions of African people.
But why would Gates fight against other Africans on the behalf of white supremacy? Once again, Thornton’s analysis of the past is useful in understanding the present:
Slaves augmented the military might of the Iberians whenever there was danger from Native Americans. For, example, on early Hispanola, royal instructions demanded that Spanish settlers arm their most trusted slaves (normally those with a family), called “secure blacks” (negros seguros), in case of a revolt by the Tainos, and later still to protect various colonies against foreign incursions.
The role that Gates now plays is analogous to that of the “secure blacks” of the Iberian armies in the fight to defend the “republic of Western letters” from the foreign incursions of “bad” Afrocentrists. Gwendolyn Mikell correctly identifies this tendency in Gates’ “Wonders of the African World.” According to Mikell,
Gates has crafted his own attack on Afrocentric views of the greatness of Africa. It seems to me that the Gates’ video attempts to paint a picture of an imaginary divide between African Americans and African views of the Continent and its role in history [...] Gates pretended that the West was not hegemonic in its relationships with Africa during the pre-colonial and colonial periods that transverse the slave trade. He pretended that the only pressures creating TransAtlantic slavery came from African greed, from forces within the Continent.
Is Mikell’s assertion plausible? Gates’ own writing validates her statement. He asserts that (the diabolically inspired version of) Afrocentrism produces “shoddy” scholarship wherein Afrocentrists “rediscover a lost cultural identity—or invent one that never quite existed” based upon the “shaky grounds of self-esteem.” “Wonders of the African World,” therefore plausibly represents Gates’ attempt to disavow this “invented” cultural identity. Despite the implications of the title of his video, “Wonders of the African World,” Kilson adeptly notes Gates’ long-standing tradition; his schizophrenic tendency towards aggrandizement/masochism in relation to African people in terms of Gates’,
[...] almost neurotic need to couch discourse on African-American socio-cultural and political patterns in what I call "Black put-down terms," a mode of intellectual discourse on Black realities that Gates' intellectual confrere Kwame Anthony Appiah is also addicted to, I should add. Second, much of Henry Gates' discourse on African-American socio-cultural and political patterns exhibits a thoroughly chameleon trait — an almost manic need to produce a discourse on Black realities that migrates between a "Black put-down" or "Black-averse" mode, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, a seemingly redeeming "Black-friendly" mode, though in ultimate essence the redeeming posture is phony [...] As Ali Mazrui rightly put it: "Gates seemed incapable of glorifying Africa without demonizing it in the second breath."
Gates’ own declaration of war against the “shoddy” scholarship of “bad” Afrocentrists’ “invented racial fantasies” and identities supports the idea that “Wonders” is part of his own attack on mythical “Afrocentric” views of the greatness of Africa. “Wonders” is a state of the art weapon in the intellectual warfare of the white supremacist “republic of Western letters” against such “diabolically inspired” Afrocentrism.
Why, however does Gates leave the European out in his analysis of the enslavement of African people? According to Asante:
If one listens closely to Henry Louis Gates, the entire project of slavery would not have occurred if it had not been for African involvement. Blaming the victim for the predicament of enslavement is neither historically correct nor morally valid [...] How was this project sold to the white producers? Were they told that the video would show how Africans were responsible for our own predicament? The themes covered in the series rest on some disturbing sub-texts such as the undermining of a pan-African sentiment, the reinforcement of negative stereotypes, the separation of ancient Egypt from the rest of Africa, the attack on the Swahili language, and the undermining of the movement for African reparations.
If the analogy of the “secure black” fighting a “diabolicized” Afrocentricity on the behalf of white supremacy is correct, and it is, then it is very likely that this is how the project was sold to white producers. Mazrui questions,
Why is Skip Gates presenting us with a simplistic picture of continental Africans (villains) selling their brothers and sisters (Diaspora African victims) – and provoking what he regards as the curse on Africa for selling its children? In reality only a small minority of the inhabitants of Africa could have sold and exported fellow Africans. So why is Africa as a whole presented in such stark evil ways? Why does Henry Louis Gates Jr. virtually let the white man off the hook on the Atlantic slave trade apart from a throw-away sentence? What is going on? What is the agenda?
This agenda can be understood as an integral aspect of intellectual warfare in the service, not of racism, but of white supremacy. As a matter of fact, the guise of fighting “racism in all its pernicious forms” (especially “diabolicized” Afrocentricity) has been one of the means by which Gates has secured a position among the clergy of white supremacy (perhaps as an overly eager and willing altar boy). This is affirmed by Martin Kilson’s statement,
Henry Gates is, above all, trying to play-back his way to a special public self-portraiture - one he considers politically serviceable [...] First of all, there should be no doubt among progressive African-American intellectuals that Henry Gates - as the leading African - American academic entrepreneur intellectual in the country these days has an intellectual persona and modus operandi vis-a-vis Black-world realities that is riddled through with establishentarian and sometimes anti-Black purposes [Emphasis mine].
Kilson’s “establishmentarian” and “anti-Black” are synonymous with my claims of his supporting the religion of white supremacy against its enemies, the “diabolic” Afrocentrists. In addition to absolving whites of their role in the enslavement of Africans and attacking the “diabolically inspired” revelation of Afrocentricty, Gates indeed does paint a serviceable self-portrait for white supremacist approval. This self-portrait is useful in obtaining the white supremacist vote of confidence as the most likely candidate “...in the raging battle of who will speak for black America.” George Nelson Preston also takes note of Gates’ political machinations for his own personal benefit (which is not very dissimilar to the picture that he paints of the rulers of old Asante and Dahomey). Tracing this development chronologically Nelson declares,
Gates did praiseworthy work in literature, became highly visible and whites now use this high profile visibility as the criteria to make him expert in everything Black. It is an open admissions ticket of a sort as the most knowledgeable Black about every and Anything Black.
It would appear that Gates [...] has been crowned as the new Negro in Residence designated to represent us in all matters Black be they literature, sociology, anthropology, art history, archeology, art criticism, history. [Emphasis mine]
Apparently the selection of Gates as the “Negro in Residence” is convincing as conveyed by Biodun Jeyifo who buys totally the idea of “the figure of Gates as an African-American ‘Everyman’ confronting Africans.” Mazrui, much more adeptly recognizes that “We must not drift into the fallacy of regarding Skip Gates' point of view as THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN PERSPECTIVE” [author’s emphasis]. As for Pan-Africanists and Afrocentrists, Mazrui is quite correct in asserting, “Almost none of them regard Gates' voice as their voice.” Indeed, Gates fits the profile of one of the “secure blacks” that have been handpicked to fight for the perpetuation of the system of white supremacy against the “diabolically” threatening revelations of Afrocentricity and is generally identified by the “Black Community” at large as a modern-day “King Buzzard” of sorts. It is also clear to Kilson that, “Henry Gates knows well that the American establishment, in its several formations, gets the message of his intellectual maneuvers” [Emphasis mine]. But then Gates has long been aligned with this tradition of white supremacist thought.
It is highly dubious that Gates’ “Black friendly” posturing of “tough love,” “agonizing” about the genocide committed against Africans (that, incidentally, Africans are solely responsible for), or eschewing of “the penchant of white racists to demean, deny, or denigrate the civilizations that black people have produced on the African continent” is sincere. In lieu of Gates’ seemingly relentless assault on continental Africans Preston wonders, “Does he rail at his [white] wife because her ancestors sold, bought and enslaved his ancestors?” This is highly improbable because the religion of white supremacy would not be served by such behavior. Gates’ evaluative criteria in selecting when (and when not) to express his righteous indignation seems to be based upon the question, “how will my actions contribute to the intellectual war being waged by the religion of white supremacy against the ‘diabolic revelation’ of Afrocentricity.” In fact, if Gates truly had an issue with the rulers of “The Slave Kingdoms,” it is probably, in all actuality, an issue of self-hatred, in the sense that he sees his reflection in his depiction of these rulers. As noted by Windley, “At one point, he descended to a level of vulgarity saying he was annoyed by ‘Black Africans kissing the behinds of whites,’ a curious objection considering his personal circumstances.” Indeed, his role vis-à-vis the directives of perpetuating white supremacy’s war on Afrocentrists is scarcely differentiable from the role of his “slave kingdom autocrats” in perpetuating genocide against African people. Both constituencies sell their own people in exchange the benefits that white supremacy has to offer.
But what truly is the effect of “Wonders of the African World” and Gates’ aggressive submission to the directives white supremacy to demonize “bad” Afrocentricity? Mazrui, voices his concerns thusly:
Some of us fear that in your efforts to repair relations between white America and Black America, you may be sowing (sic) the seeds of discord between African Americans and the peoples of the African continent. By trying to shift the main burden of guilt for slavery from whites to Blacks, you may conceivably help race-relations in the United States. But does the price you are exacting amount to raising levels of animosity among the next generation of African-Americans towards Africa?
This is exactly the price required by Gates’ religious affiliation (white supremacy), not so much to repair race-relations as to secure a spot amongst white supremacy’s most elite clergy. Such a price has been well assessed by one, “who understand[s] the costs, and the pleasures of achievement.” To achieve such a position, is imperative that the next generation of Africans in America accept the doctrine of a demonized Afrocentricity. This imperative largely echoes yesteryear’s FBI CounterIntelligence Program stance towards Black Nationalism:
The purpose of this new counterintelligence endeavor is to expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or OTHERWISE NEUTRALIZE [emphasis added] the activities of black nationalist hate-type organizations [...] in every instance careful attention must be given to the proposal to insure the targeted group is disrupted, ridiculed, or discredited through [...] publicity and not merely publicized...
A final goal should be to prevent the long-range GROWTH of militant black organizations, especially among youth. Specific tactics to prevent these groups from converting young people must be developed [...] Efforts of the various groups to consolidate their forces or to recruit new or youthful adherents must be frustrated.
It is interesting to note that these “hate-type” organizations, as delineated by the grand pontiff of white supremacy, Herbert J. Hoover, included Martin Luther King’s SCLC. Apparently, Afrocentrism is similarly enough of a threat to the religion of white supremacy to warrant comparable attempts to demonize, discredit, misdirect, and prevent its existence (at least in its current form) and long-range growth. In the place of “diabolically inspired” Afrocentrism will be the “divinely inspired discontinuous revelation” of “Those [...] who would prefer to see a more ‘mainstream’ agenda.”
Thornton’s call to arms for a “mainstream agenda” to be pumped into the schools is represented in his Africa and Africans in the Making of the Atlantic World, 1400-1800. In Africa and Africans, Thornton ingeniously and systematically uses the ideological premises of Afrocentricity in attacking the perpetually unnamed “pseudo-historical” and “ahistorical” doctrines and documents of “diabolically inspired” Afrocentrism. Similar to Gates, Thornton, “cleanses” Afrocentricity of its “diabolical element” that requires that it be used for the “best interests” of African people and proceeds to put Africa and Africans at the center of responsibility for the genocide committed against African people. Mazrui’s comments to Gates also apply to Thornton:
Without the participation of Africans there would have been no slave trade! How naive about power can we get? Without the involvement of Africans, there would have been no colonialism either. Without the involvement of Africans, there would have been no apartheid. Without the involvement of African Americans, there would have been no segregationist order in the Old South.
Centrality of Africa and Africans, in this context, mitigates the “white man’s burden” of responsibility. Thornton proves that, true to Asante’s claim, Afrocentricity is “dynamic, processual, and flexible; the only rigidity being the centrality of Africa as symbol and spirit.” Using the “inclusive approach,” Thornton adheres to this aspect of Afrocentricity vigorously, because by applying it to the genocide of African people, this methodology serves the interests of the religion of white supremacy. These interests are expressed in Thornton’s exonerating Europeans of culpability in the genocide of African people as evinced in the following formulaic utterances that permeate the book:
Although the state might be a silent beneficiary...trade remained competitive, probably favoring no particular national or regional actors—and certainly not Europeans at the expense of Africans.
In summary, we can say that although European arms may have assisted African rulers in war in some cases, they were not decisive...Therefore, Europeans did not bring about some sort of military revolution that forced participation in the Atlantic trade as a price for survival [Emphasis mine].
In conclusion, then, we must accept that African participation in the slave trade was voluntary and under the control of African decision makers. This was not just at the surface level of daily exchange but at deeper levels. Europeans possessed no means, either economic or military to compel African leaders to sell slaves.
Such is the means that Thornton adopts to philanthropically give Africans “agency.” This gift of agency is like an IMF/World Bank loan. The debt burden that comes along with accepting it is simply not worth it.
This book, which one would not hazard to call “pseudo-history” or “ahistorical,” is essentially one long extended conjecture. Thornton’s own philosophy of historiography is instructive in understanding his writing:
Do these things really matter? One hopes ideally that a piece of historical fiction like this one takes the minimum liberties with history, and tries as much as possible to get those elements of the story that are verifiable by historical research as right as possible. Fiction should only be used when the sources simply fail, and then probably only in such a way that one can say this or that event could have happened, even if we cannot say for sure that it did happen.
The multitude of statements and conclusions, punctuated by “must have been the case,” “obviously,” and “it is clear, then, that,” every few lines become almost comical to the point that a student of literature would take note of this almost lyrical parallelism that concludes most every sentence, paragraph and/or chapter. Similar to Gates’ altruistic motives of applying his philosophy of “tough love” to Africa and continental Africans, Thornton strives to paternalistically give “agency” to apparently formerly “agency-less” Africans. At other times, however, Thornton is much more miserly in his granting of agency:
Religious conversion, as it is conventionally understood, was therefore not simply a process of Europeans forcing Africans to accept an alien religion, nor did the practicing of traditional African forms of continuous revelation in the New World represent some sort of heroic religiocultural resistance.
For Thornton, Africans can have agency, but only to the extent that such agency does not make for “heroic religiocultural resistance.” Also, Europeans cannot have done anything that might make someone think that they were in any way, shape or form “bad” (i.e. forcing Africans to do anything). Such is the selectivity of the “inclusive approach” of white supremacy as applied to Afrocentricity. This is the benevolent parity granted by the white supremacist-friendly “Afrocentricity” of Gates and Thornton. In another example Thornton states that:
In the overall analysis of resistance, one can conclude that a great deal of American resistance simply arose from the exploitative nature of social and economic relations. It ought not to be seen as being any different from the reactions of any exploited group anywhere in the world. Moreover, such an analysis can be extended to the motives for revolt.
Again, Africans are denied the “baraka-like” blessing of agency to be bestowed or withheld by Thornton when such agency could be used to further the cause of the “diabolic” Afrocentrists. Agency in fomenting rebellion and “heroic religiocultural resistance” are just such topics that “demonically possessed” bad Afrocentrists would just LOVE to pick up and run with. Thornton, like Gates, is equally complicit in what Mazrui calls, “cultural condescension with paternalistic possessiveness and ulterior selectivity.” This “ulterior selectivity” in particular is adeptly employed in service of the ideology and religion of white supremacy. Far from an “unreformed racist,” Thornton’s writing is often consistent with that of a “highly-refined white supremacist.”
How is this consistency expressed? Thornton’s own analysis is instructive in understanding the implicit and explicit intellectual war of the modern Church of white supremacy on “diabolic” Afrocentricity, here analogous to “continuous revelation”:
Nevertheless, the modern Church was cognizant of the danger that continuous revelation held for their authority, and even though they recognized it, they also sought to contain it. They did this first by insisting on the primacy of the discontinuous revelation (to the point of denying the validity of a revelation if it contradicted the Bible directly) while placing its interpretation in their own hands and second by ascribing revelations with which they did not agree to the Devil.
Afrocentricity in the hands of Thornton becomes an exercise in putting Africa at the center with “ulterior selectivity.” Thus its benign interpretation is incorporated into the religion of white supremacy when elements designed by “vulgar cultural nationalists” (all of whose “pseudo ahistory” is likely attributable to the Devil) to work in the best interests of African people are eradicated. This analogy to religion is useful in the sense that, as defined by Asante, “All religions rise out of the deification of some one’s nationalism.” This concept is extended to Afrocentricity and Njia as proposed by Asante. The religion of white supremacy is no different as it is the general deification of white nationalism and at times African support of it. In serving the interests of the system of white supremacy, Thornton and Gates perpetuate this nationalism while ascribing revelations with which they did not agree to “the Devil” or at the very least to “diabolically-inspired” Afrocentrists. More powerfully however, they use Afrocentricity’s core ideology of “putting Africa at the center,” in the services of white supremacy.
Although Asante claims that “Wonders” is a “Eurocentric Enterprise,” it is instructive to note how his own warning, “when our tactics become the objective, we fall victims to self-deception,” manifests itself as a truism. Asante calls “Wonders” a “Eurocentric enterprise” when in all actuality, Gates and Thornton have accepted Afrocentricity’s only rigidity: “the centrality of Africa.” This acceptance of Afrocentricity as a “perspective” and a “philosophical outlook” that is “is only superficially related to color” is consistent with the “inclusive approach” of our extended metaphor with Christianity in its dealings with indigenous religions. When selectively applied and incorporated, Afrocentricity as a methodology/tactic may readily be reinterpreted to vilify its originator(s) and utilized to undercut its own conclusions. For Asante not to recognize his own child, albeit exposed to effects of bleaching-cream and a straightening comb, indeed proves the fallacy of allowing a tactic or method to become the objective or a means of self-identification and definition.
Through “Wonders of the African World” and Africa and Africans in the Making of the Atlantic World, Gates and Thornton effectively (to the extent that it is imperceptible to the public) use a castrated form of Afrocentricity to perpetuate and defend white supremacy a.k.a. the interlocking static/dynamic system of white world terror domination (a system of power and privilege) in its war to neutralize demonize, discredit and ridicule the potential threat of “Diabolical Afrocentricity.”