Thank you, Blackhaze, for providing this paper. It is very interesting!
"The Hamitic Hypothesis" is a term paper written by Travis Sharp for an African studies course taught by Prof. Heather Hoag at the University of San Francisco and published in 2004-2005 in the student publication Writing for a Real World. Today, Sharp is the Communications Director and Military Policy Analyst at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington DC, where he directs print, TV, internet, and radio communications strategy and performs policy work on national security spending and military policy.
The paper's thesis is that, From roughly 1850 to 1950, "The Hamitic Hypothesis" was generally accepted among historians. The "Hamitic Hypothesis" says "that migratory white tribes, known as Hamites, were wholly responsible for spreading civilized practices throughout Africa." The paper means to persuade that this bizarre and counterfactual notion of "white tribes" was the historiographical consensus of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Note that the paper's expressed goal is not to argue the "Hamitic Hypothesis" pro or con, nor is it to argue that African nations of the colonial period posessed (or did not posess) technology comparable to Europe, nor that technological innovation diffused (or did not diffuse) across long distances at various times in the past, nor that anthropologists considered (or did not consider) Africans to be physically unattractive or morally depraved. This is important to note because the paper spends many more words addressing those extraneous items than furthering its avowed goal (of persuading that the "Hamitic Hypothesis" was the consensus of late 19th- and early 20th-century historians). And so, we look only at those portions of the paper that address its thesis: the scholarly consensus regarding "Hamitic white tribes."
With that restriction in mind, we see that the paper often quotes secondary sources opining that the "Hamitic Hypothesis" was generally accepted among historians of the period. The paper's most-often quoted secondary sources are: Edith R. Sanders, "The Hamitic Hypothesis: Its Origin and Functions in Time Perspective," Journal of African History 10 (1969): 521-32; and Philip S. Zachernuk, "Of Origins and Colonial Order: Southern Nigerian Historians and the 'Hamitic Hypothesis' c. 1870-1970," Journal of African History 35 (1994): 427-42. The problem, of course, is that quoting the opinions of secondary sources is not persuasive, although the secondary sources themselves might persuade if they were to offer first-hand evidence.
The only practical way to achieve its goal would be for the paper to offer first-hand examples of historians' embracing the "Hamitic Hypothesis." The paper offers only four such examples: one quotation each from Hugh Trevor-Roper (1958) and Allister Macmillan (1912), and two quotations from C.G. Seligman from his book, Races of Africa.
Although its source is not cited in the paper, the Trevor-Roper quotation is from “The Past and Present: History and Sociology,” Past and Present 42 (1969): 6. In fact, Trevor-Roper's claim, “there is only the history of Europeans in Africa. The rest is darkness," was roundly criticized at the time by the great majority of historians. See, for three major examples, R. Hunt Davis, “Interpreting the Colonial Period in African History,” African Affairs 72, no. 289 (1973): 383–400; Gus Deveneaux, “The Frontier in Recent African History,” [i]The International Journal of African Studies 11, no. 1 (1978): 63–85; and Shepard Krech III, “The State of Ethnohistory,” Annual Review of Anthropology 20 (1991): 345. Consequently, the quotation does persuade that Trevor-Roper considered pre-colonial African history insignificant. But the harsh reaction of other historians of the time defeats the paper's own thesis (that the "Hamitic Hypothesis" was the consensus).
Although its source is not cited in the paper, Allister Macmillan's 1912 opinion that "Bantus" could not have built Great Zimbawe, is irrelevant. Macmillan was not a scholar of any sort. He was a writer of tourist pamphlets.
The two quotations from Seligman's 1930 book, The Races of Africa do reflect the man's thinking. He thoroughly embraced the "Hamitic Hypothesis" in 1930. But the paper makes no effort to show whether the hypothesis was widely accepted at the time.
In conclusion, the paper makes only a cursory ineffectual attempt to persuade that the "Hamitic Hypothesis" was even widespread, much less the historiographical consensus. In fact, it is possible that the "Hamitic Hypothesis" was widely accepted between 1863 when J.H. Speke first proposed it in Journal of the Discovery of the Source of the Nile (London: Blackwoods, 1863), and 1901 when Giuseppe Sergi agreed with it in The Mediterranean Race (London: W Scott, 1901). But we can also see that it had become a laughing-stock by 1958 when Trevor-Roper wrote. It might be interesting to learn more about its general acceptance (or lack thereof). But this paper is not the best guide, and it does not accomplish its thesis.
According the US color line which does not allow for mixture, yes. Just like Obama and Tiger Woods are considered black.
This is not accurate. Obama considers himself Black but Tiger Woods does not. The use of passive voice above suggests that Holdtight is merely expressing his own personal opinion as to who is Black and who is not. But this is far from a rule of U.S. society.
I have been away for a while. Yes in stating that Tiger Woods is black I was incorrect. He does not consider himself so. I for one consider his black "component" to be enough to have a connection with him. Mostly I like Tiger because he demolished the golf color line in my mind and he is a young guy that will be playing for a while. Is that racial kidnapping?
Mostly I like Tiger because he demolished the golf color line in my mind and he is a young guy that will be playing for a while. Is that racial kidnapping?
Not at all. I also think he is a great athlete. So much so, that I suspect he must have some Puerto Rican in him. (just kidding -- <grin>)
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
