Note To Users

NOTE TO USERS
Page(s) not included in the original manuscript and are

unavailable from the author or university. The manuscript
was scanned as received.
app i,248-261
This reproduction is the best copy available.
UMI
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
THE INFLUENCE OF CHEIKH ANTA DIOP’S TWO CRADLE THEORY
ON AFRICANA ACADEMIC DISCOURSE:
IMPLICATIONS FOR AFRICANA STUDIES
A Dissertation
Submitted to
the Temple University Graduate Board
In Partial Fulfillment
O f the Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
By
Karanja Keita Carroll
May, 2007
UMI N um ber: 3268136
Copyright 2007 by
Carroll, Karanja Keita
All rights reserved.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
UMI Microform 3268136
Copyright 2007 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
2007
All Rights Reserved
iii
ABSTRACT
The Influence o f Cheikh Anta Diop’s

Two Cradle Theory on Africana Academic Discourse:
Implications for Africana Studies

Doctor o f Philosophy
Temple University, 2007
Doctoral Advisory Committee Chair: Nathaniel Norment, Jr.
This study presents an examination o f what has been commonly referred to as
Cheikh Anta Diop’s Two Cradle Theory. After a review o f Cheikh Anta Diop’s English-
translated works which elucidate the Two Cradle Theory and a discussion o f the Afrikan
worldview methodological framework, this study then examines the written responses to
the Two Cradle Theory among select Africana academics. Following this genealogy o f
the Two Cradle Theory within Africana academic discourse, the next task was to see in
what ways discussion o f Diop’s Two Cradle Theory can contribute to the content,
assumptions and organization o f knowledge within Africana Studies. This study,
therefore, argues that Cheikh Anta Diop’s Two Cradle Theory is a multi-area theory
within the academic discipline o f Africana Studies. As a multi-area theory, the Two
Cradle Theory can be used as the basis for the development of assumptions, concepts and
interpretations within Africana psychology, Africana history and Africana philosophy.
The concept o f a multi-area theory was constructed as a discipline-specific and
discipline-grounded concept within Africana Studies. Using Cheikh Anta Diop’s Two
Cradle Theory, as an example o f a multi-area theory, this study shows its usability and
consistency with previous scholarship in the discipline, along with future developments
which are consistent with the organization o f knowledge in Africana Studies.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND DEDICATION
As a testament to the Creator and my Ancestors, this intellectual project speaks to
their existence and powerful movement o f spirit throughout the universe. In my
immediate ancestral lineage, I evoke the spirits o f Jessie Harris, Sr., Nathan Carroll, Sr.,
and India Carroll. It is because o f them that I am able to thank Anthony and Janette
Carroll for their love, tireless energy, patience and commitment as I continue to do my
life’s work. Thank you to my parents, who dared to name me, Karanja (guide) Keita
(worshipper), so that their child might give back what was given to him in so many ways.
I must also acknowledge my only living grandmother, Lucy Braxton Harris whose
long journey is a testament to the will and the power o f the Creator. As living
encouragement to all o f her grandchildren, grandnieces, grandnephews and extended
family, may she be proud and smile upon this project while she is still physically here
with us. I must also thank my brother Oronde Kibwe Carroll for his support and
understanding, through these years of our existence.
The past and present members o f New Hope Baptist Church in Hackensack, NJ
have been instrumental in shaping me and thus this project. Many thank yous must go to
previous ministers, pastors, deacons, deaconesses, Sunday school teachers and so on, who
contributed tireless energy in working with young Afrikan boys and girls. I am
especially appreciative o f Scoutmaster William Dungey and Reverend Craig Dunn, both
who functioned at different points in my life as fathers and mentors, instilling in me
perseverance, critical thinking skills and the ability to question.
To Montclair State University, especially Sandra Collins, Leslie Wilson, Sharon
Lewis and Roz Anderson, each o f you have played pivotal roles in my development from
a young man into an adult. To Sandra Collins, thank you for your commitment to seeing
that young Afrikan men and women are challenged to their potential no matter how
uncomfortable and painful it may be. To Leslie Wilson, as an intellectual father you have
always been one to go to on any occasion. I thank you for our Sunday morning
discussions and I especially appreciate your guidance on my questions that functioned as
stumbling blocks along the way to finishing this intellectual work. To Sharon Lewis, as
an intellectual mother you have continuously challenged me to take my analysis above
and beyond where it can go. I thank you, and Brian Lewis, for having open hearts, minds
and spirits for me while I have been on this road. And to Roz Anderson, words could not
say how much I appreciate your kindness, trustworthiness and the willingness that you
showed to me during my tenure in the Registrars Office. Montclair State University, its
Afrikan faculty and staff hold a special place in my heart and it was this intellectual
environment that has shaped the early thoughts which have matured within this
intellectual work.
To my Dissertation Committee, I am eternally grateful for your assistance and
encouragement in the completion o f this intellectual project. To Nathaniel Norment, Jr.,
one o f few who is truly committed to the future advancement o f Africana Studies, I thank
you for always asking that relevant question: “How does this advance the discipline?”. I
have taken on this question and continue to ask myself and my colleagues this, as we
continue to produce our intellectual work. To Teshale Tibebu, you were the first to
encourage me in this project and I thank you for having faith in my abilities. I only hope
that I too can encourage and stimulate this type o f project in my future students. To Abu
Shardow Abarry, I appreciate your willingness to begin the stimulation o f these initial
vi
ideas in your African Philosophy course, back in Spring 2000. Since then, you have seen
a project go through many forms and I am thankful that you have been there as it has
reached this version. Finally, Greg Kimathi Carr, words can not express the gratitude
that I have towards you, your work and your commitment to Afrikan people. You have
been there to support, critique and give guidance all along the way with this project.
Being a model, in more ways than one, I appreciate your willingness to extend yourself
and your creative genius to those who attempt to follow in your path.
Vernon Dixon and Daudi Ajani ya Azibo, have played influential roles in
contributing to the conceptualization o f many areas o f this project. I am thankful to
Vernon Dixon for providing numerous phone conversations and emails about his original
discussion o f the worldview framework and research methodology. Daudi Ajani ya
Azibo, from my initial reading o f “Articulating the distinction...” you have functioned as
a spiritual mentor in much o f my intellectual and pedagogical work. I thank you for
having the courage and forthrightness o f staying true to an intellectual tradition which
you are now able to pass on to another generation.
Temple University’s Department o f Afrikan American Studies, with its long
history is the only place that a project o f this propensity could have been created. And
for this reason and many more, I will be eternally grateful for the space and place that this
department holds for me and those who are truly committed to the advancement of
Africana Studies and Africana people. To all the faculty and staff, I can only say thank
you for all the life lessons you have provided me.
However, this institution and department would not be what it is without those
who have dared to complete undergraduate and graduate work in Africana Studies. O f
vii
all, I am most especially thankful for the relationship, mentorship and bonding that has
developed between me and Sekhmet Em Khet Maat (Cher Love McCallister). Sekhmet,
we have grown together and worked tirelessly to complete these projects. Whether
overnights at UPENN’s library or on Springfield Avenue, I will always appreciate and
love you, no matter the circumstances.
To Kaila Adia Story and Yaba Amgborale Blay, who have adopted me along with
all o f my criticism. May you both contribute intellectual work which will continue to
advance Africana Studies and Africana people. I must also acknowledge Eric Edi, Serie
McDougal, Shahn Smith, Weckea Lilly, Osizwe Eyi di yiyi, Ibram Rogers and the many
other colleagues from Temple’s Department o f Afrikan American Studies, I pray that
your work is a testament to the best o f what we, the next generation o f Africana Studies
scholars, can do.
It has also been through Temple University and the Department o f Afrikan
American Studies that I was introduced to my life partner. Truthfully, without you this
project could not have been completed, whether it was making copies, dropping drafts to
committee members, editing, critiquing, questioning, giving feedback or just telling me to
take a break. I am grateful for your loving and caring heart. I look forward to a long life
of productive work which we can produce together, as a reality o f noncontradiction
between work and love. I see the greatness in you, and those who look with patience are
able to see it also. I will always love and appreciate you, Danielle Melissa Wallace.
Thank you also to my new academic family at the State University o f New York
at New Paltz, Margaret Wade-Lewis, A. J. Williams-Myers and Zelbert Moore. I
appreciate your willingness to provide me with an opportunity to share my intellectual
viii
and pedagogical work with the Department o f Black Studies and its students. This
department is just another example o f the power and strength o f Africana Studies. I am
also thankful to all o f my students at the various institutions that I have taught at while
completing this project, these include: Temple University, Montclair State University,
Borough o f Manhattan Community College and SUNY New Paltz.
Finally, this project must be dedicated to the intellectual-activists who have made
a path for those of my generation and future generations, through sacrifice and courage.
I am eternally grateful for the founding mothers and fathers o f Africana Studies, who are
still physically with us. And also those who have left this physical plane, including:
Cheikh Anta Diop, John Henrik Clarke, Jacob Caruthers, HalimaDhuhuty Hoover,
Alexander Crummel, Edward Wilmot Blyden, Drusilla Dunjee Houston, C. Tsehloane
Keto, Carter Goodwin Woodson, Toni Cade Bambara, Bobby Wright and Claudia Jones,
may this work be a testament to your existence and the future o f Afrikan people.
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A BSTRA CT................................................................................................................................. iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND DEDICATION.................................................................. v
LIST OF FIGU RES................................................................................................................ xiii
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION
I. Introduction...................................................................................................................... 1
II. The Historical and Intellectual Developmento f Africana Studies............................ 2
III. Philosophical, Conceptual and Ideological Context o f Africana Studies.............. 10
IV. Africana Studies: A Current Interpretation.............................................................. 14
V. Problem Statement.........................................................................................................18
VI. Research Questions........................................................................................................19
VII. Contribution to Africana Studies................................................................................ 20
VIII. Importance o f T o p ic ..................................................................................................... 22
IX. Limitations o f Study..................................................................................................... 22
X. Definition o f T erm s...................................................................................................... 23
XI. Conclusion......................................................................................................................25
2. REVIEW OF RELEVANT AND RELATED LITERATURE

I. Introduction................................................................................................................... 31
II. The Two Cradle Theory in the Work o f Cheikh Anta D iop....................................38
III. A Critique o f Diop’s Two Cradle Theory.................................................................. 66
IV. Reconstructing and Rearticulating Cheikh Anta Diop’s Two Cradle Theory 69
V. Conclusion......................................................................................................................72
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
I. Introduction................................................................................................................... 79
II. Worldview and M ethodology...................................................................................... 81
a. Axiology, Epistemology and L o g ic................................................................. 82
b. Cosmology, Teleology and Ideology.............................................................. 87
III. Wade Nobles and Mack Jones on Frames o f Reference and Normative
Assumptions: Implications for Africana Studies...................................................... 92
IV. Daudi Ajani ya Azibo and the Afrikan Worldview in Africana Studies............... 94
V. Implications for this Research Project........................................................................ 97
VI. Research M ethods..........................................................................................................99
4. A GENEALOGY OF DIOP’S TWO CRADLE T H E O R Y AFRICANA

ACADEMIC DISCOURSE
I. Introduction..................................................................................................................107
II. Cheikh Anta Diop and the English-Speaking Afrikan W orld............................... 112
III. The 1970s Response ...................................................................................................118
IV. The 1980s Response....................................................................................................138
V. The 1990s Response and Present Scholarship......................................................... 164
VI. An Attempt at Synthesis............................................................................................. 189
VII. Conclusion....................................................................................................................194
5. THE TWO CRADLE T H E O R Y m AFRICANA STUDIES: THEORETICAL

IMPLICATIONS
I. Introduction............................... 208
II. Africana Studies: Definition, Conceptualization and the Role of
Multi-Area T heories.................................................................................................... 209
III. Diop’s Two Cradle Theory in Africana Studies..................................................... 224
a. Africana H istory..............................................................................................226
b. Africana Philosophy....................................................................................... 231
c. Africana Psychology.......................................................................................234
IV. Conclusion....................................................................................................................241
6. CONCLUSION
I. Theory and Concept Development in Africana Studiesvia Cheikh Anta
Diop’s Two Cradle Theory......................................................................................... 248
II. Contributions to Africana Studies............................................................................ 254
xi
III. Limitations................................................................................................................... 257
IV . Recommendations...................................................................................................... 259
V. Conclusion................................................................................................................... 260
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................... 262
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Diop’s Two Cradle Theory....................................................................................... 71
Figure 2. Genealogy o f Writings in Africana Discourse on the

Two Cradle Theory..........................................................................................................190
xiii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Our students are caught between the philosophy o f liberation and the
methodology o f oppression. Let us resolve the contradiction and put our program
together.1
I. Introduction
Any scholar and/or student o f Africana (Afrikan American/Afro-American/
Black/Pan-Afrikan) Studies, is quite aware o f the problems currently facing the
discipline. Whether we discuss confusion regarding the definition, function and purpose
o f Africana Studies, or the under funding o f many programs and departments in the
discipline, all would agree that Africana Studies clearly faces a number o f dilemmas.
While the previously mentioned areas are extremely important to the future o f Africana
Studies, it is theory and theory production within Africana Studies that is the topic o f this
dissertation.
This dissertation examines the state o f theory and theory production within
Africana Studies. In attempts to create, develop and use theories within Africana Studies
which further substantiate Afrikan reality, this dissertation will discuss, analyze and
utilize Cheikh Anta Diop’s Two Cradle Theory in relation to the discipline o f Africana
Studies, with the goal o f articulating the Two Cradle Theory and showing how scholars
within the field have used and/or can use this theory in order to substantiate the culturally
specific phenomena we investigate. This dissertation also argues that Diop’s Two Cradle
Theory can be used within Africana Studies on a variety o f levels, especially
corresponding to the various theory types used within the discipline.
It is at the level o f theory and theory production that Africana Studies can fulfill
the demands made by students, activists, workers, parents and faculty, made almost 40
years ago. Through our creation and utilization o f theories which reflect an Afrikan
reality, we will produce knowledge that is culturally accurate and relevant, therefore
providing the intellectual tools to interpret, understand and change the current conditions
o f Africana people.
The current state o f theory and theory production in Africana Studies is clearly
connected to the historical development o f the discipline, and in order to understand the
problems facing theory in Africana Studies, it is necessary to understand the discipline’s
history. Therefore, we must first review the historical and intellectual development of
Africana Studies.
II. The Historical and Intellectual Development of Africana Studies
Discussion o f the historical development o f Africana Studies is set between a
number o f camps. Some argue that Africana Studies began in the 1960s, most notably
Karenga.2 Others argue that the origins o f Africana Studies reaches back into the early
1900s.3 Still another group argues that the intellectual origins o f Africana Studies should
be clearly grounded within Ancient Afrika, more specifically Kemit.4 While each camp
holds some level o f validity, it is the opinion o f this author that the Afrikan-centered
nature o f the discipline requires the origins o f Africana Studies be grounded clearly
within an ancient Afrikan origin.
Azibo is in agreement with this position, and in order to create a holistic
intellectual history o f Africana Studies, he argues that any discussion o f Africana Studies
prior to the 1960s, should not be understood as a “pre-disciplinary aspect” as articulated
by Karenga.5 Rather we should refer to all manifestations of Africana Studies prior to the
1960s as “historical markers”.6 Therefore, beginning in our most ancient Afrikan past, we
find the historical marker o f Ancient Egypt.
Hilliard has outlined the major components o f Kemetic education and these are
clearly connected to similar tenets found within Africana Studies today.8 Furthermore,
the fundamental role of self-knowledge in Kemetic education has also been connected
with the purpose and function of current manifestations of Africana Studies.9 Finally, the
institution of Per Ankh, within Ancient Kemetic society functioned similarly as Africana
Studies does today, as a place for the transmission o f cultural values and history.10 As
Donadonia argues, the instructors and priest affiliated with Per Ankh, “were responsible
for preserving and transmitting the cultural heritage entrusted to them in the temple
libraries...”.11 The theme o f preserving and transmitting one’s cultural heritage is clearly
connected to the current manifestation o f Africana Studies in the African diaspora.
Still, within the West African intellectual tradition similar remnants o f historical
markers o f Africana Studies can be found. The intellectual institutions which were in
Timbuktu, Gao and among the Dogon, all functioned as places o f higher education, in
which knowledge was used to transmit culture, history and values.12
From the previous points, it is obvious that the continental Afrikan foundations of
Africana Studies are essential in our arguments for an Afrikan-centered interpretation o f
Africana Studies.13 Though work still needs to be produced to clearly validate this
portion o f the intellectual history o f the discipline, the works previously mentioned
suggest our energy is being put in the right direction. Thus education within Ancient and
pre-Maafan Afrika are essential components in creating an Afrikan-centered intellectual
history o f Africana Studies.
However, Maulana Karenga’s position, o f a 1960s origin o f Africana Studies,
holds weight among many in the discipline. Karenga’s Introduction to Black Studies is
one of the most widely used textbooks in Africana Studies today.14 Having gone through
three editions15, this text purports to hold the “pre-eminent position among introductory
texts in the discipline” and thus represents a consistent contribution to the “ongoing
discussions around the foundation, parameters, content and academic, cultural and social
mission o f the discipline”.16 With this historical mandate, Karenga has contributed a
mainstay within the discipline o f Africana Studies.
A cursory analysis o f all three editions, however, does not lead to a clearly
articulated, nor highly developed intellectual history of the discipline. Karenga’s
discussion o f the intellectual development o f Africana Studies does not reflect any
consistency, and as a widely used text within the discipline, this is rather troubling. The
one area Karenga is rather consistent though, revolves around the necessity o f a 1960s
origin o f Africana Studies. Thus, Karenga advances that “the discipline o f Black Studies
is rooted in the social visions and struggles o f the 60’s which aimed at Black power,
liberation and a higher level o f human life and thus from its inception, it has had both an
17
academic and social thrust and mission”. It is this position, which Karenga has
consistently argued regarding the intellectual development o f Africana Studies. And, it is
this same position that has brought about a serious number of critiques.
In order to stymie criticism o f weaknesses outlined by Stewart and others18,
regarding the shortsighted and limited nature o f a concrete 1960s origin o f Africana
Studies Karenga states,
Fixing the starting point o f the discipline firmly in the Sixties does not deny the
pre-discipline intellectual history which laid fundamental ground for its
emergence in the 60’s. On the contrary, this pre-60’s history represents both a
rich resource o f data on which to build and reflects a continuity and longevity of
Black intellectual history central to both the discipline’s self-conception and its
mission.19
As previously mentioned Azibo has critiqued the notion of “pre-discipline” stating that
“the notions o f Black Studies beginning formally in the 1960s and having a ‘pre
discipline’ aspect should be reconceptualized as historical markers in the history o f Black
Studies, which as just contended is a longstanding one”.20 Therefore, Azibo suggests that
the history of Africana Studies is much longer than the 1960s and/or even the experiences
of Afrikans in America.
In an attempt to respond to such critiques, Karenga within the third edition o f his
text states, “Some scholars, talking o f Black Studies in the general sense, argue that
Black Studies began in ancient societies like ancient Egypt, Mali and Songhay which
clearly establishes an intellectual tradition o f study o f themselves and the world in which
91
they lived”. However, Karenga continues to stay grounded in the 1960s conception of
Africana Studies and maintains that, “if we speak o f Black Studies as a self-defined
organized discipline in the university, then we must place its origin in the 1960’s”.22
Karenga then attempts to discuss a possible pre-discipline history o f Africana
Studies housed in what he refers to as the “Activist-Intellectual Tradition”.23 Relying
upon examples from Kemet to the Yoruba, Karenga provides symbolic connective tissue
to advance his argument. However, in all actuality limited evidence is used to support
the existence and/or connection o f this tradition as pre-disciplinary to Africana Studies of
the 1960s.
We can then suggest, therefore, that the primary text which purports to engage the
“foundations” o f the discipline relies upon a limited interpretation o f scope which others
have thoroughly critiqued. While the addition and acknowledgment o f ancient Afrikan
contributions is essential, the holes which are still present reflect clear weaknesses for
future generations of Africana Studies scholars who are seriously concerned with the
intellectual history o f the discipline. Furthermore, by not specifically connecting key
concepts and components o f this pre-discipline tradition, Karenga’s inclusion o f this
portion seems only to be a quick-fix response to certain critics.
As for scholars who argue from a pre-1960s origin o f Africana Studies, the link
between the ancient Afrikan foundations o f Africana Studies and its 1960s manifestations
can be found in the forceful movement o f Afrikan people from the West coast o f Afrika
to the “New World.” Thus, with the onslaught o f the Maafa24, Afrikans were forcefully
brought to the “New World.” It should be no surprise that these Afrikans brought with
them notions o f knowledge, education and wisdom, which were used throughout the
Afrikan diaspora. Enslaved Afrikans created a variety o f informal institutions which
functioned as a way to transmit knowledge, education and wisdom, but most importantly,
they would transmit culture and values. Unlike Crouchett who attributes the earliest
formations o f Africana Studies in North America to the Quakers26, it was enslaved
Afrikans who took it upon themselves through the hush harbors, church schools and any
other informal gathering to understand who they were and transmit this information to
future generations. These thus provided yet another point of origin for Africana Studies
among people o f Afrikan descent in America.
Turner, in support of a pre-1960s origin o f Africana Studies, is correct when he
states, “Though it is true that the field o f Black Studies is very new in its present
development, its legacy extends to the earliest beginnings o f Black intellectual history
over two centuries ago”.27 Following enslavement, community-organized and
academically based branches o f Africana Studies began to rise. Institutions such as the
American Negro Historical Society and American Negro Academy, functioned as places
where Afrikan scholars and intellectuals took it upon themselves to engage the problems
that Afrikan people in the Americas were facing.
Norment has provided the discipline with a post-1900s development o f Africana
Studies. Between 1900 and 1930, Afrikan intellectuals in America were concerned
with the image and role newly freed Afrikans would play in this society. W. E. B.
Dubois, Carter G. Woodson, Arthur Schomburg and others would play fundamental roles
in shaping intellectual discussions o f Afrikan people in America.29 A good portion of
this work was community located given the lack o f attention for the conditions of
Africana people within American higher education. However, between 1930 and 1955
Black and white college campuses within the United States would began to see courses
which dealt specifically with the experiences and conditions o f Afrikan people in
America and on the continent o f Afrika, itself.30 As early as 1934, Thomas Dabney
began to outline the role that the study o f Africana people was playing within educational
institutions.31
After the second European World War (commonly and mistakenly referred to as
World War II), U.S. society began to see dramatic social, political and economic changes.
At the forefront o f these changes was the state and condition o f Afrikan people in the
United States. A number o f factors were at the origin o f these changes. First, the image
o f the United States as a country representing freedom, democracy and equality for all
was clearly a contradiction given the state o f Afrikan people since the end of
•3^
Reconstruction and the Tilden-Hayes Compromise. Second, Afrikan American
members of the American military forces received harsh welcomes after fighting for the
so-called principles o f freedom and democracy, thus stimulating them to change previous
-3-3
approaches to racial equality. Finally, the current historical and political position o f the
United States made it necessary that the socio-political infrastructure begin to deal with
issues o f racism, which had been left untouched for over 50 years.34
All of the previously mentioned conditions culminated in the Civil Rights and
Black Power Movements, collectively understood as the Black Freedom Movement. It
was particularly the Black Power Movement that engendered what we now refer to as
Africana Studies. As Norment argues,
In its contemporary ‘institutionalized’ form, the call for Black Studies arose out of
the particular sense o f discontent and dismay that the majority o f first generation
Black students on predominately white college/university campuses felt both in
and out o f the classroom. Their frustration, combined with the increased socio
political awareness taking place within the Black community in the form o f Black
Power and Black Consciousness movements, galvanized Black Students, who
began demanding more inclusive, and sometimes separate courses, curricula, and
programs representing the totality o f African American history and culture, along
with the hiring o f Black faculty and mentors, and that universities open their
facilities and provide institutional resources to/for the Black community. 5
These actions and demands first established Black Studies at San Francisco State College
in 1968.36
Therefore, Africana Studies from its most recent inception can be understood as
an outgrowth of the 1960’s Black Power Movement, a time when people o f Afrikan
descent made yet another conscious attempt at controlling their lives, communities and
futures. This understanding o f Africana Studies is grounded in the cultural, educational
and liberatory call made by students and educators who were attempting to make
affective change for future generations o f people o f Afrikan descent.
The demand for Africana Studies took place, not only at San Francisco State
College, but also at Cornell University, City College o f New York, Howard University,
Yale University and a host o f other college campuses throughout the United States.37 But
it was the demands o f the students at San Francisco State College which began this
process and their demands require our current attention.
San Francisco State College’s Black Student Union listed ten demands in their
process o f calling for a Black Studies department.38 O f these demands, the first three are
extremely important for a complete understanding o f the intellectual and historical
development o f Africana Studies.
The first demand argued for a consolidation o f all courses dealing with the Black
experience, in an autonomous Black Studies department. Stated rather clearly,
At the present time, the so called black studies courses are being taught from the
established departments which also control the function o f the courses. We, the
Black students at San Francisco State College, feel that it is detrimental to us as
Black human beings to be controlled by racists, who have absolute power over
determining what we should learn.39
The call for an autonomous department o f Black Studies was extremely important as
these students recognized the role university politics plays in the control, function and
ultimate future of knowledge and knowledge production within western academia.
The second demand revolved around recognition and compensation o f the
administrative and academic role Dr. Nathan Hare played in establishing, coordinating
and administering the Black Studies department at San Francisco State College. Given
the academic accomplishments o f Dr. Hare, the students argued that, “he is responsible
for coordinating and administering the department [of Black Studies], which has 33
courses scattered throughout various ‘sympathetic’ schools and departments on campus.
Therefore it is immediately incumbent to pay Dr. Hare for his work and his
qualifications”.40
Finally, given the consolidation o f all courses dealing with Africana people on
San Francisco State College’s campus and the compensation (financial and intellectual)
of Dr. Hare, it was necessary that the Black Studies department grant a Bachelors degree
and “the Black Studies department, chairman, faculty and staff have the sole power to
hire faculty and control and determine the destiny o f its department”.41
The first three o f the ten demands by the Black Student Union o f San Francisco
State College surmise the argument for Africana Studies on many college campuses.
There was a demand for autonomous academic departments which focused specifically
on Africana people, these departments would be run by faculty and staff who had the
interest o f the subject matter and field at heart, and finally, the chairperson, faculty and
staff would have complete control over the future o f these academic departments. And so
it went, on many college campuses Africana Studies programs and departments were
bom, based upon these similar concerns and demands.
III. Philosophical, Conceptual and Ideological Context of Africana Studies
While demands were being made by students, there were other conversations taking
place among faculty and staff. These dialogues revolved around the content, philosophy
10
and intellectual infrastructure o f Africana Studies. Since Nathan Hare was the first
official chair o f an Africana Studies department, his rational and conceptualization of
Africana Studies should weigh heavily upon current understandings o f Africana
Studies.42 Hare’s “Questions and Answers about Black Studies,” outlines his
understanding o f Africana Studies. Stating that, “A Black Studies Program may be
divided into two phases - the expressive and the pragmatic”.43 The expressive phase
seeks “to build in black youth a sense o f pride o[f] self, of collective unity, a sense o f
pastness as a springboard in the quest for a new and better future”.44 Therefore, the
expressive phase of Hare’s Black Studies program focused upon establishing and
substantiating a cultural and historical foundation for Africana students. On the other
hand, “[t]he pragmatic phase operates specifically to prepare black students to deal with
their society. The student’s ultimate use o f his pragmatic skills can be directed toward
overcoming (or, if need be, over-throwing) his handicaps in dealing with his society”.45
Thus, the pragmatic phase functions to create students who are concerned with reshaping
and restructuring society, in the interest o f Africana people.
Hare also discusses the possible content o f a Black Studies program46, the
relationship between Black Studies and the Black community47, the academic
soundness48, student body49, faculty50 and control o f Black Studies programs.51 All in
all, Hare attempts to hammer out the bare essentials o f his understanding o f a Black
Studies department.
Hare was very clear about grounding his understanding o f Black Studies within the
ideology of revolutionary nationalism. This should be understood in contradistinction to
Karenga, Asante and others52, who consistently suggest that the origins o f Africana
11
Studies are reflective o f a cultural nationalist ideology. Hare argues that, “black studies
is based ideally on the ideology o f revolutionary nationalism; it is not based on any form
of racism, black or white, though it is dedicated, o f course, to the destruction o f white

c-i
racism” . Further he states,
Black studies is nationalistic, not separatist. All separatists in a sense are

nationalist but not all nationalists are separatists. Separatism or cultural
nationalism may be a first stage o f revolutionary nationalism, but it tends too
often to be preoccupied with molding a cultural nexus and is therefore likely to
get bogged down in that effort. Revolutionary nationalism by contrast seeks to
transfer power, at least a portion thereof, to an oppressed group... 54
Hare further argued that given the importance o f this ideology it would be necessary for
faculty and staff to be in agreement, especially as it impacts pedagogy and departmental
philosophy.55
While the call and rationale for Africana Studies by Hare and others seemed to
represent a radical departure from modem academia, there were those who disagreed
with this assumption. Robert Allen argued that, “the demand for Black Studies was
therefore in essence democratic and even integrationist, although it took a form that was
superficially separatist”.56 Further adding,
...the establishment o f separate Black Studies departments the student activists and
their adult supporters were in effect calling for group or collective integration into
higher education rather than token integration o f a few selected black individuals.
This was certainly a militant demand but not revolutionary, since at its core it
simply called for a widening o f American democracy not the institution of a totally
new educational or social order.57
Thus, we have the origins of the initial ideological and philosophical contradiction found
within Africana Studies. The fact that our entrance into higher education came with a
fagade o f radical and critical thought, in actuality we just became a part o f the normal
academic order.58 This reality has clearly affected the current state o f Africana Studies,
12
and specific to this project, the nature o f theory and theory production within Africana
Studies.
As programs and departments in Africana Studies began to develop, the
discussions around the nature o f the field developed as well. For instance, Yale
University in 1968 held a symposium on Afro-American Studies. Robinson rationalized
the relevance o f this symposium by seeing it, “as an opportunity to create an atmosphere
in which those persons who were in pivotal positions in a number o f educational
institutions could engage in active and open intellectual exchanges on questions related to
Afro-American studies”.59 Crucial to this symposium was the assessment o f Harold
Cruse, who argued that the most pressing problem facing Black Studies was the lack o f a
“viable black philosophy on which to base much-needed black studies programs.”60
Cruse’s critical point clearly speaks to the philosophical, conceptual and ideological
quandary Africana Studies found itself. How would it be possible to claim disciplinarity,
but at the same time not have any type o f philosophical or conceptual basis upon which
this academic discipline was grounded? That Cruse points to this as a serious problem
within the field, suggests that some people were seriously questioning the future validity
of the field, based solely upon the confused context in which Africana Studies became
institutionalized.
Thus, we arrive at a fundamental problem within the intellectual infrastructure of
Africana Studies. At one level, Africana Studies was able to have autonomous
departments, with faculty and staff who have the interest o f Africana people at heart;
however, the intellectual and philosophical foundations o f the field were still up for
question. Given this state o f philosophical void found within Africana Studies,
13
contributors to Africana Studies still continued to produce research and empirical data
that was relevant to Africana Studies, but since the entire faculty was trained in
traditional disciplines, they were not providing theory, research, or data that was germane
to Africana Studies as a separate and distinct discipline.61
Therefore, from 1968 until the mid-1990s the majority faculty and researchers
within Africana Studies were trained within traditional academic disciplines, making
Africana Studies a blackenized/colored version o f traditional disciplines. This was
suggested as early as 1972, by Egambi F. K. Dalizu who questioned the role o f Africana
Studies within higher education. By drawing connections between the relationship
between a colony and the mother country, Dalizu argued that Africana Studies would
only be able to mimic the given structure o f higher education, thus nullify much o f its
revolutionary potential.62 From the historical development o f Africana Studies, it is
evident that the position o f Africana Studies in western institutions o f higher education
has impacted theory production, so that in most cases discussions o f theory and theory
production are only a reflection o f rehashed western social scientific theory and
philosophy.
IV. Africana Studies: A Current Interpretation
Following the establishment o f the first Ph. D. program in Afrikan American
Studies at Temple University, strides were taken to rectify some o f the previously
mentioned problems, especially regarding the intellectual and philosophical infrastructure
o f Africana Studies. Through Molefi Kete Asante and the work o f others around
“Afrocentricity,” the “Temple School” has received much attention with Africana Studies
14
circles and beyond. However, in too many cases the arguments representative o f the
“Temple School” are questionable as clear advancements within Africana Studies. Van
Horne is correct to argue that the advancing o f Africana Studies (Africology) and
Afrocentricity are two different concerns.63 Perry Hall also stresses the point that it is
incorrect and disloyal to the discipline for one to make a one to one correlation between
Afrocentricity and Africana Studies.64 Furthermore, while advances have been made
under the guise of Afrocentricity, it is questionable as to what extent these advances have
furthered the intentions o f the original architects o f Africana Studies.65 Given the
somewhat questionable role which the Temple School has played in advancing Africana
Studies, the current interpretation o f the discipline which follows, is reflective o f both the
original intent o f those who institutionalized Africana Studies and the importance of
utilizing an Afrikan-centered and culturally relevant position in the interpretation and
understanding o f Afrikan people, experiences and history. While the former attempts to
be consistent with the intellectual history o f Black Studies, the latter speaks specifically
to the advancements made by Afrikan-centered scholarships, many o f which are
connected to or an outgrowth of the Temple School.
Currently there are many definitions o f Africana Studies used throughout the
discipline. Most scholars would argue that any definition of Africana Studies must rely
upon at least three key components.66 These include: subject matter, perspective and
goal (function/purpose). The following definition follows in the same manner as
previous definitions found throughout the discipline. Therefore, Africana Studies can be
defined as the critical analysis o f the Africana experience, people and culture, through the
usage o f the Afrikan worldview, with the ultimate goal o f changing the life chances of
15
Afrikan descended peoples.
The subject matter o f the discipline is Africana culture. The term “Africana”
refers to the global population of Afrikan people, whether on the continent or in the
diaspora.67 Culture, defined by Wade Nobles, refers to “a general design for living and
patterns for interpreting reality”.68 In this instance, Africana culture refers to the beliefs,
values and morals o f Africana people, along with their outward expression. Many
scholars within the field differentiate these components of culture through the usage of
the concepts: deep structure and surface structure.69
The perspective according to this understanding o f Africana Studies is grounded
in the notion of the Afrikan worldview. Generally speaking, “A worldview refers to the
way in which a people make sense o f their surroundings; make sense o f life and o f the
70
universe”. Mack Jones adds clarity to this definition by stating that “Every people
have a worldview that is a product o f [their] lived experience and that constitutes the lens
71
through which the world o f sense perceptions is reduced to described fact”. Azibo,
relying upon the arguments o f Jacob Carruthers, has argued that the Afrikan worldview
is, “the universal and timeless worldview characteristic of African people throughout
space and time”.72 Summarily, “The African worldview is characterized by Unity,
Harmony, spirituality and organic interrelationship”.73
Functioning as a perspective within Africana Studies, the Afrikan worldview
refers to a universal orientation and interpretive reference point that Afrikan people share.
This should not suggest a static means o f interpretation across the Afrikan world,
however it does suggest that there are common interpretive processes that Afrikans utilize
in their attempts at understanding a given phenomenon. Gyekye, clarifies this point when
16
speaking in reference to continental Afrikan cultural unity (and we might add to Afrikan
world cultural unity), “A painstakingly comparative study of African cultures leaves one
in no doubt that despite the undoubted cultural diversity arising from Africa’s ethnic
pluralism, threads of underlying affinity do run through the beliefs, customs, value
systems, and sociopolitical institutions and practices o f the various African societies”.74
Thus, the Afrikan worldview functions as a unifying interpretative reference point for
Afrikan peoples and therefore functions as a common philosophical component o f the
discipline o f Africana Studies, giving it a common philosophical framework.
Finally the third key concept, goal (function and purpose) o f Africana Studies, is
grounded in changing the life chances o f Africana people. This is done through the
processes o f knowledge production, transforming consciousness and motivated action.
Knowledge production functions as a means o f changing Africana people’s life chances
by providing useful information that can be used to transform how they see themselves,
the world and their particular place within it. The transformation o f one’s consciousness
is the first step in creating culturally responsible members o f the Africana community,
who will then make contributions to their community. The first two processes
contributed to the final process o f motivated action, whereby students are able to be
productive contributors to the larger society.
As Africana Studies continues to develop as a culturally relevant and specific
discipline it is in the realm o f theory, theory development, theory utilization and
application which requires our current attention. It is necessary that proper and
applicable theories be created which can help in the substantiation o f the mission o f the
discipline. Thus work which attempts to create new theories or reorient a particular
17
theory in relation to Africana Studies, requires our current attention. It is the latter which
this present work attempts to do. By utilizing Diop’s Two Cradle Theory, this
dissertation shall attempt to show how it can and has been used, along with its usefulness
and functionality within the discipline o f Africana Studies.
V. Problem Statement
This dissertation is concerned with the topics o f theory and theory production
within Africana Studies. The role o f theory within any academic discipline is o f great
importance to its sustainability and functionality as an intellectual endeavor that attempts
to make sense out of a given phenomenon. With the creation o f new academic
disciplines in the post-1960s, theories have been created to substantiate their general
nature. Africana Studies as a product o f this climate must also be concerned with the
creation and articulation o f discipline-specific theories that help to explain phenomenon
specific to the discipline. While new ways o f explaining can possibly be created, the
large intellectual landscape of Africana Studies provides one with a repository o f ideas
<7c
that were knowingly or unknowingly created as theories. This is the case with Cheikh
Anta Diop’s Two-Cradle Theory, which was developed throughout all o f his major
works, but was firmly articulated in The Cultural Unity o f Black Africa. As a starting
point for substantiating the cultural differences o f Afrikans, Europeans and Asians, the
Two-Cradle Theory has been and can still be used in a variety o f bodies o f knowledge
within Africana Studies to orient and substantiate the claims o f these fields. Whether in
Africana Psychology, Africana History or Africana Philosophy, the importance of
cultural difference can be articulated with the usage o f arguments connected to or
18
grounded in Diop’s Two Cradle Theory. While many people utilize the arguments of
Diop, few have attempted to do a holistic analysis o f his argument and connect this
analysis to the discipline o f Africana Studies. This dissertation attempts to critically
assess Diop’s Two Cradle Theory and determine its usability as a theory which can be
utilized within the interdisciplinary structure o f Africana Studies.
Therefore, there are a number o f problems which this dissertation attempts to
engage. Firstly, this author recognizes that theories within Africana Studies have been
created. For instance, as Philip T.K. Daniel correctly asserts all too many times what
passes for theory production in Africana Studies is a water-down version o f a theory
produced within a traditional discipline.77 Therefore, it is not that theories within
Africana Studies are not created, it is rather that their origin, usage and application within
the discipline, many times is contradictory to their intended purpose o f Africana Studies.
Secondly, the ideological, intellectual and philosophical confusion from which Africana
Studies has developed has not lead to the creation o f discipline-specific theories, thus
creating stagnation in the area o f theory production within Africana Studies. Finally, if
we acknowledge that theory production is lacking within the discipline, and understand
that theories substantiate disciplines, what does this say for the discipline o f Africana
Studies? The three problems that have just been laid out, now provide the context for the
purpose, intent, scope and rational for this current project.
VI. Research Questions
There are four general questions which guide this dissertation. They include:
1. What is Diop’s Two Cradle Theory?
19
2. By what means has the Two Cradle Theory moved into Africana Studies?
3. How has the Two Cradle Theory been used within Africana Studies?
4. How does the Two Cradle Theory contribute to discussions o f theory in Africana
Studies?
VII. Contribution to Africana Studies
This dissertation intends to contribute to the discipline o f Africana Studies in at
least four specific areas. First is the specific contribution via theory and theory
production in Africana Studies. As this dissertation argues there is inadequate dialogue
within the Africana Studies community regarding theory and theory production.
Therefore, by engaging Cheikh Anta Diop’s Two Cradle Theory this dissertation intends
to stimulate dialogue on theory and theory production within Africana Studies through a
review o f the intellectual history o f this theory within written Africana academic
discourse.
The second contribution flows directly out o f the first, in that it is necessary for
scholars within Africana Studies to be concerned with the intellectual structure, content
and development of the discipline. A cursory glance o f dissertations that have been
produced within Africana Studies is reflective o f this necessity. This dissertation speaks
directly to this problem by its direct focus on engaging the very structural foundation of
Africana Studies, ie. the areas which constitute knowledge and knowledge production.
Another important contribution o f this study to Africana Studies is the attempt at
outlining the trajectory which one theory has taken in becoming an important
contribution to the intellectual infrastructure o f Africana Studies. In doing so, this
20
dissertation outlines the manner in which Diop’s Two Cradle Theory was initially
introduced to a group o f scholars who would have a large impact upon the structure of
knowledge in Africana History, Africana Philosophy and Africana Psychology. While
these scholars were not all within Africana Studies, per se, they would be relied upon by
other scholars as they attempted to create concepts and assumptions which have found
their way into Africana Studies. This component o f the intellectual history o f Africana
Studies, further validates the longevity of the discipline and can function as a template for
similar studies on the transmission o f certain theories, concepts and/or assumptions
within an academic discipline. This also builds upon the position o f Gerald McWhorter
and Ronald Bailey who posit that Black intellectual history is a rich source for theory
78
building within Africana Studies.
The final contribution o f this research project is the mere fact that by explicitly
including the scholarship o f Cheikh Anta Diop within the intellectual infrastructure o f
Africana Studies, this dissertation is in fact widening the purvey o f possible contributors
to the discipline. While many scholars within Africana Studies discuss the work o f Diop,
this project intends to place him within the very intellectual history o f the discipline,
along side the likes o f W.E.B. Dubois, Anna Julia Cooper, etc. Furthermore, by
including Diop within the intellectual history o f Africana Studies, this dissertation also
substantiates the Pan-Afrikan focus o f the discipline by not limiting intellectual
contributors only to Afrikans bom in America. This dissertation intends to engender in
the next generation o f Africana Studies scholars the necessity o f developing a complete
intellectual history stemming from Ancient Afrika, throughout the continent and into all
areas of the Afrikan diaspora, in order to clearly substantiate the intellectual development
21
of Africana Studies. Through this discussion, intellectual history and application of
Diop’s Two Cradle Theory, this dissertation will contribute to one component o f the
overall Pan-Afrikan intellectual history project for Africana Studies.
VIII. Importance of Topic
The importance o f this dissertation is connected to the previously mentioned
contributions which this dissertation intends to provide for Africana Studies. First by
focusing upon the intellectual infrastructure o f Africana Studies, this dissertation will pay
close attention to the very structure and/or basis from which academic disciplines are
developed. By doing so, this dissertation will stress the importance o f engaging
intellectual questions regarding Africana Studies as an academic discipline. Furthermore,
by engaging these questions this dissertation is an attempt to validate the disciplinarity o f
Africana Studies, which is consistently questioned within the western academia.79 To
this end, by engaging such questions this dissertation intends to reinvigorate theoretical
discussions in the discipline.
IX. Limitations of Study
The initial limitation to this study will be the access and utilization o f Cheikh
Anta Diop’s work in French. Diop primarily published in French and Wolof, and it was
not until the mid-1970s that his work would be translated into English. While this study
will rely mostly upon the English translation o f his texts, when necessary the original
texts within French will be analyzed.
Another limitation to this study is the sparse amount o f literature which
specifically discusses the role and function o f theory within Africana Studies. This is not
22
to suggest that scholarship regarding theory within Africana Studies is nonexistent, but
rather the direct focus and intention which this dissertation intends to engage theory is
extremely limited within the discipline. This being the case, this dissertation attempts to
move in uncharted waters. While this is necessary, this work is limited by the few
models and examples that can be found within Africana Studies by scholars who have
attempted to engage the notion o f theory/theory production within Africana Studies.
Finally, returning to Cheikh Anta Diop, another limitation is the limited sole focus
on what has come to be known as the Two Cradle Theory. While this dissertation will
show that this theory is consistent throughout all o f the work o f Cheikh Anta Diop, this
dissertation does not specifically engage the fundamental role o f language and linguistics,
in particular, which was another underlying argument in the revitalization o f Afrikan
people, culture and history, according to Cheikh Anta Diop.
X. Definition of Terms
Given the previously discussed development o f Africana Studies and the current
philosophical and ideological confusion regarding the discipline, it is essential to provide
explanation of key terms and concepts which will be used throughout this text. These
include:
1. Africana - refers to the global population o f Afrikan people, whether on the
continent or in the diaspora.
2. Africana Studies - the critical analysis o f Africana culture, through the usage of
the Afrikan worldview, with the ultimate goal o f changing the life chances of
Afrikan descended peoples. Also referred to as Black, Afrikan American, Afro-
23
American, Afrikan World Studies.
3. Afrikan - a person o f Afrikan ancestry/descent, without distinction to current
geographical location.
4. Afrikan-centered - a particular approach to phenomenon based upon the culture
and worldview reflective o f Afrikan people throughout the Afrikan world.
5. Culture - a general design for living and patterns for interpreting reality.
6. Discipline - a focused study with a variety o f dimensions and/or subject/content
areas.
7. Discipline-grounded - an intellectual production which is reflective o f the
interdisciplinary structure and holistic conceptualization o f Africana Studies.
8. Discipline-specific - an intellectual production that is primarily relevant and
applicable to the discipline o f Africana Studies.
9. Grand theory - commonly referred to as a paradigm, grand theories function as
holistic/complete intellectual frameworks which provide interpretative value for a
discipline.
10. Interdisciplinary - an intellectual production which is reflective o f the interaction
and interplay o f multiple (sub)disciplines.
11. Multi-area theory - function as interdisciplinary a theoretical construction which
relies upon at least three bodies of knowledge within Africana Studies, and
provides interpretative value to specific cultural expressions/manifestations.
12. Multidisciplinary - an intellectual production which is useful and valid in more
than one discipline.
13. Theory - a set o f concepts, which work together to provide explanation o f a given
24
phenomenon.
14. Subject/content area theory - a theory which is a direct outgrowth o f a traditional
discipline, and follows the conceptual constraints o f the given discipline.
15. Worldview [world-view; world view] - a cultural orientation and interpretive
reference point used to explain, interpret and understand reality.
XI. Conclusion
The history o f Africana Studies provides the context for this discussion o f theory
and theory production within Africana Studies. This author maintains that through the
creation and use o f theories that are reflective o f an Afrikan cultural reality, Africana
Studies can fulfill the aims and goals made by the students and educators o f the 1960s.
Theory production, therefore, must not be looked at only as an intellectual exercise. It
must be clearly understand as a weapon which can be used in defense o f Africana culture,
people and history. Through proper interpretation and understanding o f Africana people,
cultures and experiences, we in turn help defend the survival o f Afrikan people. It is
necessary to recognize that the ammunition is not just the data about the Africana
experience, but it is also how we explain and understand this data, ie. the theories which
we use. Therefore, theory within Africana Studies can and should be used a weapon.
Arguably those who have chosen to create and use culturally-specific theories, such as
Cheikh Anta Diop’s Two Cradle Theory, understand the importance o f theory as
intellectual and philosophical weaponry. However, the longer we continue to create
ideological, philosophically and conceptually confused theories, we will never be o f any
real assistance to Afrikan people, or the attempted changing of our condition.
25
NO TES
1 Jacob Carruthers, “Science and Oppression,” in African P sychology in H istorical P erspective an d R elated
Com mentary, ed. Daudi Ajani Ya Azibo, (Trenton: Africa World Press, 1996), 190.
2 Maulana Karenga, “Black Studies and the Problematic o f Paradigm: The Philosophical Dim ension,” in
The African Am erican Studies Reader, ed. Nathaniel Norment (Durham: Carolina Academ ic Press, 2001),
282-294; Maulana Karenga, Introduction to Black Studies (Los Angeles: The University o f Sankore Press,
2002 ).
3 Alan Colon, “Black Studies: Historical Background, M odem Origins and D evelopm ent Priorities for the
Early Twenty First Century,” Western Journal o f Black Studies 27, no. 3, (2003), 145-156; Pero Gaglo
Dagbovie, “Making Black History Practical and Popular: Carter G. W oodson, the Proto Black Studies
Movement, and the Struggle For Black Liberation,” Western Journal o f Black Studies 28, no. 2, (2003),
372-383; Nathaniel Norment, ed., The African Am erican Studies R eader (Durham: Carolina Academic
Press, 2001); C lovis Semmes, Cultural H egem ony an d African Am erican D evelopm ent (Westport: Praeger,
1992); James Stewart, “The Legacy o f W. E. B. Du B ois for Contemporary Black Studies” Journal o f
N egro Education. 53, no. 3, (1984), 296-311; James Turner and C. Steven McGann, “Black Studies as an
Integral Tradition in African-American Intellectual History,” Journal o f N egro Education 49, no. 1, (1980),
52-59.
4 Daudi Ajani Ya Azibo, “Articulating the Distinction Between Black Studies and the Study o f Blacks:
The Fundamental Role o f Culture and the African-Centered W orldview,” in The African Am erican Studies
Reader, ed. Nathaniel Norment, (Durham: Carolina Academ ic Press, 2001), 420-441; Linda James Myers
“Optimal Theory and the Philosophical and Academ ic Origins o f Black Studies,” ed. Nathaniel Norment,
(Durham: Carolina Academ ic Press, 2001), 295-302; Karanja Keita Carroll, N ile Valley Civilizations,
K em it an d Black Studies: E lucidating the Foundation an d D isciplinary Basis o f Black Studies via Ancient
Kem etian Culture. Paper present at: The State o f Black Studies: M ethodology, Pedagogy & Research,
Schomburg for Research in Black Culture, Princeton University & CUNY, N ew York, N Y . 2003.
5 Azibo, “Articulating the Distinction Between Black Studies and the Study o f Blacks”; Karenga, “Black
Studies and the Problematic o f Paradigm” Karenga, Introduction to Black Studies.
6 Azbio, “Articulating the Distinction Between Black Studies and the Study o f Blacks,” 428.
7 Ibid.; Carroll, “N ile Valley Civilizations, Kemit and Black Studies”; Myers, “Optimal Theory and the
Philosophical and Academ ic Origins o f Black Studies”.
8 Asa Hilliard, “Pedagogy in Ancient Kemet,” in K em et an d the African Worldview: Research, Rescue and
Restoration, eds. Maulana Karenga and Jacob Carruthers (Los Angeles: University o f Sankore Press,
1986), 131-50; Carroll, “N ile Valley Civilizations, Kemit and Black Studies”.
9 James-Myers, “Optimal Theory and the Philosophical and Academ ic Origins o f Black Studies”.
10 Paul Ghalioungui, M agic an d M edical Science in A ncient Egypt, (Hodder and Stoughton: London, 1963);
Barry Kemp, A ncient Egypt, (Routledge: N ew York, 1989); Sergia Donadonia, ed., The Egyptians,
(Chicago: The University o f Chicago Press, 1997); Carroll, “N ile Valley Civilizations, Kemit and Black
Studies”; R. A. Sch waller de Lubicz, The Egyptian m iracle : an introduction to the wisdom o f the temple,
(N ew York: Inner Traditions International, 1985).
11 Donadonia, The Egyptians, 145.
26
12 John deGraft-Johnson, African Glory: The S tory o f Vanished N egro Civilizations, (N ew York: Walker,
1954); John deGraft-Johnson, A frican Traditional Education. Presence Africaine, 8,9,10 (1956), 51-55;
John Jackson, Introduction to Black Civilizations. Secaucus: Citadel, 1970; John Henrik Clarke, Why
Africana H istory? http://www.africawithin.com/clarke/why_africana_history.htm; John Henrik Clark,
“The University o f Sankore at Timbuctoo: A N eglected Achievem ent in Black Intellectual History,”
Western Journal o f Black Studies 1, no. 2 (1977), 142-146.
13 Azibo, “Articulating the Distinction Between Black Studies and the Study o f Blacks”.
14 Alison Schneider, “Black Studies 101: Introductory Courses Reflect a Field Still D efining Itself,”
Chronicle o f H igher Education 46, no. 37 (2000), A 20-A 25.
15 Karenga, Introduction to Black Studies.
16 Karenga, Introduction to Black Studies, p. xxi.
17 Ibid., 3.
18 James B. Stewart, R eview o f Introduction to Black Studies, by Maulana Karenga, Western Journal o f
Black Studies 7, no. 2 (1983), 113-117; Azibo, “Articulating the Distinction Between Black Studies and
the Study o f Blacks”.
19 Karenga, Introduction to Black Studies, 3.
20 Azibo, “Articulating the Distinction Between Black Studies and the Study o f Blacks,” p. 428.
21 Karenga, Introduction to Black Studies, 5.
22 Ibid., 5.
23 Ibid., 7-8.
24 The maafa refers to the great disaster. See Marimba Ani, Let the C ircle be Unbroken: The Im plications
o f African Spirituality in the D iaspora. N ew York: N konim fo Publications, 1980.
25 John Blassingame, The Slave Community: Plantation Life in the Antebellum South, (N ew York: Oxford
University Press, 1972).
26 Lawrence Crouchett, “Early Black Studies M ovem ents” in The African Am erican Studies Reader, ed.
Nathaniel Norment, (Durham: Carolina Academ ic Press, 2001), 192-198.
27 James Turner, “Africana Studies and Epistemology: A Discourse in the Sociology o f K now ledge,” in
The Next D ecade: Theoretical an d Research Issues in Africana Studies, ed. James Turner (Ithaca:
Africana Research and Research Center, 1984), xv.
28 Norment, The African Am erican Studies Reader.
29 Stewart, “The Legacy o f W. E. B. Du B ois for Contemporary Black Studies”; Dagbovie, “Making Black
History Practical and Popular”; John Henrik Clarke, “The Influence o f Arthur A. Schomburg on M y
Concept o f Africana Studies,” Phylon, 49 nos. 1/2, (1992), 4-9.
30 Thomas Dabney, “The Study o f the N egro,” Journal o f N egro H istory 19, no. 3 (1934): 266-307;
27
Norment, The African Am erican Studies Reader.
31 Thomas Dabney, “The Study o f the N egro”.
32 Rayford Logan, The B etrayal o f the Negro, from Rutherford B. H ayes to W oodrow Wilson, (N ew York:
Collier, 1965).
33 Robert F. William, N egros With Guns, (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1998).
34 Howard Zinn, A P eople's H istory o f the U nited States: 1492-Present, (N ew York: Harper Perennial,
2003).
35 Norment, The African Am erican Studies Reader, xxi-xxii.
36 George D. King, “Black Studies: An Idea in Crisis,” Western Journal o f Black Studies 6, no. 4 (1982),
241-245; Norment, The African Am erican Studies Reader, Karenga, Introduction to Black Studies', Abdul
Alkalamit & Associates, Introduction to Afro-American Studies, http://eblackstudies.org/intro/; Talmadge
Anderson, Introduction to African Am erican Studies, (Dubuque: Kendall-Hunt, 1993).
37 King, “Black Studies”; John Conyers, The Evolution o f African Am erican Studies, (Lanham: University
Press o f America, 1995); Colon, “Black Studies”.
38 San Francisco Black Student Union, “It is Detrimental to U s as Human Beings to be Controlled by
Racists” in Black P rotest Thought in the Twentieth Century, ed. August Meier, Elliot Rudwick and Francis
L. Broderick, (Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1971), 528-534.
39 Ibid., 529.
40 Ibid., 530.
41 Ibid., 530.
42 Norment, The African Am erican Studies Reader; Karenga, Introduction to Black Studies.
43 Nathan Hare, “Questions and Answers about Black Studies,” in The African Am erican Studies Reader,
ed. Nathaniel Norment (Durham: Carolina Academ ic Press, 2001), 13.
44 Ibid., 13.
45 Ibid., 13.
46 Ibid., 13-16.
47 Ibid., 17.
48 Ibid., 17.
49 Ibid., 18.
50 Ibid., 18-19.
51 Ibid., 20-21.
28
52 Karenga, Introduction to Black Studies', Molefi Kete Asante, Kemet, Afrocentricity an d K nowledge,
(Trenton: Africa World Press, 1990); M olefi Kete Asante, M alcolm X as Cultural H ero & Other
Afrocentric Essays, (Trenton: Africa World Press, 1993); Lucious Outlaw, “Africalogy: Normative
Theory” The African Am erican Studies Reader, ed. Nathaniel Norment (Durham: Carolina Academ ic
Press, 2001), 442-457.
53 Hare, “Questions and Answers about Black Studies,” 18.
54 Ibid., 18.
55 Ibid., 19.
56 Robert Allen, “Politics o f the Attack on Black Studies,” in The African Am erican Studies Reader, ed.
Nathaniel Norment (Durham: Carolina Academ ic Press, 2001), 492.
57 Ibid., 492.
58 Egambi F. K. Dalizu, “Black Studies: Reflections on N ew Colonial Situation in the University,” Black
A cadem ic R eview 3, nos. 1/2 (1972), 107-116.
59 Armstead L. Robinson, Craig C. Foster & Donald H. O gilvie, eds., Black Studies in the University, (N ew
York: Bantam Books, 1969), vii.
60 Harold Cruse, “The Intergrationist Ethic as a Basis for Scholarly Endeavors,” in Black Studies in the
University, eds. Armstead L. Robinson, Craig C. Foster & Donald H. Ogilvie, (N ew York: Bantam Books,
1969), 4.
61 Philip T. K. Daniels, “Theory Building in Black Studies,” in The African Am erican Studies Reader, ed.
Nathanial Norment, (Durham: Carolina Academ ic Press, 2001), 372-379.
62 Egambi F. K. Dalizu, “Black Studies: Reflections on N ew Colonial Situation in the University.”
63 Winston Van H om e, “Africology: Considerations Concerning a D iscipline,” nd.
64 Perry Hall, In the Vineyard: Working in African Am erican Studies. Knoxville: The University o f
Tennessee Press, 2000.
65 For example, see Katherine Olukemi Bankole, “A Preliminary Report and Commentary on the Structure
o f Graduate Afrocentric Research and Implications for the Advancement o f the D iscipline o f Africalogy,
1980-2004,” Journal o f B lack Studies 36, no. 5, (2006), 663-697. Bankole conflates a discussion o f
Afrocentricity and Afrocentric research m ethodology with scholarship worthy o f being called Africana
Studies. However, her analysis is fundamentally flawed in that the dissertations under review are not
clearly related to Africana Studies. In fact these dissertations are only reflective o f “Afrocentric
Scholarship”. This speaks to the problem o f conflating Africana Studies with Afrocentricity.
66 Ibid.; James Stewart, “Reaching for Higher Ground: Toward and Understanding o f Black/Africana
Studies,” in The African Am erican Studies R eaders ed. Nathanial Norment, (Durham: Carolina Academ ic
Press, 2001), 349-366; Terry Kershaw, “Toward a Black Studies Paradigm: An A ssessm ent and Some
Directions,” Journal o f Black Studies 22, no. 4, (1992b), 477-493; Terry Kershaw, “The Black Studies
Paradigm: The Making o f Scholar A ctivists,” in Afrocentricity an d the academ y: Essays on Theory and
P ractice, ed. James Conyers (Jefferson: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, 2003); Karenga,
Introduction to Black Studies-, Norment, The African Am erican Studies Reader, Alkalimit & Associates,
Introduction to Afro-American Studies.
29
67 John Henrik Clarke, “Africana Studies: A Decade o f Change, Challenge and C onflict,” in The N ext
D ecade: Theoretical an d Research Issues in Africana Studies, edited by James E. Turner, 31-45. Ithaca:
Africana Research and Research Center, 1984.
68 Wade N obles, Africanity an d the Black Family, (Oakland: A Black Family Institute Publication, 1985),
102 .
69 Linda James Myers, “The D eep Structure o f Culture: The Relevance o f Traditional African Culture in
Contemporary Tim es,” Journal o f Black Studies, 18, no. 1 (1987), 72-85; Linda James Myers, “Expanding
the Psychology o f Knowledge Optimally: The Importance o f W orldview R evisited,” in Black P sychology,
ed. Reginald Jones (Berkeley: Cobb & Henry Publishers, 1991), 15-32; Linda James Myers,
Understanding an Afrocentric W orld View: Introduction to an O ptim al P sychology (Dubuque:
Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 1993); Wade N obles, Africanity an d the Black F am ily, Daudi Ajani Ya
Azibo, “Africentric Conceptualizing as the Pathway to African Liberation,” International Journal o f
Africana Studies 5, (1999), 1-31; Azibo, “Articulating the Distinction Between Black Studies and the
Study o f Blacks”.
70 Marimba Ani, Let the C ircle Be Unbroken, (N ew York: N konim fo Publications, 1980), 4.
71 Mack Jones, “Political Science and the Black Political Experience: Issues in Epistem ology and
Relevance,” Ethnic P olitics an d C ivil L iberties (1992), 30.
72 Azibo, “Articulating the Distinction Betwyeen Black Studies and the Study o f Blacks,” 422.
73 Marimba Ani, Let the C ircle Be Unbroken, 9.
74 Kwame Gyekye, African Philosophical Thought: The Akan C onceptual Scheme, (Philadelphia: Temple
University Press, 1995), 192.
75 Turner, “Reaching for Higher Ground” and Gerald McWhorter and Ronald Bailey, “Black Studies
Curriculum Developm ent in the 1980s: Its Patterns and History,” in The African Am erican Studies Readers
ed. Nathanial Norment, (Durham: Carolina Academ ic Press, 2001), 614-630.
76 Cheikh Anta Diop, The Cultural Unity o f Black Africa: The D om ains o f M atriarchy & P atriarchy in
C lassical Antiquity. London: Kamak House, 1989.
77 Daniels, “Theory Building in Black Studies”.
78 McWhorter and Bailey, “Black Studies Curriculum Developm ent in the 1980s: Its Pattern and History”.
79 Alison Schneider, “Black Studies 101: Introductory Courses Reflect a Field Still D efining Itself,”
Chronicle o f H igher Education 46, no. 37 (2000), A 20-A 25; N ell Irvin Painter, “Black Studies, Black
Professors and the Struggles o f Perception”. Chronicle o f H igher Education 47, no. 16 (2000), B7-B9.
80 Wade N obles, Africanity an d the Black Family, 102.
30
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELEVANT AND RELATED LITERATURE
The difference in the intellectual approach o f the African and European researcher
often causes these misunderstandings in the interpretation o f facts and their
relative importance. The scientific interests o f the European scholar with regard
to African data is essentially analytical. Seeing things from the outside, often
reluctant to synthesize, the European clings basically to explosive, more or less
biased microanalysis o f the facts and constantly postpones ad infinitum the stage
o f synthesis. The African scholar distrusts this ‘scientific’ activity, the aims of
which seem to be fragmentation o f the collective historical consciousness into
minute facts and details.1
I. Introduction
This chapter examines the arguments that have cumulatively been referred to as
“Cheikh Anta Diop’s Two Cradle Theory”? Through a critical analysis o f Diop’s
Cultural Unity o f Black Africa: The Role o f Matriarchy and Patriarchy in Classical
Antiquity, the texts in which Diop succinctly lays out these arguments, along with a
review o f other texts where Diop applies, extends and develops his original argument, we
will first to come to an understanding o f the Two Cradle Theory based upon the
translated works o f Cheikh Anta Diop. This chapter, therefore, intends to review all of
the relevant English translated texts of Cheikh Anta Diop, in order to provide a holistic
textual basis for understanding, what has come to be known as the Two Cradle Theory.
However, before we analyze Diop’s discussion o f the Two Cradle Theory, there
are a number o f prefatory points which must be engaged in order to properly understand
and contextualize the discussion that will follow. The first point deals with the
nomenclature used to discuss the ideas which are found within The Cultural Unity o f
Black Africa. Within the Anglophone world, Vulendin Wobogo was the first person to
31
discuss this accumulation o f key concepts, as the Two Cradle Theory ,3 Other scholars,
using the nomenclature coined by Wobogo and sympathetic to Diop’s arguments have
followed utilizing this terminology in subsequent references to Diop’s ideas. While The
Cultural Unity o f Black Africa, was first published in English in 1962, it was not until
Third World Press published their edition in 1976 that these ideas became frequently
referenced in the Afrikan-centered community. This point is important when we consider
the development o f the Two Cradle Theory within Afrikan-centered thought, as will be
discussed in subsequent chapters.
While Wobogo originally referred to these ideas as the Two Cradle Theory,
Carruthers has also referred to them as a “working hypothesis”.4 On the other hand,
Rashidi refers to them as Diop’s “Two Cradle thesis”.5 These references show that
Diop’s arguments have been referred to as a theory, hypothesis, thesis, etc. This usage of
varied terminology not only creates ambiguity when discussing this portion o f Diop’s
scholarship, but more importantly it creates a stumbling block in the attempt to defend
these specific arguments as a theoretical contribution to Africana Studies. Through the
use of varied terminology, the very theoretical basis o f Diop’s theory is placed into
question. Therefore, I have taken the position that what Diop discusses in The Cultural
Unity o f Black Africa, is in fact a theory. A theory, in a general sense, refers to a group of
key concepts, which work together to provide a sufficient explanation o f a given
phenomenon. As Diop’s arguments do reflect a theory with key concepts which, when
properly connected, lead to an explanation o f phenomenon, there seems to be no reason
why we should not refer to his work as a theory. As a theory, the Two Cradle Theory
becomes fundamental in the development o f culturally specific analysis, specifically
32
those produced in a discipline such as Africana Studies.
While it is true that Diop did not in fact refer to his argument as the ‘Two Cradle
Theory,” as students of Theophile Obenga have argued,6 we should not be limited to
elevating and rearticulating the work o f Diop as an actual theory. In all honesty, those
who argue that Diop did not refer to his work as the ‘Tw o Cradle Theory,” are
technically correct. Nowhere within the English translation o f D iop’s work do we find
the phrase, “Two Cradle Theory”. However, Diop did refer to two “cradles” and did
n
refer to the work as a “thesis” in the original French publication. In the English
o
translation o f The Cultural Unity o f Black Africa, “thesis” is translated as “theory”. This
could possibly explain why Wobogo came to refer to these arguments as “Diop’s Two
Cradle Theory”. The translation o f “thesis” to “theory” is adequate and does validate the
usage o f the phrases “Two Cradle Theory” and “Two Cradle Thesis”.9 However, for
clarity’s sake, I utilize the term “theory,” for two very basic reasons. First, for the mere
fact that there is a historical precedent set forth in the work of Wobogo, and secondly, for
intellectual genealogical continuity.
Furthermore, on the point o f nomenclature, it should be clear that Diop was aware
of his arguments being referred to as the “ 7wo Cradle Theory.” On Diop’s only visit to
the United States in 1985, Charles Finch had the opportunity to interview him. A portion
o f the transcript reads, “At the outset o f the interview, Dr. Diop requested that though the
questions be put to him in English, he be allowed to respond in French.” 10 This statement
is extremely important given the controversy on whether or not Diop referred to his Two
Cradle analysis as the “Two Cradle Theory”. Finch followed by specifically asking Diop,
“Can you explain your ‘Two Cradle’ Theory - the Northern Cradle and the Southern
33
Cradle?” and “What is the relationship between the monogenetic theory and the two-
cradle theory?” 11 On both occasions, Diop proceeded to answer the questions, with no
modification in reference to the previously mentioned nomenclature. This interaction
between Finch and Diop leads to two important conclusions. First, it is clear that Diop
was aware o f his work being referred to as the Two Cradle Theory, and secondly, Diop
did not have any problem in referencing his work as the Two Cradle Theory. If he did,
given his ferocity in other areas o f intellectual worth, he would have definitely corrected
• 1")
Dr. Finch on this matter.
Given the previously discussed reasons, along with those that will follow, this
dissertation refers to the arguments found in The Cultural Unity o f Black Africa and other
texts which reference discussion o f the Northern Cradle, Southern Cradle and Zone of
Confluence, as the Two Cradle Theory. In my estimation, there is no reason for future
scholars not to interpret his work as a theory, or elevate it to the status o f theory. This
dissertation clarifies the theoretical nature o f this argument and elevates it to its proper
status. As Diop’s work surrounding the two cradles o f human development reflects a
theory, with key concepts and a mode o f explanation, there seems to be no reason why
scholars should not refer to these arguments as a theory. Furthermore, disregarding these
arguments as a theory limits the intellectual arsenal within Africana Studies.
The second prefatory note refers to the deterministic nature o f the Two Cradle
Theory. Arguments o f determinism and free will have been ever present within both
western and Afrikan intellectual traditions, and it should be recognized that the Two
Cradle Theory is fundamentally determinist.13 Determinism as a theory “designates a
philosophy that subordinates the importance of human choice and will to other forces that
34
limit or even dictate human actions.” 14 Determinism is best understood in contrast to
“free will:, a theoretical position which posits that human actions, instead o f being
determined by culture, history, or environment, are in fact the conscious choices and
decisions made by individuals without respect to culture, history, or individual
circumstances.
While the majority o f western intellectuals cover the spectrum on this debate, a
good portion o f Africana scholars have taken to the side of a determinist explanation of
1 r
human actions. Therefore, Diop’s work can been seen in a lineage o f scholars who
have used determinism as a mode o f explanation.
Within the western intellectual tradition, the likes o f Aristotle, Georg Hegel,
Frederick Von Schlegel, Montesquieu and Ibn Khaldun, relied upon varied forms of
environmental determinism in the explanation o f human difference.16 While each o f the
scholars utilized a form o f environmental determinism to discuss the reasons behind
human difference, none o f them approach this topic in a manner like Diop. Summarily
each of these relied upon environmental distinctions to provide a rational for the
inferiority o f Afrikan peoples and those who lived outside of what many understood to be
the “temperate zone”. As this review o f Diop’s Two Cradle Theory will show Diop
argued that this “temperate zone,” which these scholars argues was in Europe, was in fact
best understood to be geographically located within Afrika.
Another question that must be asked, is whether or not Diop was influenced by
these scholars in the construction o f his Two Cradle Theory. There seems to be very
limited information to suggest that Diop specifically relied upon any o f the previously
mentioned scholars in his conceptualization. As Carruthers has correctly argued
35
regarding Diop’s reliance upon Marxist materialist arguments, “ ...w hile Marx has
probably influenced most twentieth-century thinkers in one way or another, including
Diop, there is ample evidence that Diop was sufficiently independent to eclectically use
i "t
methodological ideas without becoming a devotee.” The same holds true for Diop’s use
o f a very old argument reaching back to the origins o f western intellectual exegesis.
Continuing our discussion o f determinism and free will, while it should be clear
that there is not an either/or approach to determinist or free will explanations o f human
phenomenon, arguably the schism can be rectified. For instance, as a means for
explaining human action, it is best to suggest that determinism provides the most
culturally accurate way o f assessing the possible approaches, causes or conclusions given
human phenomenon. This should be seen in contradistinction to an open
ended/individualist explanation which is usually the case with philosophical arguments
grounded in free will. Therefore, an Afrikan conceptual system can rely upon both
determinism and free will, only to the extent to that which is predetermined (ie. cultural
manifestations) is limited by cultural ideological-philosophical assumptions (ie. a
culture’s worldview). Stated differently, the cultural context is the most important factor
when attempting to discuss the relationship between free will and determinism.
As previously stated, Diop’s Two Cradle Theory, is in fact a determinist theory.
Diop actually relies specifically on environmental determinism as the mechanism to
explain differences in human action and thought. Therefore, generally speaking, the Two
Cradle Theory argues that geo-environmental conditions lead to culturally specific
understandings o f reality, which then impact how these cultural groups approach reality.
These geographical distinctions are summed up in the concept o f a “cradle.” The
36
“Southern Cradle” generally referred to the continent o f Afrika, while the “Northern
18
Cradle” generally referred to Europe and Northern Asia (what some refer to as Eurasia ).
Diop also argued that these two cradles overlapped in what he referred to as the “Zone of
Confluence”, which he believed was geographically located in the Mediterranean,
throughout Western and Southern Asia.19 Specific to both the “Northern Cradle” and the
“Southern Cradle” are distinct environmental conditions which impact familial systems,
social systems, along with social customs, values and practices. However, it was the
environmental conditions that were the determining factors which had the potential to
shape the form and structure o f each cradle.
The final prefatory note to be made is the fact that Diop consistently relied upon
the Two Cradle Theory throughout a good portion of his work. Therefore, the review that
follows begins with the arguments found within The Cultural Unity o f Black Africa,
While this is not the first time that scholars within the Anglophone world were
specifically introduced to the Two Cradle Theory 20, this was the text that impacted the
terminology and subsequent reference to these ideas. Therefore, it seems logical to use
91
this as a starting point. After reviewing The Cultural Unity o f Black Africa, we will
return to The African Origin o f Civilization: Myth or Reality, where Diop utilizes the
Two Cradle Theory in his explanation o f the Afrikan origin o f Kemetic civilization. We
will then review, in chronological order, each relevant English-translated publication of
Cheikh Anta Diop, in reference to the Two Cradle Theory, in order to understand its
development in his work. Our analysis will end with a review o f the pertinent arguments
found in Diop’s magnum opus, Civilization or Barbarism: An Authentic Anthropology.
Following this review, we will then discuss and reconstruct Diop’s Two Cradle Theory,
37
so that it is able to fit the definition o f a theory, with key concepts which can lead to the
explanation of a phenomenon.
II. The Two Cradle Theory in the W ork of Cheikh Anta Diop
A good portion of Cheikh Anta Diop’s English-translated scholarship has focused
upon the themes o f cultural unity, comparative social systems and comparative
linguistics. In The Cultural Unity o f Black Africa: The Domains o f Matriarchy and
Patriarchy in Classical Antiquity Diop utilizes these themes in order to propose what has
99
come to be known as the Two Cradle Theory. In writing this text, Diop was most
concerned with showing the “profound [Afrikan] cultural unity still alive beneath the
9T
deceptive appearance o f cultural heterogeneity.” In doing so, Diop would use a variety
o f comparative analyses to substantiate his arguments for cultural unity. Diop’s primary
concern was an analysis of familial systems (ie. matrilineality and patrilineality), which
in turn led to a review o f social systems (ie. matriarchy24 and patriarchy) and finally a
look at how social values, customs and practices, are in fact dependent upon familial and
social systems. Diop would argue however, that each o f these components are contingent
upon the environmental characteristics or conditions which have the ability to determine
familial structures and social systems, along with social values, customs and practices.
As many scholars have argued, Diop was most fundamentally concerned with
» » • • • • » 9S
undermining the arguments o f a universal transition from matriarchy to patriarchy. In
fact, given the central role of familial structures to social institutions, values, customs and
practices, a critical review o f the development o f family structures would be his initial
point of departure. According to Diop’s reading o f J. J. Bachofen, Lewis Henry Morgan
38
and Frederich Engels, each held the argument that there was a universal transition from
matriarchy to patriarchy. Summarily, each author argued that matriarchy is a social
system reflective of primitive peoples that was once the universal norm which spread
throughout the world. All three authors, cumulatively, rely upon examples from Oceania
to America in the support o f matriarchy as the first human social structure. Thus,
matriarchy becomes a primary stage in human development. Each author posits that the
beginning o f human familial and social structures was based upon a high level o f sexual
promiscuity, in which humans were ignorant o f the processes o f procreation. Given the
mother’s role in childbearing and childrearing, this then led to matrilineality and
matriarchy in which the mother was the central focus o f the familial and social unit.
Bachofen, Morgan and Engels posit that there was a transition from one family
9 f\
formation to another. The transition o f matriarchy to patriarchy was, therefore, based
upon the progressive development o f the family unit. However, Diop is critical o f this
position and argues that, “the demonstration o f a universal transition from matriarchy to
patriarchy is only scientifically acceptable if it can be proved that this internal evolution
97
has definitely taken place among a specific people”. Diop continues,
It has never been possible to determine the existence o f a historical period during
which the Greeks and the Romans might have lived under matriarchy. This
difficulty is gotten around by replacing Greeks and Romans by aboriginal peoples
which they found on the spot at the time o f the becoming sedentary, peoples
whom they destroyed as the representative o f an alien culture.28
Therefore, while among Greeks and Romans we might find vestiges o f both matriarchy
and patriarchy, this is not related to a transition, but rather to the overthrowing o f one
system by another. This will be a consistent idea in Diop’s critique o f the argument for a
universal transition from matriarchy to patriarchy.
39
Just as we find no specific transition from matriarchy to patriarchy within Greco-
Roman history, Diop also argues that there was no clear transition from one system to the
other throughout all o f Indo-European history. Arguing, “ [a]s far as we can go back into
the Indo-European past, even so far back as the Eurasian steppes, there is only to be
found the patrilineal genos with the system o f consanguinity which at the present day still
characterizes their descendants.”29 Therefore, Indo-European history and culture is
fundamentally patrilineal and patriarchal, and it has never experienced matrilineal or
matriarchal forms and structures.
Another important note is that not only are environmental conditions central to
determining key components o f each cradle, but also the role o f men and women in
Africa, Europe and Asia sets the foundation for the given social system and societal
structure, along with the values, customs and characteristics which will come to define its
inhabitants. This gendered understanding o f social systems is central to Diop’s analysis,

• TO
along Ifi Amadiume’s interpretation o f Diop’s Two Cradle Theory.
The distinction between the overthrowing o f one system by another and the
transition from one system to another is central to Diop’s critique o f Bachofen, Morgan
and Engels. This distinction is also essential to Diop’s critique o f western scholarship
and its impact upon properly understanding non-western cultures. The need to posit a
transition from matriarchy to patriarchy, among western scholars, is reflective o f the
European normative assumption, which posits that European culture is the basis of
human culture.31 Diop is clearly aware o f this when he mentions the tendency among
Europeans “to exalt the superior qualities o f everything which is Northern.”32 But Diop’s
comparative analysis throws these arguments on their head, and it is the purpose o f The
40
Cultural Unity o f Black Africa, to provide an alternative interpretation o f the
development o f different familial and social systems, along with social values, customs
and mores. This, therefore, provides a more culturally relative interpretation o f human
phenomenon. One that is built upon the distinct cultural qualities o f peoples, which have
equal validity, as opposed to a superior European culture informing an inferior Afrikan
culture.
Diop utilizes the concept o f a “cradle,” as the composite o f environmental
conditions, along with familial and social systems. Arguing that it is not necessary to
provide a general history o f each cradle, Diop would rather “ [choose] in each cradle, the
outstanding historical facts, whose nature is such to prove that a particular cradle is
indeed characteristic o f such and such a system.”33 Diop therefore posits that there are
two cradles and a zone o f confluence, thus providing the key components for his
analysis.34
Beginning in the Southern Cradle, Diop analyzes Ethiopia, Egypt, Libya and
“Black Africa,” including medieval Ghana and Mali, the Swazi, Tswana, Ashanti and
Bantu, from South, West and Central Africa, respectively. Diop’s analysis o f Ethiopia
and Egypt consists o f stressing the role o f Queenship, matrilineality, matriarchy,
agricultural development and sedentary living.
The environmental conditions o f the Southern Cradle were suitable for the
development o f matriarchy as a functional social system. The specific environmental
conditions consisted o f the abundance o f natural resources, proximity to bodies o f water,
salt resources, continuous days o f sunlight, optimal soil conditions, and beneficial
precipitation. The environmental conditions determined agriculture as the major means
41
of sustenance. Agriculture in turn determined sedentary living, thus making the majority
of the inhabitants o f the Southern Cradle agricultural and sedentary peoples. The
agricultural lifestyle also impacted the social and familial system. According to Diop,
agricultural living and matriarchy are inextricably connected, given the correlation
between earth as a provider and the mother as provider. This also explains such phrases
as “Mother Earth,” which is reflective o f the agricultural-matrifocal connection. Thus
throughout the Southern Cradle, Diop is attempting to explain the relationship between
these environmental conditions, along with their impact on social and familial structures.
In Diop’s discussion o f the Southern Cradle, he also discusses Ancient Libyan
society, in order to point out the origins o f the Libyans. In support o f his arguments
regarding the imposition of one system by another, he argues that the Libyans originated
in a Southern society which was later “invaded by Indo-Europeans, tall, blond, blue-eyed,
their bodies covered by tattoos and clothed in animal skins.”35 Furthermore, these people
who moved into the Southern cradle never practiced matriarchy, a key component o f the
Southern cradle. Thus, located in the Southern Cradle o f Africa, the Libyans are
reflective o f Diop’s initial intentions that there never was a transition from one social
system to another, but rather one being forcefully imposed upon another.
In analyzing the areas o f “Black Africa,” Diop is concerned with showing the role
of matrilineality, matriarchy, agriculture and sedentary living. Throughout the Southern
cradle, Diop is concerned with showing that both matrilineality and matriarchy function
as responses to environmental conditions. Furthermore, agriculture was fundamentally
based upon the environmental conditions, which allowed for this form o f sustenance to be
effective as a means o f survival.
42
On the other hand, the “Northern Cradle” consists of “the Eurasian steppes (the
civilization o f Tumuli), Germany, Greece, Rome and Crete.”36 Diop pays specific
attention to Crete, Greece, Rome, Germania and Scythia. Much like his discussion of the
specific characteristics and the origin o f the characteristics in the “Southern Cradle,”
Diop is concerned with showing how and why these regions are reflective o f their
specific social system.
The environmental conditions o f the Northern Cradle were suitable for the
development o f patriarchy as a functional social system. The specific environmental
conditions consisted o f limited usable natural resources, cold inclement weather, limited
hours o f sunlight, poor soil conditions and limited accessible water resources. The
environmental conditions determined hunting as the major means o f sustenance. Hunting
in turn determined nomadism, thus making the majority o f the inhabitants o f the Northern
Cradle hunters and nomadic peoples. The nomadic lifestyle also impacted the social and
familial system. Diop, along with others, posits that patriarchy is inextricably connected
to aggressive hunting and nomadic living, in which the male was the center o f society
determining the future movements o f the group. Thus, throughout the Northern Cradle,
Diop is attempting to explain the relationship between these environmental conditions, as
well as their impact on social and familial structures.
For instance, in Diop’s discussion o f Crete, he is concerned with showing the
Southern origin o f Crete. Far from transforming into another system, Crete actually
disappeared. Similarly, in his discussion o f Greece and Rome, Diop is concerned
principally with showing that the origins o f these societies are based upon a Southern
social structure.
43
As Diop begins his discussion o f Rome, he states, “The historical situation o f
Rome presents a great likeness to that o f Greece, which has just been described: a prior
occupation o f the land by aboriginal peoples having their own customs, the invasion and
destruction o f these people by nomadic elements arriving from the North.” Thus after
discussing Etruscan society as a reflection o f a southern system, Diop states,
This primitive population[’s] foundation was completely swept over on the arrival
o f the true Indo-Europeans: the Latins, representatives o f a foreign culture and
foreign customs. Here, as in Greece, the discontinuity between old and new
inhabitants is evident, and the patriarchy o f the latter can not validly be
considered as the logical successor to the matriarchy o f the former. Once again, it
is a question o f two irreducible systems being superimposed on each other.3
Diop’s assessment of Germania is an attempt to tease out the specific
characteristics reflective o f the Northern cradle including nomadism, cremation,
devastating warfare, disrespect for nature among other aspects.40 Finally, Diop analyzes
Scythia in order to show the prevalence o f the previously mentioned characteristics and
other “terrifying customs.”41 As Diop states, “Life was based on a patriarchal social
organization, with an exaggerated tendency towards lechery characteristic o f these
regions.”42 The level o f sexual promiscuity reflective o f Scythia and other areas o f the
Northern cradle are reflective of the patriarchal social system, in which disrespect of
women was the norm.
Throughout the Northern Cradle, Diop is concerned with showing that both
patrilineality and patriarchy function as responses to the environmental conditions.
Furthermore, nomadism was based upon the environmental conditions, which allowed for
this form o f sustenance to be effective as a means o f survival.
Diop locates the Zone o f Confluence in the Mediterranean, throughout Western
and Southern Asia. For Diop, the Zone o f Confluence reflects the “meeting place o f the
44
two cradles.”43 Diop, therefore, focuses upon Arabia, Phoenicia, Indus, Mesopotamia
and Byzantium. Much like his analysis o f the Northern Cradle, Diop is concerned with
showing the interrelationship between familial and social systems. However, unlike in
the Northern Cradle where one social system totally wipes out another, here you find
combinations and manifestations o f both Southern and Northern Cradle characteristics.
Diop begins his discussion o f Arabia, by stating, that “Arabia was first peopled by
Southern peoples who were later submerged by those coming from the North and the
East.”44 While not relying upon strictly historical sources, including the Bible and Koran,
Diop shows that in fact people who have their origin within Arabia are actually a product
of intermixing. Diop’s training in linguistics also allows him to analyze the Arabic
language showing that many o f its components are not a reflection o f a borrowing, but
rather that o f relationship between two interrelated peoples. As Diop argues, “The mixed
character o f the Semitic language can be explained in the same way. Thus roots can be
found which are common to the Arab, Hebrew, Syriac and Indo-European
languages...No contact between Northerners and the Arabs during the history of
humanity permits us to explain this; it is a relationship and not a borrowing.”45 A similar
approach is taken in Diop’s analysis o f Phoenicia, Indus and Mesopotamia. Throughout
the Zone o f Confluence, Diop is concerned with showing that both the Northern and
Southern Cradles met and were able to coexist and develop familial and social systems,
along with social values, customs and mores which were reflective o f both cradles.
Diop acknowledges that there are historical occurrences which may contradict the
arguments o f his theory. He engages these in a critical analysis o f what he calls,
“Anomalies in the Three Zones, Their Explanation.”46 In the Southern Cradle, Diop
45
engages such anomalies as, African patriarchy, amazonism and polygamy. Regarding
African patriarchy, Diop argues that any aspect o f patriarchy found amongst African
peoples is reflective o f outside influences. While this argument is inapplicable, in total,
to the whole continent of Afrika, Diop still maintained that, “We cannot emphasize too
much the role played in this transformation by outside factors, such as religions o f Islam
and Christianity and the secular presence o f Europe in Africa.”47 Not only through Islam
and Christianity which acknowledge inheritance through the male line, but also through
the colonial systems which were based upon European cultural practices, including
patriarchy.48 While this point holds a certain level o f validity, given its inapplicability to
the whole continent o f Afrika, this is just one o f few weaknesses o f Diop’s Two Cradle
Theory that will be analyzed, in more detail, at the end o f this review.
Regarding Amazonism, Diop argues that it is in fact a response to patriarchy. The
harsh, violent behavior among the legends of Amazonians substantiates this component
o f their lifestyle. Diop argues, “Amazonism, far from being a variation o f matriarchy,
appears as the logical consequence o f the excesses o f an extreme patriarchy. Among the
Amazons, their habits, the facts reveal, [and] their dwelling place.”49 Characteristics
include warfare, cremation, nomadism, and others, are all reflective o f patriarchy. Diop
also argues that the Amazons were known to make quests “in Europe and Asia, but
Africa was excluded.”50 This was because Afrika did not reflect the “extreme patriarchy”
which the Amazons were attempting to destroy or demolish.
Finally, in his discussion o f polygamy, Diop argues that polygamy can only be
understood through the cultural practices o f members o f the Northern Cradle. While
certain members of nobility and those o f high status across African societies practiced
46
polygamy, “monogamy was the rule at the level o f the mass o f the people”.51
Furthermore, as Diop argues, any analysis o f monuments and artistic representations
throughout Afrika, as compared to those in Europe, will show the reflection of
monogamous relationships.
As Diop continues to discuss possible anomalies, he moves on to the Northern
Cradle and the Zone o f Confluence. Here, Diop is first concerned with clarifying the
existence of any form o f European matriarchy. Diop first engages the existence of
Neolithic matriarchy. Neolithic matriarchy was impossible, according to Diop, given the
fact that there is no evidentiary basis for this argument. Similarly, among the Germans,
Irish and the Etruscans there is no evidence o f matriarchy. What many times is found
throughout all of these societies and peoples, is weak evidence which will not support the
notion o f a transition from matriarchy to patriarchy.52 However, each o f these societies
has customs which are reflective o f patriarchal societies, whether it is polyandry among
the Irish or the abandoning of female children among Germans. Furthermore, it is
actually within the Northern cradle and Zone o f Confluence that Amazonism makes the
most sense, given the close proximity to patriarchal cultural practices.
Within the first four chapters o f The Cultural Unity o f Black Africa, Diop attempts
to critique arguments o f the transition from matriarchy to patriarchy within human
societies, provide an environmentally determined basis for matrilineality and
patrilineality, discuss how each system brought different social systems, and finally,
engage some of the anomalies and contradictions which may bring some o f his arguments
into question. However, Diop is also concerned with showing how the particular social
values, customs and practices o f each cradle, are based upon specific environmental
47
conditions, along with familial and social systems. Looking beyond the family unit for
the answer to the different cultural proclivities toward patriotism, royalty, religion and
literature, Diop attempts to draw correlations between each cradle and their distinct
cultural manifestations.
The first cultural manifestation that Diop engages is patriotism. According to
Diop, “The sedentary life and nomadic life not only gave rise to two types o f family, but
equally two forms o f the state.”54 This argument would be most thoroughly developed in
both Precolonial Black Africa and Civilization or Barbarism: An Authentic
Anthropology, summarily, Diop posits that the Southern Cradle’s state formation is
centralized, consisting o f castes and different constituents working together to develop an
effective governmental structure. On the other hand, the Northern Cradle’s state
formation is based upon a hierarchy o f constituents, who work within a competitive
fashion in order to maintain dominance over subordinate groups, which then leads to the
survival o f the dominant group. Furthermore, patriotism within the Northern cradle
becomes an individualistic process based upon the exclusion o f larger communal unity.
Given these conditions, Diop argues that it is also within the Northern Cradle that we find
the origins o f modem individualism.
Similarly, the notion o f royalty manifests itself differently within each cradle.
Given the individualist nature o f the Northern Cradle, royalty is based upon dominance
and those chosen for this position allow might to determine right.55 While within the
Southern Cradle, royalty is based upon a divine mandate where the monarch is
understood to be a god-king, with Divine given rights to direct his/her constituents.
Comparing the different religious manifestations we find similar distinctions
48
between each cradle. As opposed to seeing the Divine as a benevolent helper, as in the
Southern Cradle; the Northern Cradle developed deities who are all powerful and
fundamentally destructive in nature.56 These deities then become the rational basis for
conflict, war and the maintenance o f other forms o f social disharmony.57
Finally, the literary productions o f each cradle also speaks to cultural distinctions.
Focusing upon notions o f tragedy, guilt, original sin, etc. found within Indo-European
literature, Diop argues that these manifestations are a reflection o f the environmental
characteristics, along with the concomitant social and family structures which define the
Northern Cradle. Specifically discussing Greek literature, Diop states “The themes
always deal, through action of destiny, with a blind fatality which tends to systematically
destroy a whole race or line o f descent. They all betray a feeling o f guilt, original with
and at the same time typical o f the Northern Cradle.”58 Continuing his analysis with the
Semetic, Diop states “The Semetic concept is identical. The original sin was committed
by the very ancestors o f the human race and all humanity, condemned from this time to
obtain its bread by the sweat o f its brow, had to atone for it. This point of view has been
adopted and taught by modern religions such as Christianity and Islam.”59
Diop is able to substantiate his position through analysis and comparison of
Dionysus and Osiris (Auser, in the language o f the Kemetian people). Relying upon
Herodutus, Diop establishes that Dionysus was originally known as Osiris and of
Kemetic origin, however, he transformed into Dionysus who is found within Greek
literature. But the transplanting o f Dionysus was not taken whole clothe, given the
cultural origins of Osiris in Kemet, a representation o f the Southern Cradle. Therefore,
“The Indo-Europeans experienced a great deal o f trouble to present clearly and fairly the
49
myth of Dionysus, without transforming it by making it coarse, immoral, lewd, etc., when
the spirit, the nature o f Dionysus ‘mounted on his panther’ is opposed to lust.”60
However, this transformation took place through representation o f Dionysus as Bacchus
in the Roman tradition. But as Diop argues, “To present him [Osiris] as Bacchus, god of
wine, always drunk and in search o f lewd pleasures without end is, so to speak, a
sacrilege.”61 Both Dionysus and Bacchus then become the deformed version o f Osiris.
But it was the Osirian foundation which attracted Aryan women to Dionysus. “ [T]he
enthusiasm o f the women, as much as the resistance o f the men, is explained in Greece,
as in Rome: the women, married or not, who practiced worship o f Dionysus were
condemned to death by their guardians.”62 Dionysus was clearly a threat and liberator of
Aryan women, making his worship a problem for continued patriarchy in Greece. Given
Dionysus’ original Southern Cradle origin and values, he was accepted with open arms
by Aryan women. At the same rate, the religious system became a serious threat to male
hegemony reflective o f the Northern Cradle.
Returning to his central theme o f familial and social systems, Diop states, “The
degree o f a civilization is measured by the relations between the man and the woman.
Dionysus is the liberator o f Aryan women; he spreads his teachings in Greece, at the
moment when one could see in this country two brothers marrying the same woman to
ensure the only thing which counted in the Aryan world - a line o f descent.”63 Thus
Dionysus represented everything that was contradictory to survival within the Northern
Cradle. Diop’s analysis o f the deformation o f Osiris within Greco-Roman literature is
under girded by the key concepts and assumptions found within the Two Cradle Theory
and is his attempt at applying this theory in order to explain specific cultural
50
manifestations.
As Diop closes The Cultural Unity o f Black Africa, he begins to suggest the
relationship between each cradle and the distinctions in human consciousness, which
leads to an extension o f these arguments beyond their classical application, and deals
with their more modern implications. As Diop concludes, he states that
... by referring to respective cradles o f the Aryans and Meridionals [Afrikans],

that one can understand this divergence in the contents o f human consciousness
which apparently should be one, uniform. It has already been seen that, in
passing from South to North, geography, climate and the conditions o f existence
effectively reversed the moral values, which become opposed to each other like
the two poles: every defect here is a virtue there.64
Thus, through analysis o f the ideas o f the state, patriotism, royalty, religion and literature,
Diop argues that the basic distinctions are a reflection o f the differences in each cradle.
From his review o f social values, Diop posits that each cradle, respectively, has
the potential to develop either an optimistic approach to human reality, as found in the
Southern Cradle, or a pessimistic approach to human reality, as found in the Northern
Cradle and with the potentially high manifestation in the Zone o f Confluence. In
conclusion, Diop argues that it is necessary for scientists (and scholars, o f all types) to be
critical and aware o f the direction in which the pessimistic dominant mode of
interpretation guides reality. Focusing primarily upon the impact within the hard
sciences, Diop argues that it will be the role o f Afrikans to guide the world to an
optimistic tomorrow. This should consist o f a reasoned optimistic viewpoint, in which
scholars are clearly aware o f the cultural origins o f optimism and pessimism within all
cultural manifestations.
From this review o f The Cultural Unity o f Black Africa, we have come to
understand that the Two Cradle Theory posits that geo-environmental conditions lead to
51
culturally specific understandings o f reality. These geographical distinctions were
referred to as “cradles.” The “Southern Cradle” generally referred to the continent of
Afrika, while the “Northern Cradle” referred to Europe and Northern Asia. Diop also
argued that these two cradles overlapped in what he referred to as the “Zone o f
Confluence”, which he believed was geographically located in Southern Asia.
Summarily, Diop posited that:
Humanity has from the beginning been divided into two geographically distinct
‘cradles’ one o f which was favorable to the flourishing o f matriarchy and the
other to that o f patriarchy, and that these two systems encountered one another
and even disputed with each other as different human societies, that in certain
places they were superimposed on each other or even existed side by side, then
one could begin to clarify one o f the obscure points in the history o f antiquity.65
In this passage, Diop explains the role of matriarchy and patriarchy in the shaping o f the
impact o f geo-environmental and living conditions. By studying the geo-environmental
conditions, Diop argued, this would lead to an understanding o f how different cultures
view reality.
The previously discussed arguments set the basis for our discussion o f the Two
Cradle Theory, As the historical record shows, many have relied upon D iop’s arguments
to advance culturally specific understandings o f human reality.66 As we engage other
English-translated texts o f Cheikh Anta Diop, we will continue to engage his use of
environmental conditions/characteristics, social systems and family systems as the basis
for determining social values, customs and traditions.
Arguably, African Origin o f Civilization: Myth or Reality is the most widely
known text o f Cheikh Anta Diop.67 While many scholars and lay people limit their
knowledge o f Diop to this text and its arguments regarding the Afrikan origin o f Kemetic
68
civilization, it also provides one o f the earliest articulations o f the Two Cradle Theory.
52
And thus, its inclusion in this discussion is imperative. In this text, Diop uses the
assumptions and arguments o f the Two Cradle Theory in order to substantiate the Afrikan
origin o f Kemetian civilization.
In describing Kemetian society, Diop argued “The abundance o f vital resources,
its sedentary, agricultural character, the specific conditions of the valley, will engender in
man, that is, in the Negro, a gentle, idealistic, peaceful nature, endowed with a spirit o f
justice and gaiety. All these virtues were more less indispensable for daily
coexistence.”69 Diop continues by stating, “One could go on to explain all the basic traits
of the Negro soul and civilization by using the material conditions o f the Nile Valley as
70
the point o f departure.” In contrast, in order to show that Kemet could not have been a
product o f Eurasia, Diop argued that,
the ferocity of nature in the Eurasian steppes, the barrenness o f those regions, the
overall circumstances o f material conditions, were to create instincts necessary for
survival in such an environment. Here, nature left no illusion o f kindliness: it
was implacable and permitted no negligence; man must obtain his bread by his
brow. Above all, in the course o f a long, painful existence, he must learn to rely
on himself alone, on his own possibilities.7
According to Diop, there was something specific about the Northern Cradle that
distinguished it from not only the Zone o f Confluence, which it clearly impacted, but
most importantly from the Southern Cradle, the home o f the Kemetians. Relying upon
these arguments, Diop is able to show that culturally, there is no way possible for
Kemetian civilization to be a product o f the Northern Cradle. He continues,
To be sure, it is reasonable to assume that all peoples, including the Egyptians,

experienced a period o f nomadism before becoming sedentary. But nowhere did
nomadic life have so profound or so prolonged an effect as among the Indo-
Aryans o f the Eurasian plains. Their civilization has remained marked by it even
in our day and many practices o f civilized nations in Europe today are related
ethnologically to that period, for example, cremation o f the dead, the patriarchal
family, and so on.72
53
While Diop does not discuss the Zone o f Confluence in great detail, he is consistent with
his subsequent discussion o f it as a meeting place o f both cradles. He argues, that within
the Zone o f Confluence “these two types o f social concepts clashed and were
7T
superimposed upon the Mediterranean.” Thus making the Mediterranean the meeting
ground for these two cradles.
Diop also revisits the relationship between matriarchy and agricultural/sedentary
living in this text. When attempting to answer the question regarding the origin of
“Negro matriarchy,” Diop argues,
We do not know for certain at the present time; current opinion holds that the
matriarchal system is related to farming. If agriculture was discovered by women,
as is sometimes thought, if it be true that they were the first to think o f selecting
nourishing herbs by the very fact that they remained at home while the men
engaged in dangerous activities.. .74
Consistent with the general nature o f the Two Cradle Theory, Diop posits that the
environmental conditions were the determining factor impacting the familial and social
system. These factors, among others, can only support the Afrikan origin o f Kemetian
civilization.
While Diop was able to acknowledge the meeting o f the Northern and Southern
Cradles within the Zone o f Confluence, he was rather consistent in the dominant impact
the Northern Cradle had in determining key values found within the Zone o f Confluence.
In discussing both the Northern Cradle and the Zone o f Confluence, Diop states that the
“the environment gradually molded these instincts in the men o f that region, the Indo-
European in particular. All the peoples of the area, whether white or yellow, were
instinctively to love conquest, because o f a desire to escape from those hostile

nc
surroundings.”
54
In discussing the evidence supporting a Black/African origin o f Kemet, Diop
spends considerable time discussing the roles o f agricultural/sedentary living, matriarchy,
an optimistic cosmogony and divine kingship, four key factors which are consistent with
the Southern Cradle o f his Two Cradle Theory.76 Thus, The African Origin o f
Civilization, functions as the first text in which Diop applies the Two Cradle Theory, in
order to substantiate the cultural manifestations o f the Kemetians as fundamentally
Afrikan.
As previously mentioned in my discussion o f The Cultural Unity o f Black Africa,
Diop would develop his ideas regarding state formation, patriotism and individualism
within the Northern Cradle and their corollary opposites in the Southern Cradle, in
Precolonial Black A fric a 71 Diop makes use o f manifestations o f the specific social
values, practices and customs o f the Two Cradle Theory as he discusses the different
socio-political structures o f Europe and Africa. Diop argues that “Patriotism, so
characteristic o f Greco-Roman antiquity, is explained by the fact that society had not
allowed for the foreigner, who thereby became enemy number one, without rights, who
might be killed with impunity and whose very eyes made the holy objects impure.”78
This treatment o f the stranger is reflective o f the xenophobic nature o f western
civilization. Diop even uses the concept o f ‘northern cradle’ and states, “The Aryans, as
long as they were relatively isolated in their northern cradle, never had the ability to
conceive o f a political, judicial, and social state organization extending beyond the limits
o f the city.”79
The development of the distinct socio-political structures between Europe and
Afrika was clearly grounded in the notions o f “western individualism” and “Afrikan
55
collectivism,” respectively. While under western individualism, the state maintained that
“families o f different citizens constituting the city were separate cells... [and] it was
sacrilege for the houses to touch one another, these feelings o f independence going back
to life on the steppes.”80 In comparison, the state in Afrika supported the development of
“communal civic life”.81 Furthermore,
In Africa, there always existed a reciprocal invasion of consciences and individual

liberties. In other words, each one felt that he had material and moral rights upon
the personalities o f others and that they reciprocally had rights on him. This held
throughout all political regimes. Even today, on a superficial level the African
may display a spirit of independence toward the community; but he is hardly
likely to grasp the gap which separates the Western individual from the group.82
Therefore, the environmental conditions, familial systems and social structures o f each
cradle fashioned a particular socio-political structure, which functioned as the basis o f
state formation and its subsequent structures.
Cheikh Anta Diop’s Black Africa: The Economic and Cultural Basis fo r a
Federated State, continues as another advance o f his Two Cradle Theory, grounded in the
specific cultural reality o f Afrikan people, as compared to European and Asian peoples.
However, instead o f only making historical arguments, Diop now attempts to add a
political dimension to the need for understanding the importance and practical
implications o f the cultural unity o f Afrika. For example, in order to rectify the impact of
western sexism within Afrikan political formations, Diop advances the idea o f
“bicameralism.”83 Relying upon the concept o f matriarchy, a key component of his Two
Cradle Theory, Diop states,
Thanks to the matriarchal system, our ancestors prior to any foreign influence had
given woman a choice place. They saw her not as sex object but
mother... Women participated in running public affairs within the framework o f a
feminine assembly, sitting separately but having the same prerogatives as the
male assembly.84
56
Given the cultural background of Afrikan people, it is necessary to advance political
• oc
systems and structures which are reflective o f Afrikan history and culture.
Furthermore, the previously mentioned quotation undermines many arguments of
universalistic feminists who posit that Afrikan patriarchy is part o f the original cultural
infrastructure o f Afrikan people and history. This further supports Diop’s earlier claims
in the context o f “Anomalies” within the Southern Cradle.
In continuing Diop’s discussion o f “bicameralism” he adds that, “To reestablish
this ancestral bicameralism on a modem basis means we must find along with our women
and to the exclusion o f any type o f demagoguery a truly efficacious mode of

o /r
representation for the feminine element o f the nation.” Therefore, in order to build a
federated Afrikan state it is essential that it be built based upon the cultural foundations
o f Afrikan people. These arguments have consistently been made throughout the work o f
Diop, and it only makes sense that they would also be found in his political arguments.
As previously discussed, environmental determinism was a central mode of
explanation for Cheikh Anta Diop. Early on within Diop’s scholarship, he relied upon
environmental determinism to substantiate some o f his arguments. In one o f his earliest
essays on the W olof language, which was later published in Towards the African
Renaissance, Diop argued that “a given climate or geographical environment tends to

0*7
dictate a particular accent.” While Diop does not develop this argument, it is obvious
that this would be a precursor for later environmentally determined arguments.
Later on, Diop relied upon these environmentally based arguments in an interview
with Carlos Moore, when he stated that “human beings are conditioned by their social
and physical environment.”88 He continued by stating that the components o f a people’s
57
cultural personality or identity “are not static factors, but facts conditioned by humanity’s
social and physical environment.”89 Arugably, Diop is staying consistent with the
environmental determinist argument found in the Two Cradle Theory. While one’s
“social environment,” is different from their “physical environment” Diop is still
suggesting that the impact o f environmental conditions. As the following chapters
suggest, given the role of culture within one’s social environment and given the impact of
environmental conditions on culture, Diop’s arguments are fairly consistent with his
original articulation in The Cultural Unity o f Black Africa.
Also, at the First and Second International Conferences o f Black Writers and
Artists, Diop presented papers that were grounded in some o f his most fundamental
arguments which would later develop into the Two Cradle Theory. While his paper at the
First International Congress dealt with the cultural contributions o f Africa to humanity,
here Diop would develop the ideas later to be found in The African Origin o f Civilization.
These ideas, as previously stated, suggested and validated the arguments regarding
environmental conditions and their subsequent impact upon determining the structure of
ancient Egyptian society.90
At the Second International Congress, Diop spoke specifically to the arguments
found in The Cultural Unity o f Black Africa and Precolonial Black Africa. By
substantiating the matriarchal foundations o f Afrikan societies, Diop explained how the
material conditions o f Afrika could have only led to a matriarchal family structure.
While, on the other hand, the material conditions o f Eurasia could have only led to a
patriarchal family structure. Diop concluded that “it becomes immediately clear that the
demands o f nomadic existence and those o f sedentary existence contain all elements
58
necessary for understanding the subject”.91 By focusing upon the notion o f the city-state,
war, patriotism and philosophical pessimism, Diop provides substantial evidence to
support the diverging differences between these two societies. Diop argued that, “ [t]he
stratification o f the two sociological realities can be found at all levels, for all eras, in all
areas.”92
Even Diop’s interest in migration patterns attempted to stem back to connections
o f cultural unity and the Two Cradle Theory. For instance, in many o f his translated
works, Diop relied upon the notion o f cultural unity via migratory patterns o f Afrikan
Q -J
people. By analyzing linguistic continuities and social structures, Diop argued that
Afrikan people moved from the Nile Valley into Western and Southern Afrika. In
discussing the socio-political structure o f Africa, Diop argued that “matrilocal marriage is
the rule”.94 By providing three forms o f social structure based upon: 1. absolute
matriarchy, 2. matrilocal marriage and 3. bilateral filiation, Diop argued that both
absolute matriarchy and matrilocal marriage were known to “Black Africa” and both
consist o f mother-focused structures in which the woman’s family was central to
naming, lineal filiations, habitation, etc. In all o f these structures, “virtually everything
stems from the mother.”95 However, it is the relevance to which Diop argues that makes
this significant. Diop’s concluding paragraph states,
This brief survey should show us that absurdity o f our ethnic prejudices. The
mingling o f African peoples has long been a fact. The barriers we erect between
other Africans and ourselves are symbolic only o f the depth o f our ignorance o f
Africa’s ethnic past. A paper such as this, while illustrating a method suited to
African history, should (without leaving scientific ground) help to break down the
psychological barriers that ignorance erects in our minds and start a dynamic,
continent-wide united campaign.96
Similarly, Afrikans within the diaspora could use similar logic in recognizing that our
59
origins are the same. Given these similar origins, this would then impact those basic
assumptions which we rely upon in order to make sense o f reality. As we rely upon our
similarities, we in turn create new bonds which can be productive in the development o f
all Afrikan people, similar to Diop’s argumentation which was essentially made within a
Pan-Afrikanist context of mutual advancement.
In Diop’s magnum opus, Civilization or Barbarism, he discusses the origins of
humanity, racial differentiation and social structures, among other topics. These
advancements in previous arguments, also add clarity regarding key components o f the
Two Cradle Theory.
The most important of these advancements is Diop’s discussion o f the origins of
humanity. Through Diop’s overview on the origins o f humanity and racial
differentiation, Diop provides the historical backdrop for the general assumptions found
within the Two Cradle Theory. Relying upon the paleontological work o f Louis Leakey,
Diop is able to state with confidence that East Afrika’s Great Lakes region is “the
birthplace o f all humanity.”97 Furthermore, “All other races derived from the Black race
by more or less direct filiation, and the other continents were populated from Africa at the
Homo erectus and Homo sapiens stages, 150,000 years ago.”98 Therefore, between
130,000 and 150,000 years ago, the first Homo sapien came into existence in Afrika. As
this population began to increase, they eventually moved towards the north o f Afrika and
would soon venture off the continent o f Afrika. It would be about 90,000 to 110,000
years ago that these original homo sapiens would venture out o f Afrika and reach the
southern extremities of modern day Europe. This Afrikan who entered southern Europe
was referred to as “Grimaldi man.”99 By about 40,000 years ago, Grimaldi wo/man had
60
inhabited most parts o f Europe, and s/he had begun going through biological and
physiological changes. By 20,000 years ago, the Grimaldi had made the transition into
“Cro-Magnon,” the first European.
Due to a series o f glaciations which provide low levels o f UV rays, an intensely
cold climate and the need to cover one’s body, the levels o f melanin which were
previously necessary for survival, were no long needed. According to Diop, “If one
bases one’s judgment on morphology, the first White appeared only around 20,000 years
ago: the Cro-Magnon Man. He is probably the result o f a mutation from the Grimaldi
Negroid due to an existence o f 20,000 in the excessively cold climate o f Europe at the
end of the last glaciations.” 100
Diop also adds that with the subsiding o f the glaciations, which ended around
10,000 years ago, Cro-Magnon began to venture further north into Northern Europe and
Asia. Groups o f Cro-Magnons would develop into the “Scandinavian and Germanic
branch.” 101 From this group, another branch would depart and they “occupied the eastern
part of Europe, and then descended all the way to Scythia, at the outskirts o f the
1 AA
Meridonial cradle: the Slavs.” Diop continues, “Other branches probably descended
the Rhine and Danubian Rivers to Caucasia and the Black Sea; from thence would
originate the secondary migrations o f the Celts, the Iberians, and the other Indo-European
tribes who did not under any circumstances come from the heart o f Asia.” 103 From these
varied off shoots o f the original Cro-Magnon/European, we would have the geographical
and historical context for the arguments which will follow in the Two Cradle Theory.
Relying upon the work o f Mariji Gimbutas, Diop is able to name the “nomadic
proto Indo-European” as the Kurgan, “who came from the Eurasiatic Russian steppes
61
between the Caspian and Black Seas.” 104 Between 3400 and 2900 B.C. there would be a
series o f Kurgan invasions which would impose themselves on portions o f Europe, thus
defining and characterizing the Northern cradle as previously discussed. In his consistent
critique o f Bachofen and the unproven transition from matriarchy to patriarchy, Diop
states, “[rjather it was a patriarchal, nomadic group that surprised sedentary society and
introduced patriarchy and all its corollary practices by force. This shows also that neither
matriarchy nor patriarchy hinges on race but stems from the material conditions, as we
have always maintained.” 105 Thus given this lack o f transition from matriarchy to
patriarchy, and other social evolutionary logic espoused by western scholars, Diop
concludes by stating, “All evidence suggests that these were people who went from
hunting to nomadic life without ever experiencing the sedentary phase.” 106 This is the
same position Diop held when he originally published The Cultural Unity o f Black
Africa. Even up to his last publication, there was no evidence to substantiate the
transition from matriarchy to patriarchy. Evidence actually only supports the fact that
there was an imposition o f one system on another.
Also important to the Two Cradle Theory, is Diop’s discussion o f comparative
social structures via clan and tribal organizations, which specifies two forms o f unilateral
kinship, matrilineal and patrilineal. Each form o f kinship then developed other social
characteristics which would distinguish one from another. Diop notes that “[t]he clan,
whether patrilineal or matrilineal, has always been a male creation, to the exclusion of
women.” 107 Diop also adds that while these social structures are reflective o f the distant
past, they are still functioning at this very moment. “All social revolutions...have not
succeeded in completely wiping out, the original clanic structures, which still remain
62
embedded in our respective societies and are recognizable by numerous
• • 108
characteristics.” One way these embedded structures are currently maintained is
through language. Diop provides evidence o f the patriarchal foundations o f Indo-
European languages, in which the male is privileged at the expense o f the women.
In discussing the role o f revolutions within the Greek city-state, Diop continues
extending his arguments found in Precolonial Black Africa. The conflicting nature o f the
Northern cradle would ultimately lead to bloody revolutions, in order to overthrow
oppressive systems. Diop argued that given the insular nature o f Greek society, this leads
to the development o f harsh revolutionary tactics in the attempt to overthrow the current
social order.
When discussing Sparta, Diop states
Family life did not exist, and the existence o f the couple was o f marginal
importance; the proverbial perversion o f morals, the extraversion o f masculine
habits raised to the level o f an institution in all o f Greece, especially in Athens
(over which the modem West always throws a veil of modesty), had their origin
in the particular style o f life, which, long after settlement, still carried the stigmata
o f the prior period o f nomadism.109
Diop’s critique o f the non-developmental processes o f state models is
coterminous with his critique o f the non-transition from matriarchy to patriarchy. In that,
much like the Kurgans who invaded the Northern cradle and came to determine its
cultural values, the same can be said about the impact o f the Asian Mode o f Production.
For Diop, “it is the material cause that is at the basis o f the birth o f the state and that
determines the process o f its appearance, the type o f state, and its specific political
form.”110
Diop argues that the Afrikan orientation towards reality is in fact a result of
communally securing social structures that bog down our [Afrikan] people in the
63
present and in a lack o f concern for tomorrow, in optimism, etc., whereas the
individualistic social structures o f the Indo-European engender anxiety,
pessimism, uncertainty toward tomorrow, moral solitude, tension regarding the
future, and all its beneficial effects o f the material life, etc.111
These cultural traits however, were inherited from the past and can be found amongst
modem people.112 Continuing to discuss the nature o f Afrikan people, Diop states, “ [a]n
in-depth analysis would show that the African is dominated by [their] social relations,
113
because they reinforce [their] equilibrium, [their] personality, and [their] being.” Not
only are connections visible between Afrikans throughout the diaspora, the same can be
said for Europeans who continuously exhibit xenophobic behaviors. Diop in fact argues,
“the complex o f the white American reminds one very much o f the complex the ancient
Greeks had towards the oriental and black world.” 114 This xenophobic complex has
ultimately led to disharmonious relationships with non-white peoples.
However, Civilization or Barbarism also provides some what o f a twist in the
logic and assumptions behind the Two Cradle Theory. Certain scholars115 have
questioned whether Diop was consistent within his logic, because o f the somewhat
contradictory and conflicting conclusions that result from the following passage.
It is therefore correct that the individualist or communal superstructures are

transitory and that they evolve in relation to the material conditions that brought
them into existence? Put another way, all the specific traits o f the African
societies analyzed in I'Unite culturelle de VAfrique Noire have no permanence;
they are very profound traits, but they are not fixed forever. Nature, the material
conditions that forged them, can reshape them by changing themselves; thus, I do
not plead for a petrified African psychological function nature; the sense of
solidarity so dear to the African could very well give way to an individualistic,
egocentric behavior o f the Western type, if conditions were modified.116
However, one should not be confused over these arguments. Because they are consistent
with prior arguments which suggest that the origins o f humanity in Afrika was also
happenstance. Diop argues, “Therefore, this is not a value judgement: there is no
64
particular glory about the cradle o f humanity being in Africa, because it is just an
accident. If the physical conditions o f the planet had been otherwise, the origin o f
117
humanity would have been different.” Diop, being committed to historical facts was
only reading them as such, and he was not so much concerned with grandiose superiority
arguments, which exalt Afrikan people above others within humanity. He was only
showing that these environmental conditions lead to distinct human conditions, from the
creation o f humanity to an optimistic understanding o f human reality as found within the
Southern Cradle.
From this review o f the major English-translated works o f Cheikh Anta Diop, we
have come to recognize that Diop relied heavily upon the Two Cradle Theory in the
majority o f his scholarship. By relying upon a theory which posits that geo-
environmental conditions lead to culturally specific understandings o f reality, Diop has
provided a useful approach to understanding and relying upon cultural differences,
especially for scholars in Africana Studies.
According to Diop, the origin o f these cultural differences can be found in the
varied geographical environments which he referred to as “cradles.” The “Southern
Cradle” generally referred to the continent o f Afrika, while the “Northern Cradle”
referred to Europe and Northern Asia. Diop also argued that these two cradles
overlapped in what he referred to as the “Zone o f Confluence”, which he believed was
geographically located in Southern A sia.118
Summarily, each cradle set the foundation for the given social system and familial
structure, along with the values, customs and characteristics which will come to define its
inhabitants. Arguably, at the basis o f modern-day cultural difference is the historical
65
consciousness which originally informed inhabitants o f a particular environmental
terrain. While these environmental terrains stayed consistent long enough to develop a
particular consciousness, they were also transported via cultural values, customs and
mores. Diop understood this, and this is possibly why later in his scholastic career he
began to extend the arguments o f the Two Cradle Theory beyond the realm o f classical
antiquity and into the modem-era. Thus, throughout the majority o f Cheikh Anta Diop’s
English-translated work, he consistently relied upon the assumptions o f the Two Cradle
Theory, making it a formidable basis for understanding and explaining cultural
differences even within the modem era.
In the foreword of The Cultural Unity o f Black Africa, Diop states “Only a real
knowledge of the past can keep in one’s consciousness the feeling o f historical continuity
essential to the consolidation o f a multinational state” 119 While this statement was made
in the context o f the development o f a multinational state, this argument is also relevant
as we consider the implications o f the Two Cradle Theory and the development of
historical consciousness. Afrikan-centered scholars, especially those within Africana
Studies have relied upon these arguments o f Diop because o f the power o f historical
consciousness as a culturally continuous concept that has the ability to reorient culturally-
specific scholarship.
III. A Critique of Diop’s Two Cradle Theory
While it is clear that Diop’s Two Cradle Theory is applicable as a theory in
regards to many aspects o f Afrikan culture, given its large breadth and applicability there
are certain areas which require clarification and at other times a critique. First among
these is the issue o f terminology which Diop uses to describe the social structure of
66
Southern Cradle. While for Diop, the term “matriarchal” is applicable, after a review o f
the etymological origin o f this term we must be skeptical o f its usage amongst Afrikan
peoples. For instance, the complete etymology o f the term “matriarchal” is matri -
mother, Latin and arch - power, Latin. The term matriarchal therefore suggests that
within the Southern Cradle, there was some sort o f female rule over the whole society.
This is an inaccurate assessment, that I think Diop was even aware o f for he states that,
Matriarchy is not an absolute and cynical triumph o f woman over man; it is a

harmonious dualism, an association accepted by both sexes, the better to build a
sedentary society where each and everyone could fully develop by following the
activities best suited for his physiological nature. A matriarchal regime, far from
being imposed on man by circumstances independent o f his will, is accepted and
defended by him .120
However, while Diop may have made this observation his use in terminology still reflects
an inaccurate interpretation o f Afrikan cultural history. More appropriate terms include:
matrifocal, matricentric and mother-focused. Each term stresses the centrality or focus o f
the society on the mother, but none suggest a rule o f woman over man, as would be the
exact opposite in the Northern Cradle.
The second area o f critique within Diop’s theory deals with agriculture as a mode
o f production throughout the whole continent o f Afrika. Diop grounds the Southern
cradle within agriculture as the determining mode o f production as opposed to Northern
cradle which he argues developed nomadism as its mode of production. By doing so,
Diop attempts to conflate the whole continent o f Afrikan within one mode production.
However, a cursory review o f Afrikan geographical history would suggest otherwise. It
would also suggest that while agriculture is the dominant mode o f production, it is not the
only mode o f production within Afrika. Therefore, one will find agriculturalism,
pastoralism, semi-pastoralism and dual modes o f production which are found throughout
67
the continent.
Generally speaking, we can distinguish between at least five cradles o f agriculture
within Afrikan, these include the Afro-Mediterranean, Nile-Abyssinian, West Afrikan,
Central Afrikan, and East Afrikan cradles.121 Portes correctly asserts that, “ [t]he origins
and developments o f agricultural techniques and o f cultivated plants are directly related
to the natural conditions prevailing in a particular region, such as the soils, the climate,
1 99
the water resources and the original vegetations.” Furthermore, given the geography it
has been noted that agricultural developments flourished near “savannahs and steppes,
199
especially those close to the forest and to large rivers and lakes.” Thus, this will
explain Diop’s focus upon the Nile Valley, but it does not negate the development o f
similar geographical conditions throughout the continent.
Furthermore, Diop’s grounding o f the Southern Cradle solely within matriarchy
as the only means o f social organizations is somewhat misleading. Many scholars who
have followed after Diop have critiqued him on this point. These include Ifi Amadiume
19 4
and Oba T ’Shaka. Amadiume while critical o f Diop on the centrality o f matriarchy
within Afrikan cultures is able to hit the problem right on the head. She adds that while
patriarchal systems can be found within Afrika, there is a specific matrifocal structure
which undergirds the nature o f Afrikan cultures. Thus on one hand Diop is accurate to
assert the importance o f matriarchy, but his oversimplification leads to gross
generalizations which may lead to an inaccurate analysis.
The third and final area o f critique deals with the origins o f patriarchy within
Afrikan cultural history. According to Diop, the origins of patriarchy within Afrika are
all related to outside influences. As the following chapters will show you, Amadiume
68
takes Diop to task on this issue. However, for now it is necessary to acknowledge that
certain aspects of Afrikan culture which have mutated into modem manifestations of
patriarchy have an Afrikan origin.
While these points o f critique point to possible weaknesses within Diop’s theory,
they do not undermine his overall argument. However, they do suggest areas o f caution
in the development o f theories which have such wide application.
IV. Reconstructing and Rearticulating Cheikh Anta Diop’s Two Cradle Theory
As the following chapter will argued, the Afrikan worldview as methodological
framework stresses the importance o f analysis and synthesis as an outgrowth o f an
Afrikan epistemology. Diop also stressed this point, by making distinctions between the
Afrikan and European scholar at the level o f synthesis within their scholastic endeavors.
While the European scholar analyzes phenomena, s/he fails to return to synthesis, thus
leaving fragments o f knowledge poorly reconstructed and thus understood. This is a
direction in which we must not move while doing culturally specific work within the
discipline o f Africana Studies. Therefore, after critically analyzing the Two Cradle
Theory within the work of Diop, it is now necessary to synthesize this material in a
digestible format worthy o f being called a theory.
A theory provides the general orientation for interpreting phenomenon.
Theories also provide a foundation for the creation o f knowledge, and suggest new or
alternative interpretations o f phenomenon. Moreover, theories have the ability to make
sense out o f seemingly meaningless information. In many cases, alternative theories give
meaning and clarity to a given phenomenon.
Cheikh Anta Diop’s Two Cradle Theory fits the requirements, for a theory, as
69
discussed within western social science, along with the requirements constructed by some
o f the leading scholars within Africana Studies. Daniels’ fundamental postulates for
theory building are adequately applied through Diop’s use o f a comparative analysis,
suggesting the necessity o f practical, applicable, culturally specific intellectual
productions.126 Furthermore, following the arguments o f McWhorter and Bailey, Diop’s
work is a viable source for theory production, who suggested that Africana intellectual
history functions as an untapped repository o f theoretical work, which only needs to be

197
revisited and rearticulated by current scholars. Finally following the arguments of
Adams and Turner, the use of culturally constructed arguments, such as the Two Cradle
Theory, interrogates the epistemological issue in knowledge production for Africana
Studies.128
This synthesis o f the Two Cradle Theory argues that it is based upon four key
concepts: environmental conditions, mode o f sustenance, familial structure and social
structure. The environmental conditions refer to the specific geographical and climatic
characteristics which distinguish the varied geographical environments, ie. amount of
sunlight, soil conditions, rainfall, etc. The mode o f sustenance is fundamentally
connected to the specific environmental conditions. Therefore, nomadism is the result of
poor geographical conditions that do not allow for people to live directly off o f their
surroundings. Instead o f being able to stay in one place, nomadic people are forced to
move in search o f food to fit their dietary requirements. In the same vein, agricultural
living is based upon a plentiful environment which provides the proper amount o f
sunlight, rainfall and soil conditions. Familial structure is based upon lines o f descent,
while social structure refers to the specific network and formation o f the society, whether
70
this is through such ideas as Divine kingship, monarchy, elders’ circles, etc. The
distinction between familial and social structures can be found between the relationship
between the family and the larger social group. However, in most cases familial systems
1 ■JQ
and social structures are intertwined.
Cumulatively, each key concept determines the content o f a given cradle. The
environmental conditions, mode o f sustenance, familial structure and social structure
become the basis for culturally specific manifestations within each cradle. Figure 1
outlines the previously mentioned key concepts reflective o f each given cradle.
Southern Cradle Northern Cradle Zones of Confluence

Environmental Conditions: Environmental Conditions: Environmental Conditions:
primarily warm primarily cold temperatures, combination o f variances
temperature, temperate, arid/low water resources, between Northern and
numerous water resource, poor resources and barren Southern Cradle extremities
primarily fertile land and land
numerous salt resources
Mode o f Sustenance: Mode o f Sustenance: Mode o f Sustenance:
primarily agricultural primarily nomadic combination of
agriculturalism and
nomadism
Family Structure: Family Structure: Family Structure:
matrilineal patrilineal overlapping matrilineal and
patrilineal
Social Structure: Social Structure: Social Structure:
matrifocal, divine kingship, patriarchal, monarchy, overlapping o f matrifocal
communalism individualism and patriarchal systems
Figure 1. Diop’s Two Cradle Theory
The Southern Cradle, Northern Cradle and Zone of Confluence reflect distinct
components which are a manifestation o f different key concepts. Furthermore, by
comparing the key concepts o f each cradle we are able to see the points o f divergence and
are also able to see their implications for culturally-specific analysis.
71
V. Conclusion
This chapter has reviewed Cheikh Anta Diop’s discussion o f the Two Cradle
Theory within his English-translated texts. Through a close reading o f each text, we have
been able to understand how Diop discussed his theory. Focusing primarily upon The
Cultural Unity o f Black Africa, this chapter has teased out Diop’s argument. This chapter
has also reviewed many other instances in which Diop has utilized these ideas. As a
complete review o f the Two Cradle Theory within the work o f Cheikh Anta Diop, we
have focused upon analysis and synthesis as key methodological tools, which are an
outgrowth of the Afrikan worldview and can lead to the most accurate understanding of
this portion o f his work.
NOTES
1 Cheikh Anta Diop, African Origin o f Civilization: Myth or Reality, (Lawrence Hill Books: Chicago,
1974), 275.
2 Vulendin W obogo, “D iop’s Two Cradle Theory and the Origins o f White Racism.” Black Books Bulletin
4, no. 4 (1976), 20-29, 72. While Diop did not in fact utilize the phrase “Two Cradle Theory,” the English
translated text does include the terms “cradle” and Diop does refers to the arguments as a “theory,”
therefore W obogo is correct to refer to these arguments as such. Furthermore, as this dissertation intends to
show, D iop’s arguments do fit the requirements for a theory.
3 Vulendin W obogo, “D iop ’s Two Cradle Theory and the Origins o f White Racism.”
4 Jacob Carruthers, M dw Ntr, D ivine Speech: A H istoriographical Reflection o f African D eep Thought
From the Time o f The Pharaoh to the Present. London: Karnak House, 1995; Jacob Carruthers,
Intellectual Warfare. Chicago: Third World Press, 1999; Errol Anthony Henderson. Afrocetrism and
W orld Politics: Towards a N ew Paradigm . Westport: Praeger, 1995.
5 Runoko Rashidi, Introduction to the Study o f African Civilization. London: Karnak House, 1992, 59-90.
6 In Theophile Obenga’s On M ethodology, a journal published out o f the Department o f Black Studies at
San Francisco, an anonymous group o f Black students argue: “Another example o f misinterpretation is
about C heikh A nta D iop ’s (1923-1986) ideas on the social evolution o f humanity. C. A. D iop never used
the term “theory” in the context o f his sociological analysis o f the two cultural cradles, northern and
southern cradles. It is then irrational and preposterous to write something such as C heikh A nta D io p ’s
T w o C radle T h eory.” (authors’ emphasis, 2000, p. 36).
72
7 Diop uses the term “thesis” in the French translation on pages 45-46.
8 You can compare multiple occurrences o f this translation. For instance, pages 42 and 43 o f the English-
translated version o f The Cultural Unity o f Black Africa and pages 45 and 46 o f the original French version
o f the text uses “theory” in the English version and “these” in the French version.
9 D iscussion with Wilbert Roget o f Temple U niversity’s Department o f French, June 16, 2006.
10 Charles Finch, “M eeting the Pharaoh,” in G reat African Thinkers: Cheikh A nta D iop, edited by Ivan
Van Sertima and Larry Obadele Williams, N ew Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1986, 29.
" Ib id ., 31.
12 For example, review the transcript o f D iop ’s interviews with Moore in Van Sertima (1986).
13 It should be noted that Diop does discussion the notion o f determinism in his magnum opus (C ivilization
or Barbarism , pp. 370-375), however, it is not discussed in relation to his Two Cradle theory. Whether or
not, he in fact saw his theory as determinists is still up for question. However, this author argues that it is
accurate to refer to his arguments as such.
14 See “determinism” in Joseph Childers and Gary Hentzi, The Colum bia D ictionary o f M odern Literary
an d Cultural Criticism. N ew York: Columbia University Press, 1995.
15 The follow ing chapters w ill reference these scholars. Within the discipline o f Africana Studies, the cover
the spectrum o f Africana philosophy, Africana psychology, Africana history, Africana sociology.
16 Aristotle. Politics. Grinnell, Iowa: The Peripatetic Press, 1986; Khaldun, Ibn. The M uqaddimah: An
Introduction to History. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989; Montesquieu. The Spirit o f Laws.
Berkley: University o f California Press, 1977; Frederick V on Schelegel. P hilosophy o f H istory. London:
George Bell & Sons, 1883.
17 Jacob Carruthers, Intellectual Warfare, Chicago: Third World Press, 227.
18 Carruthers, Intellectual Warfare.
19 Diop, The Cultural Unity o f Black Africa: The D om ains o f M atriarchy & P atriarch y in C lassical
Antiquity, London: Karnak House, 1989.
20 Carruthers discussed the Two Cradle Theory as it is discussed within African Origin o f Civilization,
which was originally published in English in 1974. Jacob Carruthers, Essays in Ancient Egyptian Studies.
Los Angeles: University o f Sankore Press, 1984.
21 We should note that The Cultural Unity o f Black Africa has gone through three different English editions,
the first being published by Presence Africaine in 1962. W hile no scholars within the m odem Afrikan-
centered movem ent make reference to this text, it should be noted that this text was the first book published
by Diop in English.
22 W obogo, “D iop’s Two Cradle Theory and the Origins o f White Racism.”
23 Cheikh Anta Diop. The Cultural Unity o f Black Africa: The D om ains o f M atriarchy & P atriarch y in
C lassical Antiquity, 1.
24 While Diop utilizes the term “matriarchal,” more appropriate terms include, matrifocal, mother-focused
and/or matricentric. However, in keeping with D io p ’s terminology I have chosen to use the term
matriarchal and/matriarchy. This issue o f terminology w ill be discussed later, especially in the context o f
73
Ifi Am adium e’s critique o f D iop ’s work. See Amadiume, African M atriarchal Foundations: The Igbo
Case. London: Karnak House, 1987a; Amadiume, M ale Daughters, Fem ale Husbands: G ender an d Sex
in an African Society. London: Zed Books, 1987b; Amadiume, Reinventing Africa: M atriarchy, Religion
& Culture. London: Zed Books, 1997.
25 For instance, see Am adium e’s Reinventing Africa.
26 D iop ’s critique is based upon a review o f Bachofen, Morgan and Engels, see D iop ’s Cultural Unity o f
Black Africa.
27 Diop, The Cultural Unity o f Black Africa, 21.
28 Ibid.
29 Ibid., 38.
30 The role o f women within each cradle cannot be stressed more. See Ifi A m adium e’s Reinventing Africa:
Matriarchy, Religion an d Culture. London: Zed Books, 1997.
31 Naim Akbar. “Afficentric Social Science for Human Liberation.” Journal o f Black Studies 14, no. 4
(1984), 395-414; Marimba Ani. Yurugu: An A frican-centered Critique o f European Culture an d Thought.
Trenton: African World Press, 1997; Samir Amin, Eurocentrism, N ew York: Monthly R eview Press,
1989; Edward Said, Orientalism, N ew York: Pantheon Books, 1978.
32 Diop, The Cultural o f Black Africa, 44.
33 Ibid., 47.
34 Some have argued in fact there were four cradles. See Am adium e’s Reinventing Africa, where she
argues that the Zone o f Confluence is in fact a cradle. This analysis is based upon a strict reading o f
W obogo’s interpretation o f The Cultural Unity o f Black Africa who suggests the notion o f two cradles.
36 Ibid., 64.
37 V. Gordon Childe, Man M akes H im self (N ew York: The N ew American Library o f World Literature,
Inc., 1951); V. Gordon Childe, The Prehistory o f European Society, Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1958.
39 Ibid., 76.
40 Ibid., 77-78.
41 Ibid., 81.
42 Ibid., 82.
43 Ibid., 84.
44 Ibid., 84.
45 Ibid., 88, emphasis added.

74
46 See Chapter 4 o f The Cultural Unity o f Black Africa.
48 Amadiume develops these ideas.
50 Ibid., 124.
51 Ibid., 114.
52 While not in complete agreement with the work o f Cynthia Eller’s The M yth o f M atriarchal Prehistory:
Why an Invented P a st W on’t Given Women a Future, Eller’s analysis o f the im possibilities o f European
matriarchy are valid. Furthermore, it should be stressed that Eller’s analysis is extremely Eurocentric in
that her focus is only upon the possibilities o f European matriarchal prehistory. Eller supports D iop ’s
notion and while it seem s as she would disregard for matriarchy outside o f Europe, this does not place the
work o f Diop into question. It should finally be noted that while Eller makes very quick and terse
references to the work o f D iop and Amadiume, in no way does she undermine their arguments, simply from
the mere fact that she does not engage them.
53 A ll o f these arguments would be thoroughly developed within D iop ’s subsequent publications, especially
P recolonial Black Africa and C ivilization or Barbarism : An Authentic Anthropology.
54 Ibid., 130.
55 Jacob Carruthers, M dw Ntr, D ivine Speech: A H istoriographical Reflection o f African D eep Thought
From the Time o f The Pharaoh to the Present. London: Karnak House, 1995; Jacob Carruthers “An
African Historiography for the 2 1 st Century,” in African W orld H istory P roject: The Prelim inary
Challenge, edited by Jacob H. Carruthers, 47-72, Los Angeles: ASCAC Foundation, 1997.
56 Ibid., 144-145.
57 Ibid., 147.
58 Ibid., 151.
59 Ibid., 151-152.
60 Ibid., 160.
61 Ibid., 160.
62 Ibid., 160.
63 Ibid., 160.
64 Ibid., 177.
66 As Chapters 4 and 5 will show many culturally relative arguments advanced by Afrikan-centered
scholars make consistent reference to the work o f Diop.
75
67 This is the position o f this author given the over reference o f Diop in relation to his work on Ancient
Afrika, and little to no discussion o f any o f his other very important arguments.
68 While Diop does discuss these arguments first in this text, they were not clearly articulated until The
Cultural Unity o f Black Africa. Previous publications which were later released to the public after 1978,
also include earlier discussions o f the Two C radle Theory.
69 Diop, The African Origin o f Civilization: M yth or Reality, 111
70 Ibid., 112.
71 Ibid.
72 Ibid., 207.
73 Ibid., 113.
74 Ibid, 143-144.
75 Ibid.
76 Ibid., 134-155.
77 Cheikh Anta Diop, P recolonial Black Africa. N ew York: Lawrence Hill Books, 1987b.
78 Ibid., 19.
79 Ibid., 21.
80 Ibid., 24.
81 Ibid.
82 Ibid.
83 Cheikh Anta Diop, Black Africa: The Econom ic and Cultural B asis f o r a F ederated State, Chicago:
Lawrence Hill Books, 1987a, 33.
84 Ibid., 33.
85 See Amadiume’s Reinventing Africa, which develops and extends these ideas.
86 Cheikh Anta Diop, Black Africa, 34.
87 Diop, Towards the African Renaissance, 26.
88 Ibid., 121.
89 Ibid., 124.
90 Ibid.
91 Ibid., 130.
92 Ibid., 136.
76
93 See D iop’s African Origin o f C ivilization and Precolonial Black Africa.
94 Cheikh Anta Diop, “A m ethodology for the study o f migrations.” In African Ethnonyms an d Toponyms,
edited by UNESCO, (Paris: UNESCO, 1984), 100.
95 Ibid., 101.
96 Ibid., 107.
97 Cheikh Anta Diop, Civilization or Barbarism: An Authentic A nthropology, N ew York: Lawrence-Hill

Books, 1991, 11.
98
Ibid, 11.
99 Ibid, 15
100 Ibid., 15-16.
101 Ibid.,18.
102 Ibid.
103 Ibid.
104 Ibid., 19.
105 Ibid., 20.
'°6 Ibid.
107 Ibid., 112.
108 Ibid., 113.
109 Ibid., 155.
110 Ibid., 200.
111 Ibid., 218.
1.2 Ibid.
1.3 Ibid., 362.
114 Diop, Towards the African Renaissance, 102.
115 Carruthers, Intellectual Warfare, 232.
116 Diop, C ivilization or Barbarism , 362.
117 Ibid., 16.
118 Diop, The Cultural Unity o f Black Africa: The D om ains o f M atriarchy & P atriarch y in C lassical
Antiquity.
77
120 Diop, Cultural Unity o f Black Africa, 108.
121 Portes, UNESCO G eneral H istory o f Africa, 301.
122 Ibid., 297.
123 Ibid., 305.
124 Their work w ill be discussed in sufficient detail, in the follow ing chapter.
125 George Beauchamp, Curriculum Theory, Wilmette: The Kagg Press, 1968; M elvin H. Marx & William
Hillix, System s an d Theories in Psychology, N ew York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1963; William
Curtis Banks, “The Theoretical and M ethodological Crisis o f the Afficentric Conception,” Journal o f
N egro Education 61, no. 3, (1992), 262-272; Newton da Costa and Steven French, “M odels, Theories and
Structures: Thirty Years on,” P hilosophy o f Science 67 (2000), SI 16-S127.
126 Philip T. K. Daniels, “Theory Building in Black Studies,” in The African Am erican Studies Reader, ed.
Nathanial Norment, (Durham: Carolina Academ ic Press, 2001), 372-379.
127 Gerald A. McWhorter & Ronald Bailey, “Black Studies Curriculum Developm ent in the 1980s: Its
Patterns and History,” in The African Am erican Studies Reader, ed. Nathaniel Norment (Durham: Carolina
Academic Press, 2001), 614-630.
128 Russell Adams, “Intellectual Questions and Imperatives in the Developm ent o f Afro-American Studies,”
in The African Am erican Studies Reader, ed. Nathaniel Norment (Durham: Carolina Academ ic Press,
2001), 303-320; James Turner, “Africana Studies and Epistemology: A Discourse in the S ociology o f
Knowledge,” in The N ext D ecade: Theoretical an d Research Issues in Africana Studies, ed. James Turner
(Ithaca: Africana Research and Research Center, 1984), v-xxv.
129 Amadiume develops these arguments in African M atriarchal Foundations: The Igbo Case. London:
Karnak House, 1987a and Reinventing Africa: M atriarchy, Religion & Culture. London: Zed Books,
1997.
78
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
It would be the mission of African social scientists, at home and in the diaspora,
to devote their energies to the radical reconstruction o f the disciplines in which
they have been trained. Without such an approach, African peoples run the risk o f
incorporating the theoretical, mythological and ideological models o f white social
science into their own methodologies, thereby unknowingly internalizing the
values o f Western European society, including the negative image o f Africa
which white racialism and culturalism has created.1
I. Introduction
The utilization o f a discipline-specific research methodology is very much
connected to the question of theory and theory production within Africana Studies.
Since the institutionalization o f Africana Studies, scholars within the discipline have been
critical o f mainstream methodological approaches to research. Whether these scholars
came out o f sociology, including Alkalimat2 and Scott3; psychology, including Khatib, et.
al.4, Nobles5, Akbar6 and Banks7; political science, Walters8 and Jones9; anthropology,
Richards10 or economics, Dixon11, all o f the previously mentioned scholars, and others,
questioned the methodological foundations o f their particular discipline. Since all of
these areas, and others, contribute to the intellectual infrastructure o f Africana Studies,
their critical stance was taken up by later scholars who would work towards creating a
discipline-specific “methodology” for Africana Studies.12
The methodology that this dissertation is based upon is guided by the work of
these scholars, and others, who were at the forefront o f creating a culturally specific
methodological approach to the study o f Africana culture, people and experiences.
Therefore, in order to comprehend this particular research approach, we must first
understand the relationship between worldview and research methodology.13 This
79
relationship should be at the foundation o f Africana Studies, because it gives clarity to
the cultural specificity o f the discipline. Thus Africana Studies, is not and can not be,
white studies in Black face, but it is rather a culturally-specific approach to understanding
human phenomenon, Afrikan phenomenon in particular.14
Central to this discussion will be the ground breaking work o f the Africana
economist Vernon Dixon.15 Dixon has significantly influenced the work o f the
Afrikan/Black psychologists. Most importantly, he has shaped how they operationalize
key components o f the worldview concept. While the Afrikan/Black psychologists
themselves have added components which Dixon fails to include, Dixons role within this
intellectual trajectory can not be understated.16 Among the early works which builds upon
that of Dixon, is the work o f Wade Nobles.17 Relevant to Nobles’ contributions is the
work o f Mack Jones, who informed some o f Nobles early arguments regarding the
i c
importance o f research methodology. Nobles work, however, can function as a point o f
departure, for any discussion o f an Africana Studies methodology.
Finally, we will conclude with the work o f Daudi Ajani ya Azibo.19 Azibo, as an
Afrikan/Black psychologist has taken the work o f the previously mentioned scholars and
synthesized them into the most fundamental methodological foundation for Africana
Studies, to this date. It is this approach, as articulated by Azibo, with the help o f Dixon,
Nobles and Jones that functions as the methodological infrastructure o f this research
project. This methodology intends to perform two tasks; first, provide a genealogy o f the
historical development o f the worldview framework in Africana Studies and second,
serve as a template for constructing an Afrikan-centered methodology for Africana
Studies.
80
II. Worldview and Methodology
The relationship between a researcher’s worldview and their particular research
methodology is o f extreme importance, especially when they are attempting to investigate
culturally specific phenomenon. Vernon Dixon, emeritus professor o f economics at

00
Haverford College discusses this relationship on a number o f occasions. However,
given the striking similarities between these works we will only examine the earliest.
A research methodology, in part, refers to the assumptions that one brings to the
research project. Dixon argues, “Assumptions are statements about phenomena that are
accepted as valid without submission to tests o f their validity” .21 Within the process o f
research, assumptions constrain the research methodology. Able to acknowledge the
importance of assumptions to research methodology, Dixon asks an important question:
“What are the sources o f these assumptions”?22 Unequivocally, the sources o f these
assumptions are a person’s worldview. Therefore, a researcher’s worldview is an
extremely important component, which must be interrogated in order to properly
understand its cultural implications during the research process. As Dixon argues,
The model or hypothesis o f this paper is that different world views lead to
different research methodologies. More specifically, there are certain
philosophical characteristics in any given world view which determine the choice
of assumptions in particular, and research methodology in general. Research
methodology has world view specificity, which results from differences in
axiology, epistemology, and logic. If the model is valid, then it will be possible to
set forth different approaches to research, each consistent with its respective
world view.23
Since worldviews are products o f culture, it is pertinent to acknowledge one’s worldview
orientation within the research project, especially those within Africana Studies, given
the cultural specificity of this intellectual exercise.24
81
25 26
It is also important to recognize that both Abraham and Okanlawon use the
concept o f worldview in their discussion o f Afrikan culture, and represent an earlier
discussion o f this concept prior to Vernon Dixon. However, it is Vernon Dixon who is
consistently cited among Afrikan/Black psychologists, suggesting that Dixon holds a
central role in initially articulating this concept for this community o f scholars.
Before delving into the substance o f his argument, Dixon recognizes the
limitations to his analysis. These include the fact that he does not “explain the origin, the
historical develop, or the genetic basis o f the two world views”, and that he has limited
97
his discussion to the Afrikan and Euro-American worldviews. However, it is necessary
to recognize that given these constraints, Dixon’s attempted goal o f recognizing the
relationship between research methodology and worldview is still attainable.
Axiology, Epistemology and Logic
As previously stated, Dixon argues that axiology, epistemology and logic are
central tenets o f a particular worldview. Following the etymological origin o f the term
axiology (axios - Greek, values), Dixon and others, understand axiology to refer to the
90
nature o f values. Put another way, what do you value? Or, what do your values consist
of? Dixon follows with, “The dominant value-orientations in the Euro-American world
view is what I term the Man-to-Object relationship; while for homeland and overseas
TO
Africans, it is what I term the Man-to-Person relationship”. Among Euro-Americans
the value orientation o f their world view is guided by “Doing, Future-time, Individualism
T1
and Mastery-over-Nature”. Among Afrikans, homeland and overseas, the value
orientation o f their worldview is based upon “Being, Felt-time, Communalism and
82
Harmony-with-Nature”.32 The fundamental axiological difference between the two
worldviews is clearly grounded within the relationship between the self and the other.
Myers argues that the distinctions between axiologies is found within an optimal
(Afrikan) axiology where the “Highest value [is] in positive interpersonal relationships
among people,” and a suboptimal (European) axiology where the “Highest value [is] in
objects or acquisition o f objects”.33 Kambon also distinguishes between values among
the two worldviews, by arguing that the Afrikan worldview’s axiological basis is
grounded in cooperation and collective responsibility; corporateness and
interdependence; and spiritualism and circularity34; in comparison to the European
axiology which is founded on competition and individual rights; separateness and
independence; and materialism and ordinality.
The worldview differences in axiology have a variety o f ways o f manifesting
themselves, Dixon , Myers , Kambon and others, all provide sufficient examples to
support the existences o f these values. However, when it comes to ones research
methodology, Dixon is correct to assert, “axiological or value orientations implicitly
influence the content and, therefore, models or hypotheses”.39 Thus, given the value of
independence at the expense o f interdependence, or collective responsibility in
comparison to individual rights, or even communalism as opposed to individualism, the
value orientations influence the nature o f your research methodology. This will be
evident within the nature of your hypotheses and models that you attempt to interrogate
through your research project.
Dixon then investigates the concept o f epistemology. Following its etymological
origin (episteme - Greek, knowledge/to know), epistemology refers to the nature of
83
knowledge, but more importantly, how do you know what you know? What are the
processes that are used in order to know something? As Dixon states, “the focus is on
how, or the way in which one knows reality or phenomena; i.e., the grounds or method of
knowledge”.40 The distinctions between the two epistemological orientations, Dixon
argues can be found between the Euro-American epistemology which he refers to as
“Object-Measure Cognition” and the African view which he refers to as “Affect-
Symbolic Imagery Cognition”.41 The epistemological difference between the two
worldviews is found in what Dixon refers to as “empty perceptual space”.42 While within
the Euro-American worldview, there exists empty perceptual space, in the Afrikan
worldview it does not exist.
Stated differently, within the Euro-American worldview the knower will distance
him/herself from the phenomena they are attempting to know. While within the Afrikan
worldview, the knower attempts to be apart o f the phenomena s/he is attempting to know.
Dixon adds clarity to this distinction when he states, “Affective-oriented persons know
reality predominantly through the interaction o f Affect and Symbolic Imagery, i.e. the
synthesis o f the two factors....” Furthermore,
Affect personalizes the phenomenal world. It is one factor in the affect mode of
knowing. Affect, however, is not intuition, for the latter term means direct
knowledge or immediate- knowledge (instinctive knowledge) without resource to
reference from reason or reason about evidence. Affect does interact with
evidence, evidence in the form o f Symbolic Imagery.43
Clarifying the concept o f symbolic imagery, Dixon states it “is the use o f phenomena
(words, gestures, tones, rhythms, objects, etc.) to convey meaning”.44 Symbolic imagery,
therefore, refers to any occurrences that can be ascertained on the material level o f
reality. However, symbolic imagery is made sense o f through its relationship with affect.
84
Dixon summarizes the epistemological assumption o f the Euro-American
worldview by stating, “I step back from phenomena, I reflect; I measure; I think; I know;
and therefore I am and I feel”.45 While the Afrikan epistemological assumption, states, “I
feel phenomena; therefore I think; I know”.46 The centrality o f empty perceptual space is
found within the Euro-American assumption which “steps back,” while the Afrikan does
not, thus negating the existence o f any empty perceptual space.
Myers, adds clarity to this understanding regarding the epistemological
distinctions between worldviews. According to Myers, an optimal worldview posits that
self knowledge is the highest form o f knowledge, and that knowledge comes through
symbolic imagery and rhythm.47 While a suboptimal worldview posits that knowledge is
external and known through counting and measuring. Similar distinctions can be found
among the work o f Akbar, Kambon and others.
These realities o f epistemological differences have a variety o f ways o f
manifesting themselves. Dixon provides sufficient examples to support himself. In
addition, Akbar49 and Myers50 provide more recent and up-to-date evidence for these
distinctions. The relationship between epistemology and research methodology is of
great importance, as Dixon argues, “epistemology or the mode o f knowing reality
implicitly controls the methods o f verification]”.51 Therefore, while axiological
differences determine value orientations, the epistemology in turn determines the
technique by which this knowledge is accessed.
Finally, Dixon investigates the notion o f logic between the two worldviews.
Logic refers “to the canons and criteria o f validity in reasoning or how one organizes
what one knows”.52 Dixon believes that there exists distinct approaches to knowledge,
85
which vary between the worldviews. Among the Euro-American the logic is either/or,
and among Afrikans it is diunital.
According to Dixon, either/or logic is also a reflection the existence o f perceptual
space. For example,
Such logic means that a person’s knowledge cannot take the form ...of a room
being simultaneously empty and not-empty. This type o f discontinuity or gap
among phenomena is quite consistent with a world view oriented towards a
perception o f a conceptual distance between the observer and the observed along
with similar empty perceptual space among the observed.53
The term diunital, on the other hand, refers to “something apart and united at the
same time”.54 Diunital logic, however, is reflective o f the nonexistence o f perceptual
space. Within the Afrikan worldview “a person becomes oriented towards a harmonious
oneness between the observer and the observed and in which there is an absence o f empty
perceptual spaces among phenomena”.55
Both Myers56 and Azibo57 advance similar interpretations o f the distinctions
within logic. When it comes to research methodology, Dixon is correct to assert, “logic or
the mode o f organizing knowledge implicitly shapes the form of...assumptions and
models”. 58
Accordingly, axiology, epistemology and logic play central roles in defining the
worldview orientation of research methodologies. Dixon posits, therefore that values and
logic shape the content and form o f assumptions. These assumptions are in turn
developed into models and/or hypotheses that are then verified through a particular way
of knowing. Since distinct axiologies, epistemologies and forms o f logic are products of
a particular worldview and culture, this understanding is essential within a culturally
specific discipline, such as Africana Studies.
86
However, the notion o f worldview should not be limited to these components.
While Dixon limits his analysis o f worldview and research methodology to the
components o f axiology, epistemology and logic, the Afrikan/Black psychologists,
building upon his work, advance other components o f the Afrikan worldview. These
other areas are also important to one’s research methodology. Therefore, we must
discuss the components o f cosmology, teleology and ideology.
Cosmology, Teleology and Ideology
The etymological origin o f the term cosmology (cosmos - Greek, universe) refers
to the nature/structure of the universe.59 Afrikan/Black psychologists posit that the
Afrikan cosmology is based upon “an interconnected and interdependent edifice,” where
“all things in the universe are interconnected and interdependent”.60 Therefore, all things
within the universe are connected. Whether apprehensible logically or illogically, we live
in a fundamentally communal universe. The cosmological assumption o f independence
and separation, which is reflective o f the European worldview, guides the majority of
research methodologies in western social sciences. However, this assumption requires
separation between interrelated areas. This understanding of the European cosmology is
grounded in Dixon’s concept o f “empty perceptual space.”61 However, the
multi/interdisciplinary nature o f Africana Studies requires the acceptance o f the
cosmological assumption o f the Afrikan worldview as relevant to a discipline-specific
methodology. Dixon, originally trained in economics, validates this necessity in his
discussion o f Black economics, suggesting that it is necessary to also include,
“philosophical notions, sociological concepts, anthropological information, etc.

fD •
(noneconomics)” in the investigation o f economic phenomena. The cosmological
87
assumption o f the Afrikan worldview suggests that in our analysis o f Africana people,
culture and experiences, we must utilize all areas o f culture to come up with the most
accurate and relevant data on and/or about Africana people.
Banks, in his critique o f an Africentric research methodology, discusses a number
o f important areas to this current review. Pertinent, is his discussion o f teleology and
the relationship between ideology and methodology. First, Banks provides insight into
the importance o f the teleological assumption o f the Afrikan worldview.
Azibo thoroughly outlines the flaws in Banks argumentation, but Banks does
suggest the inclusion of teleology, as another key component o f the Afrikan worldview.64
Banks argues that “the absence o f a dimension within the Africentric framework o f what
traditionally is called teleology deprives the framework o f an essential source of
justification for programs o f African-American development”.65 Banks, correctly states
that Afrikan people have consistently held a “sense o f directedness, o f definite ends, of
definite purpose” which we can understand through “the sense o f commitment and
extended investment that characterize” an Afrikan notion o f self.66
This teleological assumption impacts research methodology in that it suggests that
there is an intended goal for the work which is being done. The teleological assumption
is clearly reflective of the calls for relevant and functional education, which have been at
cn
the heart o f Africana Studies since its institutionalization. Therefore, any research
methodology within Africana Studies, must question the relevancy and functionality of
the particular research project.
Furthermore, Carruthers was correct to assert that “Our students are caught
AS
between the philosophy of liberation and the methodology o f oppression” . In being in
88
this predicament, Carruthers is suggesting that while Africana scholars and students are
philosophically and ideologically committed to engaging the problems facing Africana
people vis-a-vis (social) science, since we have not constructed the proper methodology,
this is utterly impossible.
Alkalimat also spoke to this point when he argued that Africana Studies must be
guided by a Black ideology. In explaining the importance of ideology, Alkalimat states,
“Ideology involves the prophetic vision o f a thought as well as the action orientation o f a
moral commitment to serve. Thus, ideology combines an interpretation o f the social
world with a moral commitment to change it”.69 Therefore, it should be the role of
Africana Studies to use an interpretative framework which will engender change within
the Afrikan world. The previous examples all support the relevance and existence o f the
teleological assumption of the Afrikan worldview methodology in Africana Studies.
Banks also provides a discussion on the relationship between ideology and

7A *71 «7A
methodology. As Azibo and Nobles maintain, ideology is another key component of
the worldview concept. Banks suggests that an ideology reflects the beliefs and ideas
used to advance the needs and social aspirations o f a (cultural) group. Marimba Ani is
also correct to make this same assertion.73 In the case o f Afrikans in America, Banks
maintains that, “The Africentric conception is one ideological system that is contending
for position o f preeminence in expressing the interests and guiding the actions o f the
African American community today”.74 Therefore, when attempting to discuss an
Africana Studies methodology, it is necessary to recognize that this methodology must
reflect the interests and needs o f Africana people. While Banks provides a rather
89
complicated and abstruse discussion o f the relationship between ideology and
methodology, others have provided a more clearly discussed articulation.
For example, Richards has explicated the relationship between ideology and
methodology through the European imposition o f objectivity, progress and dominance.75
However, the ideological nature of these three concepts is found within the fact that they
all emanate from a European cultural orientation, and therefore in keeping with the
definition o f an ideology, their ultimate goal is to advance the interests o f Europeans.
Objectivity is understood as an outgrowth o f the European epistemology and therefore
determines the manner in which one comes to know and/or attain information about
phenomena. This concept o f epistemology, also adds clarity to Dixon’s notion of

7 f\
“perceptual space”. In discussing the ideological nature o f objectivity, Richards states,
The knowing subject must disengage him self from that which he wishes to know.
He must become emotionally uninvolved—detached. Indeed, he must become
remote from it. By doing this, he successfully controls that which he wishes to
know and thereby makes o f it an object. The object has been created by the
distance o f the knowing self from the thing to be known.77
By objectivity functioning within this manner, and by being a key component o f western
social science, it is obvious that this concept is detrimental to Africana peoples. First, the
assumption o f objectivity is an affront to the Afrikan cosmological and epistemology
assumptions, as previously mentioned. But more importantly,
The African worldview immerses us in a vibrant universe. It seeks to close

gaps— to do away with discontinuity—to bring us close to the essence o f life.
The epistemology it generates does away with distance. Since there is no distance,
there are no mediators. The mode o f our epistemological method is that of
participation, and relationship rather than separation and control.78
The ideological value o f objectivity is laid out rather clearly. As Richards further
argues, an Africana Studies methodology must acknowledge this extremely important
90
reality in order to develop “a holistic approach identified with Pan-African Studies [Afro-
American, African American, Africana, Black Studies, etc.] as a discipline, rather than
with the fragmentary divisions o f European academic thought. We must not be afraid to
70
create new concepts, theories, and methodologies to fit our vision o f the future..
The ideological nature o f progress manifests itself with the consistent need of
80
Europe and her descendants to advocate development, linearity and expansionism. This
manifests itself with a person’s research methodology through the assumption that
humanity is moving towards an undefined end. Within the area o f science, Richards
argues, “Progress became identified with scientific knowledge,” and therefore, the
epistemological cornerstone o f western society would be a commitment to scientific

81
advancement. However, this commitment has come at the expense o f ecological
insanity, nuclear weapons, and a deteriorating ozone layer, among other disastrous
realities. Within an Africana Studies methodology the question needs to be asked, are we
understanding Africana people, culture and experiences in order to progress within a
European sense, or is the teleological assumption o f the Afrikan worldview clearly
reflective o f Afrikan cultural reality? Finally, Richards’ general discussion o f the
ideology of dominance is important in that she suggests that our use o f western social
scientific assumptions may actually lead to imposing culturally detrimental assumptions
on Afrikan people.82
The previously mentioned components o f axiology, epistemology, logic,
cosmology, teleology and ideology, as components o f a worldview clearly have a role to
play within the research process, especially as outlined above. This discussion should
clarify the importance o f the Afrikan worldview to Africana Studies, not only in regards
91
to the perspective o f the discipline, as discussed above, but at the present, as central to the
methodological infrastructure o f the discipline.
III. Wade Nobles and Mack Jones on Frames of Reference and Normative
Assumptions: Implications for Africana Studies
It is also necessary to discuss the concepts o f frame o f reference and normative
assumptions in conjunction with worldview, especially as discussed in the work o f Wade
Nobles. As early as 1978, Nobles advanced an Afrikan-based scientific network. Nobles
argued that we should “build our theoretical and empirical analysis from our world-view,
0 -2
normative assumptions, and frame o f reference”. In doing so, Nobles provided a
necessary advancement in understanding Africana people, culture and experiences.
While Nobles’ usage o f these concepts was specific to the Africana family, these
concepts are also applicable to the understanding o f Africana culture as a whole, ie.
Africana Studies. Since we have already thoroughly discussed the concept o f worldview
and all o f its constituent parts, we must now engage the concepts o f normative
assumptions and frame o f reference.
According to Nobles, three critical components constitute the Afrikan scientific
paradigm: world-view, a set o f normative assumptions and frame o f reference. Nobles
further states,
In addition to answering specific questions such as who are we? Where did we
come from? Etc., a world-view also defines what people believe to be their
‘nature’ and the way in which they believe the world should operate. Growing
directly out o f their world-view, the normative assumptions o f a people
summarize their perceptions o f the nature o f the ‘good life’ and the political,
economic, and cultural forms and/or processes necessary for the realization o f that
life. A people’s fram e o f reference, which is more directly related to academic
disciplines and scientific inquiry, serves as the ‘lens’ through which people
perceive the experiential world.
92
While this is a mouthful, let us cut straight to the point. A worldview determines the
nature o f reality, ie. how a culture understands the nature o f reality. Normative
assumptions then determine how reality is perceived. Finally, a frame o f reference
determines the manner in which this reality should be understood and/or interpreted. As
Nobles85 and Jones86 argue, worldviews, normative assumptions and frames o f reference,
clearly impact the nature o f disciplines, and Africana Studies is no different. Jones
provides clarity for this point by stating that,
The establishment of academic disciplines, then, is a normative purposeful

exercise, the content o f which is determined by a people’s worldview and
normative assumptions. It is the process by which it determines what facts form
the universe o f facts should be selected and aggregated for study. The content of
disciplines is determined by the third dimension o f the web, the frame of
0*7
reference.
Nobles adds clarity to the frame o f reference, by stating that,
It particularly determines the formation o f major concepts, propositions and

theories appropriate to the examination o f reality. In fact, it prescribes the
assumptions and issues which will be considered as ‘legitimate’ areas o f study, as
well as how they should be studied.88
Nobles, clearly influenced by Jones, has opened the flood gates for a clear
methodological approach to Africana Studies. Not only grounding the work within the
concept o f worldview, he further suggests the necessity o f normative assumptions, and
how both of these inform a frame o f reference.
Nevertheless, most importantly, both scholars state that these components are at the
basis of academic disciplines. Given the intellectual history o f Africana Studies, this
author is dumbfounded by the limited number o f so-called Africana Studies scholars who
have not incorporate these pertinent components into their conceptualization o f Africana
Studies. It should be obvious, as outlined by Jones and Nobles, that these key
93
components are necessary in order to accurately and properly understand Africana
phenomenon via the academic discipline o f Africana Studies.
IV. Daudi Ajani ya Azibo and the Afrikan Worldview in Africana Studies
Daudi Azibo has attempted to anchor Africana Studies within the concept o f the
Afrikan worldview.89 While not specifically including normative assumptions and
frames of reference, Azibo’s scholarship is essential to a current understanding of
Africana Studies, and is evident o f the methodological implications.
Jones has recently reiterated the points discussed above. Most important, is for
Africana Studies to clearly recognize and accept that, “Academic disciplines, especially
social science disciplines, are developed within the constraints o f worldviews”.90 While
not included in his works cited list, Azibo is clearly aware o f this previously stated fact.
In his attempt to distinguish between “Black Studies” and the “Study o f Blacks,” Azibo
maintains “that what Black Studies ‘Black’ is the usage o f the conceptual universe
afforded by the African w orldview ...in studying any and all manner o f phenomena”.91
Thereby, the Afrikan worldview has implications in all areas o f the discipline, from its
actual disciplinarity, origin, structure, content, purpose and conceptual framework.92
According to Azibo the disciplinary basis o f Africana Studies can be found through
the usage o f the Afrikan worldview, which makes the work o f the discipline “culturally
centered”.93 By recognizing Africana Studies as a cultural science94, Azibo argues that
within Africana Studies there are no artificial boundaries as found within “white
studies”.95 Therefore, the disciplinary basis o f Africana Studies is based upon the subject
matter o f Africana people, culture and experience, which western disciplines do not
properly engage.96
94
The Afrikan worldview also rectifies the question o f d iscip lin ary within the field.
According to Azibo “it is inescapable that Black Studies is both an interdisciplinary field
and a singular discipline. The African worldview base o f Black Studies eliminates any
seeming contradiction on this point. It renders moot the unidiscipline vs. multidiscipline
vs. interdiscipline issue that some writers pursue”.97
As stated above, Azibo also argues that the Afrikan worldview is the basis by
which we can validate the ancient Afrikan conception o f Africana Studies. He maintains
that “Black Studies began as a discipline at the time the Nile Valley Africans coalesced
the manifold dictates o f the African worldview into a systematic epistemological based
QO
and applied it in extant pedagogy”. While stated with a high level o f verbosity, Azibo
is merely stating that the origins o f Africana Studies can be found within the Nile Valley,
where Afrikans utilized the Afrikan worldview as a pedagogical and intellectual tool for
their interpretation o f their reality.
Regarding the implications o f the Afrikan worldview for the structure and content
o f Africana Studies, Azibo argues that the “artificial boundaries that separate so-called
disciplines (psychology, religion, sociology, etc.)” must be avoided.99 Thereby
suggesting that there should be no separation between African/Black psychology,
Africana philosophy and Africana religion, “because each owes [their] existence and
unfolding to the dictates o f the African worldview”.100
Finally, regarding the conceptual framework o f Africana Studies, Azibo rectifies
discussion o f Afrocentricity by certain scholars, and their progeny, who have provided
vague, ahistorical and intellectually disingenuous conceptualizations o f this important
component of Africana Studies.101 Gloria Joseph defines a conceptual framework, as
95
those philosophical constructs used to define and structure reality, and is therefore
basic to the way in which we perceive and interpret. It is the basis o f our
worldview. All people have a conceptual system usually shaped for the most part
by the culture with which they identify”.102
In clarifying the concept o f Afrocentricity, as a conceptual framework, Azibo states,
A matured apprehension o f the concept o f Afrocentricity reveals its meaning to be

no more or less than construing, interpreting, negotiating, and otherwise acting on
the world using the system o f conceptual thought generated from the African
cultural deep structure, also known as the Afrikan worldview.103
Therefore, Afrocentricity can be easily understood as using the African worldview to
understand all manner o f phenomena.
Azibo returns to this point in his discussion o f Africentric conceptualization as
essential to African liberation.104 Central to centric thought (Africentric, Eurocentric,
Asian-centered, etc.) are the concepts o f social theory and survival thrusts. “A people’s
authentic social theory is essential to their basic philosophical and consequential
psychological orientations.” Furthermore, “A people’s social theory is, in turn, reflected
and realized in their ‘survival thrust’, which may be defined as the characteristic ways a
people negotiate the environment”.105 Both a people’s social theory and survival thrusts
define their centric thought base.
The necessity o f Africentric conceptualization in Africana Studies can be
summarized in three key points. First, given the fact that “Africentric conceptualization
is the African’s own original, primal, and indigenous way o f interpreting reality and
negotiating his/her material existence in it”.106 Given the fact that the Afrikan worldview
is the initial means o f interpreting and negotiating the world, we should utilize it to
construct models o f thought and practice. Secondly, Azibo states, Africentric
conceptualization “has proven itself to be the most efficacious orientation that correlates
96
i f\n
with African development, advancement and recoupment from wretchedness”.
Relying upon the scholarship o f Jacob Carruthers, Azibo maintains that historically the
use of the Afrikan worldview (ie. Africentric conceptualization) has only lead to our
advancement as a people. It is, however, at the moment which we depart from our
1 rtjj
authentic thought based that “our wretchedness ensues”. Third, given the “universal
failure o f alien (nonAfrican) thought-based conceptualizing to facilitate or correlate with
the authentic development and recoupment o f Africans, continental or diasporic,” it is
only in our interest to stay grounded within our own centric thought base.109 As Azibo
has previously stated, “The African worldview is the answer. When Africans do not
embrace it, our wretchedness ensues; when Africans cleave to it, sustentation and great
achievements are attained”.110
It should be clear that Azibo’s111 work regarding Africentric conceptualization
and the centrality o f the Afrikan worldview to Africana Studies is clearly in line with
previous arguments made by Nobles112 and Jones.113 While Azibo does not discuss
notions o f normative assumptions and frame o f reference, they are implied and therefore,
this direction is helpful is sustaining disciplinary arguments regarding Africana Studies.
The previously reviewed work has a clear influence on the role o f methodology within
Africana Studies. If Africana Studies intends to seriously engage a discussion o f a
discipline-specific methodology, it is necessary to conceptualize the discipline based
upon the concepts o f worldview, frame o f reference and normative assumptions.
V. Implications for this Research Project
Generally speaking, following the argumentation o f Azibo, the Afrikan worldview
clearly impacts the structure and content o f Africana Studies.114 More specifically, it
97
impacts on the general nature o f the multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary usage o f
Diop’s Two Cradle Theory throughout Africana Studies. As this dissertation will show
Diop’s Two Cradle Theory has been and can be used throughout a variety o f areas within
Africana Studies, from Africana history, Africana psychology, Africana philosophy,
Africana Gender Studies and so on, therefore this speaks to the interrelated and
interdependent nature o f this theory as the basis for the development o f culturally-specific
concepts and assumptions that have an impact about the construction o f knowledge
within Africana Studies.
Secondly, Cheikh Anta Diop represents the manifestation o f this same
“interdependence and interrelation.” As Richards maintains, “The African worldview
tells us that our interrelatedness is the praxis o f our humanity”.115 Given his training in
anthropology, archeology, chemistry, physics, history and linguistics, this furthermore
validates the Afrikan worldview and how it is essential for a complete understanding of
Cheikh Anta Diop’s intellectual productions.
The specific concepts o f teleology and ideology are also implicitly found within
this research project.116 As Richards states, “as people of African descent, we must
define technology as ‘The tools o f Afrocentric development.’ If it cannot be used—
indeed it is used— in the service o f Pan-African self-determination, it is not ‘technology.’
Both science and technology must, after all, for us be processes o f validation.”117
Therefore, the end goal o f this scholarship is the means by which to continue in the
process o f changing the life chances and conditions o f Afrikan people. Guided by this
reality, notions of objectivity, distance, and separation are discarded for more Afrikan
98
orientated concepts such as subjectivity, analysis/synthesis, holism and unity through
ideology.118
VI. Research Methods
The Two Cradle Theory within Africana Studies will be examined primarily
through close readings o f Cheikh Anta Diop’s The Cultural Unity o f Black Africa: The
Domains o f Matriarchy and Patriarchy in Classical Antiquity, the text where he logically
and coherently lays out this theoretical argument. Portions of the Two Cradle Theory can
also be found within his The African Origin o f Civilization: Myth or Reality, Precolonial
Black Africa and Civilization or Barbarism: An Authentic Anthropology, which will also
provide useful information to inform the variety o f ways he constructs these arguments.
Furthermore, English translated articles including those found within Toward an African
Renaissance: Essays in African Culture and Development, 1946-1960, will also be
utilized to acquire a complete articulation and understanding o f Diop’s discussion o f his
Two Cradle Theory. This comprises the content o f the previous chapter, chapter 2.
Chapter 4 will engage the variety o f responses that Diop received, including but
not limited to the work o f John Henrik Clarke, Jacob Carruthers, Theophile Obenga, Ifi
Amadiume, Vulindela Wobogo, James Spady, Asa Hilliard, Ivan Van Sertima, among
others. In doing so, this chapter attempts to assess the written intellectual response by
scholars who have been primarily influential within certain quarters o f Africana Studies.
This chapter also attempts to discuss these key thinkers, as the vehicles by which the Two
Cradle Theory has found its way within Africana academic discourse and Africana
Studies. It is the analysis o f this connective web o f scholars which is extremely
99
important for full comprehension o f the development and infusion o f the Two Cradle
Theory within Africana Studies.
Chapter 5 will discuss the Two Cradle Theory within Africana Studies by relying
upon scholars who have contributed to the subject areas of Africana History, Africana
Philosophy and Africana Psychology, along with showing their usage o f Diop’s Two
Cradle Theory to substantiate their arguments, we will come to a better understand o f the
profound role Diop’s theoretical argument can play and does currently play within
Africana Studies.
Finally, Chapter 6 intends to return the issue of theory and theory production
within Africana Studies. By using the arguments o f this dissertation as a template, future
directions and prospects will be suggested that will allow the discipline o f Africana
Studies to answer a number o f the pertinent theoretical questions which will contribute to
maintaining Africana Studies place as an academically sound and autonomous discipline.
NOTES
1 Dona Richards (aka Marimba Ani), “The Ideology o f European Dominance,” Western Journal o f Black
Studies 3, no. 4 (1979), 249.
2 Abdul Alkalimat (aka Gerald McWhorter) “The Ideology o f Black Social Science,” in The D eath o f White
Sociology, ed. Joyce A. Ladner, (Baltimore: Black Class Press, 1973), 173-189.
3 J. Scott, “Black Science and Nation-Building,” in The D eath o f White Sociology, ed. Joyce A. Ladner,
(Baltimore: Black Class Press, 1973), 289-309.
4 Cedric X. Clark, D. Phillip M cGee, Wade N obles, & Luther X. W eem s (aka Naim Akbar), “V oodoo or
IQ: An Introduction to African Psychology,” The Journal o f Black P sychology 1, no. 2 (1975), 9-29.
5 Wade N obles, “Toward an Empirical and Theoretical Framework for Defining Black Fam ilies,” Journal
o f M arriage an d the Fam ily 40, no. 4 (1978), 679-688.
6 Naim Akbar, “Africentric Social Science for Human Liberation,” Journal o f Black Studies 14, no. 4
(1984), 395-414; Naim Akbar, “Our Destiny: Authors o f a Scientific Revolution,” in Black Children, eds.
Harriet M cAdoo and John M cAdoo (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1985), 17-32.
100
7 William Curtis Banks, “The Theoretical and M ethodological Crisis o f the Africentric Conception,”
Journal o f N egro Education 61, no. 3, (1992), 262-272.
8 Ronald Walters, “Toward a Definition o f Black Social Science,” in The D eath o f White S ociology, ed.
Joyce A. Ladner, (Baltimore: Black Class Press, 1973), 190-213.
9 Mack H. Jones, “Scientific Method, Value Judgements, and the Black Predicament in the U .S .,” The
R eview o f Black P olitical Economy, 7 (1976), 7-21.
10 Richards “The Ideology o f European Dominance”; Dona Richards, “European M ythology: The Ideology
o f ‘Progress’,” in C ontem porary Black Thought, ed. M olefi Kete Asante (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications,
1980), 59-79; Dona Richards, “The Dem ystification o f Objectivity,” Imhotep, Journal o f Afrocentric
Thought, 1, no. 1 (1989), 23-34.
11 Vernon J. Dixon, “The di-unital approach to ‘Black econom ics’,” The Am erican Econom ic Review, 60,
no. 2 (1970), 424-429; Vernon J. Dixon, “Two approaches to Black-W hite relations” in B eyon d Black or
White; An Alternative Am erica, eds. Vernon J. Dixon & Babi G. Foster, (Boston: Little, Brown, 1971a) 56-
84; V em on J. D ixon, “African-oriented and Euro-American-oriented worldviews: Research m ethodologies
and econom ics,” R eview o f Black P olitical Economy, 1, no. 2 (1971b) 119-156; V em on J. Dixon,
“W orldviews and research m ethodology,” in African Philosophy: Assumption an d P aradigm s f o r Research
on Black Persons, ed. Lewis King, (Los Angeles: Fanon R & D Center, 1976), 51-102.
12 Daudi Ajani Ya Azibo, “Africentric Conceptualizing as the Pathway to African Liberation,”

International Journal o f Africana Studies 5, (1999), 1-31; Daudi Ajani Ya A zibo, “Articulating the
Distinction Between Black Studies and the Study o f Blacks: The Fundamental R ole o f Culture and the
African-Centered W orldview,” in The African Am erican Studies Reader, ed. Nathaniel Norment, (Durham:
Carolina Academ ic Press, 2001), 420-441.
13 Dixon, “African-oriented and Euro-American-oriented worldviews”; Jones, “Scientific Method, Value

Judgements, and the Black Predicament”; N obles, “Toward an Empirical and Theoretical Framework”;
Wade N obles, A fricanity an d the Black Fam ily, (Oakland: A Black Family Institute Publication, 1985);
Azibo, “Articulating the Distinction Between Black Studies and the Study o f Blacks”.
15 Dixon, “The di-unital approach to ‘Black econom ics’”; Dixon, “Two approaches to Black-White
relations”; Dixon, “African-oriented and Euro-American-oriented worldviews”; D ixon, “W orldviews and
research m ethodology”; V em on J. Dixon, “Som e Thoughts on Teaching Predominantly Affective-Oriented
Groups,” in Introducing Race an d G ender Into Economics, ed. Robin Bartlett (N ew York: Routledge,
1997), 177-189.
16 Kobi Kambon (aka Joseph Baldwin), The African P ersonality in Am erica: An A frican-Centered
Fram ework (Tallahassee: Nubian Nation Publications, 1992); Kobi Kambon, “The Africentric Paradigm
and African-American Psychological Liberation” in African P sychology in H istorical P erspective and
R elated Com mentary, ed. Daudi Ajani Ya Azibo, (Trenton: Africa World Press, 1996), 57-69; Kobi
Kambon, African/Black P sychology in the Am erican Context: An African-C entered Approach,
(Tallahassee: Nubian Nation Publications, 1998); Linda James Myers, “The Deep Structure o f Culture:
The Relevance o f Traditional African Culture in Contemporary Tim es,” Journal o f Black Studies, 18, no. 1
(1987), 72-85; Linda James Myers, “Expanding the Psychology o f Knowledge Optimally: The Importance
o f W orldview Revisited,” in Black Psychology, ed. Reginald Jones (Berkeley: Cobb & Henry Publishers,
1991), 15-32; Linda James Myers, U nderstanding an Afrocentric W orld View: Introduction to an O ptim al
P sychology {Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 1993).
17 N obles, “Toward an Empirical and Theoretical Framework”; N obles, Africanity an d the Black Family.
101
18 Jones, “Scientific Method, Value Judgements, and the Black Predicament”.
19 Azibo, “Africentric Conceptualizing as the Pathway to African Liberation”; Azibo, “Articulating the
Distinction Betw een Black Studies and the Study o f Blacks”.
20 Dixon, “Tw o approaches to Black-W hite relations”; D ixon, “African-oriented and Euro-American-
oriented worldviews”; D ixon, “W orldviews and research m ethodology”; Dixon, “Some Thoughts on
Teaching Predominantly Affective-Oriented Groups”.
21 Dixon, “African-oriented and Euro-American-oriented w orldviews,” 119.
22 Ibid., 120.
23 Ibid., 120.
24 See Chapter 1,
25 W illie Abraham, The M ind o f Africa (Chicago: The University o f Chicago Press, 1962).
26 A. Okanlawon, “Towards Pan-Africanism: Africanism-A Sythesis o f the African W orld-View,” Black

W orld, (1972), 40-45, 92-97.
27 Dixon, “African-oriented and Euro-American-oriented worldviews,” 121.
28 Dixon, “African-oriented and Euro-American-oriented worldviews”; Dixon, “W orldviews and research

m ethodology”.
29 Myers, Understanding an Afrocentric W orld View.
30 Dixon, “African-oriented and Euro-American-oriented w orldviews,” 121
31 Ibid., 126-127.
32 Ibid., 131.
33 Myers, Understanding an Afrocentric W orld View, 97
34 Kambon, “The Africentric Paradigm and African-American Psychological Liberation”.
35 Ibid., 61.
36 Dixon, “African-oriented and Euro-American-oriented w orldviews”; Dixon, “W orldviews and research

m ethodology”.
37 Myers, U nderstanding an Afrocentric W orld View.
38 Kambon, “The Africentric Paradigm and African-American Psychological Liberation”.
40 Ibid., 131.
41 Ibid., 131.
42 Ibid., 131-138.
102
43 Ibid., 134.
44
Ibid., 134.
45 Ibid., 133.
46 Ibid., 136.
48 Naim Akbar, “The Evolution o f Human Psychology for African Americans,” in Black P sychology, ed.
Reginald Jones (Berkeley: Cobb & Henry Publishers, 1991), 99-123; Kambon, The African P ersonality in
America; Kambon, “The Africentric Paradigm and African-American Psychological Liberation”; Kambon,
African/Black P sychology in the Am erican Context.
49 Akbar, “The Evolution o f Human Psychology for African Americans”.
50 Myers, Understanding an Afrocentric W o rld View.
51 Dixon, “African-oriented and Euro-American-oriented w orldviews,” 139.
52 Ibid., 138.
53 Ibid., 138.
54 Ibid., 139.
55 Ibid., 139.
56 Myers, U nderstanding an Afrocentric W orld View.
59 Myers, Understanding an Afrocentric W orld View; Azibo, “Africentric Conceptualizing as the Pathway
to African Liberation”; Kambon, The African P ersonality in Am erica; Kambon, “The Africentric Paradigm
and African-American Psychological Liberation”; Kambon, African/Black P sychology in the Am erican
Context.
60 Azibo, “Articulating the Distinction Between Black Studies and the Study o f Blacks,” 424.
61 Dixon, “W orldviews and Research M ethodology”.
62 Dixon, “The di-unital approach to ‘Black econom ics’,” 426.
63
Banks, “The Theoretical and M ethodological Crisis o f the Africentric Conception”.
64 Daudi Ajani Ya A zibo, “Som e Reflections on M y Interactions with the Late Dr. W. Curtis Banks,”
Journal o f African Am erican M en 6, no. 4, (2002), 61-81.
65
Banks, “The Theoretical and M ethodological Crisis o f the Africentric Conception,” 266.
103
66 Ibid., 266.
67 Nathaniel Norment, ed., The African Am erican Studies R eader (Durham: Carolina Academ ic Press,
2001); Maulana Karenga, Introduction to Black Studies (Los Angeles: The University o f Sankore Press,
2002 ).
68 Jacob Carruthers, “Science and Oppression,” in African P sychology in H istorical P erspective an d

R elated Com mentary, ed. Daudi Ajani Ya Azibo, (Trenton: Africa World Press, 1996), 190.
69 Alkalimat “The Ideology o f Black Social Science,” 174.
70 Banks, “The Theoretical and M ethodological Crisis o f the Africentric Conception”.
71 Azibo, “Articulating the Distinction Betw een Black Studies and the Study o f Blacks”.
72 Wade N obles, Africanity an d the Black Family.
73 Marimba Ani, Yurugu: An A frican-C entered Critique o f European Cultural Thought an d Behavior
(Trenton: African World Press, 1994).
74 Banks, “The Theoretical and Methodological Crisis o f the Africentric Conception,” 262.
75 Dona Richards, “The Ideology o f European Dominance,” Western Journal o f Black Studies 3, no. 4
(1979), 240-255; Richards, “European M ythology”; Richards, “The Dem ystification o f Objectivity”.
76 Dixon, “W orldviews and Research M ethodology”.
77 Richards, “The Dem ystification o f Objectivity,” 24.
78 Ibid., 31.
79 Ibid., author’s emphasis, p. 32.
80 Richards, “European M ythology”.
81 Ibid., 70.
82 “The Ideology o f European Dominance”.
83 N obles, “Toward an Empirical and Theoretical Framework,” 683.
84 Ibid., author’s emphasis, 682.
85 N obles, “Toward an Empirical and Theoretical Framework” .
86 Jones, “Scientific Method, Value Judgements, and the Black Predicament”.
87 Ibid., 12.
88 N obles, “Toward an Empirical and Theoretical Framework,” 682.
89 Azibo, “Africentric Conceptualizing as the Pathway to African Liberation”; A zibo, “Articulating the
Distinction Between Black Studies and the Study o f Blacks”.
104
90 Mack Jones, “Political Science and the Black Political Experience: Issues in Epistem ology and
Relevance,” Ethnic P olitics and C ivil L iberties (1992), 30.
92 Ibid., 422-436.
93 Ibid., 426.
94 Leahcim Semaj, “Towards a Cultural Science,” in African P sychology in H istorical P erspective and
R elated Com mentary, ed. Daudi Ajani Ya Azibo, (Trenton: Africa World Press, 1996), 193-202.
96 While it is the position o f this author that the disciplinarity o f Africana Studies must go beyond the issue
o f perspective, A zibo is clearly on point in his discussion o f the Afrikan worldview as the distinguishing
characteristic o f Africana Studies, especially as compared to traditional academic disciplines.
97 Azibo, “Articulating the Distinction Betw een Black Studies and the Study o f Blacks,” 427.
98 Ibid., 428.
99 Ibid., 426.
100 Ibid., 426.
102 Gloria Joseph, “Black Feminist Pedagogy and Schooling in White Capitalism America,” in Words o f
Fire: An A nthology o f African Am erican Fem inist Thought, ed. Beverly Guy-Sheftall, (N ew York: N ew
Press, 1995), 466.
104 Azibo, “Africentric Conceptualizing as the Pathway to African Liberation”.
106 Azibo, “Africentric Conceptualizing as the Pathway to African Liberation,” 16.
107 Ibid., 17.
109 Ibid., 17-18.
111 Azibo, “Africentric Conceptualizing as the Pathway to African Liberation”; A zibo, “Articulating the
Distinction Between Black Studies and the Study o f Blacks”.
112 N obles, “Toward an Empirical and Theoretical Framework”; N obles, Africanity an d the Black Family.
113 Jones, “Political Science and the Black Political Experience,” 30.
105
116 Banks, “The Theoretical and M ethodological Crisis o f the Africentric Conception”.
106
CHAPTER 4
A GENEALOGY OF DIOP’S TWO CRADLE THEORY JN

AFRICANA ACADEMIC DISCOURSE
Until the publication o f James G. Spady’s article, ‘Negritude, Pan-Benegritude and the
Diopian Philosophy o f African History,’ in A Current Bibliography o f African Affairs
(volume 5, number 1, January, 1972) and the recent interview by Harun Kofi Wangara,
published in Black World magazine (February, 1974), Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop was known
only to a small group of Black writers and teachers in the United States.1
I. Introduction
Influential to the structure and approach o f this chapter is the work o f Greg
Kimathi Carr. Specifically, his “African-Centered Philosophy o f History: An
Exploratory Essay on the Genealogy o f Foundationalist Historical Thought and African

•1
Nationalist Identity Construction,” has provided a method and approach in the
development o f an Afrikan-centered4 genealogy o f knowledge and knowledge production
for Afrikan-centered scholars in Africana Studies. Carr is fundamentally concerned with
the process by which ideas, concepts, assumptions and theories pass along a Pan-Afrikan
intellectual continuum and how these ideas then inform current intellectual and
philosophical trends in Afrikan-centered research.
By revisiting the work o f influential Afrikan-centered scholars, Carr develops a
connective web of ideas and thinkers which provides a useful map in laying out the
development of an Afrikan-centered philosophy o f history. While Carr’s focus is on an
Afrikan-centered philosophy o f history, his general attention to the creation o f a
genealogy is o f most importance. Carr’s usage o f the concept o f genealogy is reflective
o f a historical continuum across space and time throughout the Afrikan world. This
understanding deviates from the common Eurocentric notion, which is defined as “ [a]
107
form o f historical analysis, genealogy opposes that traditional impulses o f historical
methods that attempt to discover continuity and patterns of development”. Instead, the
western notion o f genealogy concerns itself with “ruptures, discontinuity, and surfaces,
attempting as Michel Foucalt has written, to ‘record the singularity o f events outside of
any monotonous finality’”.5 Consistent with this understanding o f a genealogy is the
importance o f ruptures and discontinuity. However, from an Afrikan-centered worldview
methodology, it is paramount that we look for continuity and interconnected relationships
as a formidable aspect o f cultural connections among Afrikan people across space and
time. Therefore, Carr emphasizes the importance o f historical continuity, cultural
commitment and honest scholarship for current and future Afrikan-centered scholars. All
three o f the previously mentioned components are essential within Africana Studies, and
all Afrikan-centered research endeavors, for that matter. Furthermore, Carr provides a
mandate for each generation o f Afrikan-centered scholars, in that it is the role o f each o f
us to reconnect our ideas to those which have come before, so future generations of
scholars are able to see the development and movement o f Afrikan-centered thought,
practice and scholarship across space and time.
Arguments regarding genealogies o f knowledge and knowledge production
among Afrikan-centered scholars are extremely relevant to Africana Studies, in that those
who question the validity o f the discipline do so on some of the most specious grounds.
Questions of intellectual validity, historical depth, relevance, etc. are quickly put in their
proper context when we are clear on the development o f ideas, concepts and theories
which we claim are central to our discipline. Furthermore, all too many times scholars
within Africana Studies are under the impression that we have developed new and cutting
108
to engage the former. Therefore, the reason for this chapter should be self-evident, for
the mere fact that through a thorough analysis o f Diop’s Two Cradle Theory within
Africana academic scholarship we will be able to gauge the manner in which the larger
Afrikan-centered scholar-activist community grasps his ideas. Through this initial
relationship between Diop’s scholarship and the Afrikan-centered scholarly community
we are able to properly situate Diop’s Two Cradle Theory in the area o f theory and theory
production within Africana Studies.
While there may be those who have a disjointed interpretation o f Diop’s Two
Cradle Theory, this should not suggest that this is true amongst all scholars. Two o f the
most consistent scholars who can properly be referred to as “Diopian” are Jacob
Carruthers and Ifi Amadiume. Both Carruthers and Amadiume have consistently relied
upon the work o f Diop, and while critical o f aspects o f his theory, have been the most
consistent in their use o f it as a reference point for interpreting the culture o f Africana
people.
As previous chapters have suggested, the Two Cradle Theory is a central
component o f Diopian scholarship. However, given the lack o f attention many scholars
give towards this argument o f Diop, we must question if so called “Diopian” scholars can
be referred to as such. Arguably, both Amadiume and Carruthers rightfully deserve this
label. This chapter will show the manner in which their work, among others, in relation
to Diop’s Two Cradle Theory, speaks to the importance o f historical continuity,
especially in reference to the develop o f knowledge over time.
I have taken the position that given the importance of Diop’s Two Cradle Theory
to Diop’s scholarship, only those who rely upon this theory as central to their
110
edge arguments, but in actuality, we are all mostly ignorant o f the discipline’s inception
and thus fail to recognize that a good portion o f these arguments were originally
articulated by the founding mothers and fathers o f the discipline. Genealogical work
within Africana Studies rectifies these pressing problems for both critics and advocates o f
the discipline.
Given this reality, Africana Studies is in a precarious place as it attempts to define
itself as an autonomous academic discipline, and this speaks to the need to create
discipline-specific and discipline-grounded scholarship. A genealogical review o f a
particular theory within an academic discipline shows its use over a period o f time, along
with the varied interpretations, application and manipulation o f scholarship which certain
scholars are able to tease out o f the same basic set o f assumptions. In specific reference
to Diop’s Two Cradle Theory, while this theory has been available to the English-
speaking Afrikan world for over 30 years, only a limited number o f scholars have been
committed to a serious investigation o f its general assumptions and implications for
culturally-specific theory production. Furthermore, few o f these scholars have attempted
to use Diop’s Two Cradle Theory as the specific basis for theoretical advancements
within Africana Studies.6
While it is true that a host o f Afrikan-centered scholars, along with non-Afrikan-
centered scholars, have utilized Diop’s Two Cradle Theory, all too many times what we
find is misapplication and manipulation o f Diop’s original argumentation in ways that are
grossly incongruent. Furthermore, there has not been a specific correlation developed
between Diop’s theoretical work and theory production within Africana Studies. While
the latter point will be discussed in the following chapter, it is the purpose o f this chapter
109
interpretation o f Diop, should take the label o f “Diopian”. While this may seem a bit
authoritarian, this is clearly not the case only for the mere fact that the label “Diopian”
must speak more to just surface connections to Diop’s scholarship (ie. a connection to
Ancient Egypt, arguing the Ancient Egyptians were Black, or discussing the impact o f
Ancient Egypt on Greco-Roman civilization). In fact, a philosophical connection is the
best basis to determine that which is “Diopian”. The philosophical connection to which I
am speaking is Diop’s theory of cultural unity, which is at the essence o f his Two Cradle
Theory. As my review o f literature outlined, this was clearly articulated and relied upon
within a good portion o f Diop’s scholarship. Furthermore it is the importance which
Diop places on culture, which allows his arguments to have the most applicability within
the culturally-specific discipline o f Africana Studies.
Another question that may be posed as towards the structure and content o f this
chapter is the focus primarily on Afrikan-centered scholarship. Given the philosophical
and ideological rupture within Africana Studies, as discussed throughout chapters one
and three, Afrikan-centered scholars have historically attempted to properly interpret the
experiences o f Africana people based fundamentally upon the assumptions o f culture and
n
worldview. They then function as the primary collection o f scholars who have found the
arguments o f Diop most useful, given its theoretical consistency and relevance to issues
o f culture. While this chapter does include scholarship from outside o f the Afrikan-
centered scholarly community, our most important concern is how Afrikan-centered
scholars have interpreted Diop’s Two Cradle Theory in their attempt at reconstructing
culturally-specific ways for interpreting Africana experiences.
Ill
Therefore, this chapter will answer questions relevant to an Afrikan-centered
intellectual genealogy, with specific attention to the impact o f Cheikh Anta Diop’s Two
Cradle Theory on Afrikan-centered thought in written Africana academic discourse. In
doing so, by a critical engagement o f the use, interpretation and manipulation o f Diop’s
Two Cradle Theory our intended goal is to come to a clear understanding o f this theory
within the Afrikan-centered intellectual community. The following chapter will focus
specifically upon the role o f the Two Cradle Theory in Africana Studies, but it is
necessary to first see this theory’s use among Afrikan-centered scholars because o f their
impact upon shaping knowledge within Africana Studies and traditional academic
disciplines, in which most o f them have been trained and many still teach.
II. Cheikh Anta Diop and the English-Speaking Afrikan World
Due to Cheikh Anta Diop’s intellectual training in France and the fact that all of
his early publications were only available in French, the English-speaking Afrikan world
would be aware of his work later than those throughout the Francophone Afrikan
diaspora. Those first to hear, interact or engage the work o f Cheikh Anta Diop were
James Baldwin, Mercer Cook, James Spady and John Henrik Clarke. According to John
Henrik Clarke and James Spady, while in attendance at the Second International
Conference of Black Writers, James Baldwin was the first Afrikan American to be
introduced to the scholarship o f Diop.8 However, according to Clarke and Spady,
Baldwin did not see the relevance in Diop’s arguments. Baldwin in fact quickly
dismissed Diop’s ideas regarding the Afrikan origin o f Kemetic civilization, nor was he
impressed with Diop’s Pan-Afrikan cultural perspective.
112
Both James Spady and John Henrik Clarke, however, understood the relevance of
Diop’s work and would produce a number o f publications which brought Cheikh Anta
Diop to the forefront in the development o f what Clarke called “a new concept o f African
History”.9 Following the work o f Clarke and Spady and up until the 1980s, Lancinay
Keita, Harun Kofi Wangara (Harold G. Lawrence), Jacob Carruthers, Vulinden Wobogo,
Shawna Maglangbayan (Moore), and Carlos Moore, were some o f the scholars to
produce original articles reviewing Diop’s work throughout the English-speaking Afrikan
diaspora. Among this group are also a number o f interviews which Diop provided to
those interested with his work. All o f these publications, articles and interviews, were
published in the Black Books Bulletin, Presence Africaine and Black World, among other
publications.
Throughout the 1980s, John Henrik Clarke, Jacob Carruthers, James Spady, Asa
Hilliard, Chris Gray and Ifi Amadiume would produce critical and reflective works which
developed and questioned many o f Diop’s original ideas. Most important was the
publication o f Ivan Van Sertima’s volume in his Great African Thinkers series, entitled
Cheikh Anta Diop. This volume, originally published in 1986, would contain a good
number o f the previously mentioned authors, along with never before published
interviews, articles and book reviews, all o f which were specific to the life and
scholarship o f Diop.10 From the 1990s to present, there have been a number of
subsequent publications which focused upon Cheikh Anta Diop. These include new
publications by Ifi Amadiume, Jacob Carruthers, Oba T ’Shaka, Nah Dove, J. D. Walker,
Philip Ogo Ujomu, Charles Verheran and others.
113
It should be noted that Theophile Obenga is probably one o f the most well known
scholars who is connected to Cheikh Anta Diop. However, Obenga does not take
primary role in this genealogy given the lack o f publications in relation to Diop’s Two
Cradle Theory. In fact, one could possibly argue that this is probably one o f the few
ideas that Obenga is least sympathetic with. Or at least, he is unsympathetic to the
manner in which this theory has been interpreted and used throughout the English
speaking Afrikan diapsora.
As previously mentioned both James Spady and John Henrik Clarke were
extremely influential in introducing Diop to the English-speaking Afrikan world. Spady
was extremely important because o f his published texts which reflected upon the work o f
Cheikh Anta Diop. While Spady published a number o f articles which referenced Diop
and brought his arguments to light, it would be Clarke who would have widespread
influence upon Afrikan-centered thinkers. Thus through Clarke, Cheikh Anta Diop was
set at the center of a developing Afrikan-centered movement throughout the United
States.11 Furthermore, John Henrik Clarke also played a crucial role in finding an
American publisher (Lawrence-Hill Books) for two o f Diop’s early texts: African Origin
10
o f Civilization and Precolonial Black Africa. Therefore, through Clarke’s publications
on Diop, his introduction of Diop’s scholarship to up and coming scholars, and his ability
to find a publisher for much needed English translations of Diop’s work, he played a
fundamental role in initially introducing Diop to the English-speaking Afrikan world.
Not to be overlooked were the few Africana publications within the United States
that initially gave a voice to those scholar-activists interested in the work o f Diop. Black
World/Negro Digest and Black Books Bulletin would be two o f these venues. Both of
114
these literary venues were at the forefront o f publishing Afrikan-centered and Pan-
Afrikan scholarship, opinions, perspectives and creative products, which many Afrikan
people in the 1960s and 1970s were eager to engage. These journals openly and critically
engaged the work o f Cheikh Anta Diop. They also placed Diop’s work within a context
and community o f Afrikan-centered scholars.
While not limited to the mid-West, it is o f importance that both the Black Books
Bulletin, which was published between 1971-1981 by Haki Madhubuti’s Third World
Press, and the Negro Digest/Black World which was published by Johnson Publishing
Company and later edited by Hoyt Fuller, were both located and published in Chicago,
IL. Chicago would also be the home o f Jacob Carruthers, who was initially introduced to
Diop through the work o f John Henrik Clarke. Through Carruthers, Diop’s work would
be a constant reference point for this mid-west group o f Afrikan-centered scholars and
thinkers. Carruthers, along with Maulana Karenga (located in Los Angeles, CA) were the
founding members o f the Association for the Study o f Classical African Civilizations, a
scholar-activist community organization heavily influenced by the scholarship o f Cheikh
Anta Diop. Carr, a product o f the Chicago School o f Afrikan-centered thought, has also
discussed the centrality o f Chicago to the development o f an Afrikan-centered philosophy
o f history, and the Afrikan-centered movement in general.13
Clovis Semmes’ fairly recent revisitation o f Negro Digest/Black World speaks to
the importance of this journal “as a comprehensive publication o f critical analysis and
literary expression.” 14 According to Semmes, this journal was one which allowed
Africana intellectuals to develop and “engage in independent liberation-orientated theory
construction.” 15 Therefore, revisiting this journal provides historical clarity for current
115
“liberation-orientated theory” developments within Africana Studies. As Semmes
argues,
Current movements and trends regarding the articulation o f a frame o f reference

and methodology within the field o f African-American, Black, or Africana studies
ignore[s] much of the work done in the 1960s and 1970s. Negro Digest and Black
World clearly provide[s] a detailed and important record o f the origins o f the
varied efforts to decolonize knowledge production about people o f African
descent.16
Thus it only makes sense that the work o f Diop was engaged here, especially given
Diop’s rupture with traditional interpretations o f Afrikan history and his theory o f
Afrikan cultural unity, which contradicted anthropological analysis based upon

• 17
distinctive cultural traits and attributes.
Both Black Books Bulletin and Negro Digest/Black World, along with other
journals would play essential roles in introducing Diop to the English-speaking Afrikan
world. These journals, and the scholar-activists who published within them, stand at the
forefront o f a proper and accurate understanding o f Diop’s introduction to the English-
speaking Afrikan world. They also function as the basis for understanding the
subsequent impact that Diop and his scholarship would have upon Afrikan-centered
thinkers.
While all o f the scholar-activists briefly mentioned above, and thoroughly
engaged below, focus upon the scholarship o f Cheikh Anta Diop, there are general
distinctions that can be made between the varied Diop-focused scholars from the early
1970s until present. One distinction can be seen from the fact that many o f those who
engaged Diop’s work prior to 1980 focused more attention on his work regarding Afrikan
cultural unity. These scholars did not negate the importance o f Ancient Afrika in Diop’s
work. However, Ancient Afrika was not their sole focus and they seemed to be more
116
focused on the larger conceptual issues which led to the proper understanding o f Afrika,
Afrikan history, Afrikan culture and her descendants. This should be seen in
contradistinction to those scholarly publications which were to develop after the 1980s
and until present-day. These works seem to have more o f a focus upon Ancient Afrika,
the origin o f Afrikan civilization and the racial makeup o f the Ancient Kemetians. This
distinction also speaks to the knowledge which many lay people and scholars have
regarding Diop. In other words, while many people may know o f Cheikh Anta Diop,
their knowledge o f Diop is only in relation to Ancient Afrikan history.
It should be recognized that this one to one correlation between the scholarship o f
Cheikh Anta Diop and Ancient Egypt, is a recent phenomena. In fact, this change in
focus does not balance out with the chronology o f Diop’s English publications. If it did
one would think that since Diop’s arguments regarding Afrikan cultural unity were first
available to the English-speaking world, then it would make sense that this was the early
focus of scholars familiar with Diop’s work. However, this is not the case. In fact, the
first English publication of Diop’s work in the United States was African Origin o f
1S
Civilization published in 1974. Then, in 1978 via Third World Press, we have a
translated version o f The Cultural Unity o f Black Africa. While there was an English-
version o f Cultural Unity available, as early as 1962, there are few references to this, text
in the work o f the Afrikan-centered community o f scholars.19 Not to belabor this point,
we must ultimately recognize, as discussed in previous chapters, that many o f the
arguments that Diop made regarding Ancient Afrika developed out o f his research on
Afrikan cultural unity, therefore to separate these arguments does a disservice to Diopian
117
scholarship. However, this change in focus quite possibly speaks to other developments
00
in Afrikan-centered theory and research.
It should be clear through this brief outline o f Diop’s work and its impact on
scholars who are now located in Africana Studies, that his ideas have impacted the
structure and content o f the discipline. While Chapter five focuses specifically upon the
impact which the Two Cradle Theory can have on concept and theory production in
Africana Studies, it is essential to discuss this general connective web o f scholars in more
detail, in order to fully understand Diop’s initial impact upon influential scholars and
thinkers in Africana Studies, the majority o f which are a part o f the modem Afrikan-
centered movement.
III. The 1970s Response
As John Henrik Clarke states in the prefatory quotation to this chapter, James
Spady’s “Negritude, Pan-Benegritude and the Diopian Philosophy o f African History”
was one o f the initial introductions o f Cheikh Anta Diop to the English-speaking Afrikan
01
world. Rather than attempting “to conduct a thorough examination o f Cheikh Anta
Diop,” Spady was more so concerned with summarizing “some o f the highlights o f his
[Diop’s] academic career.”22 This includes a discussion o f Negritude, Diop’s philosophy
o f history, his position on Afrikan political unity and some important introductory
comments on Diop’s Cultural Unity o f Black Africa.
While not attempting to provide a biographical review o f Diop, Spady does
discuss the intellectual development o f Cheikh Anta Diop. Beginning with his academic
career in Paris, France, Spady focuses upon the three attempts Diop made in the
completion o f his Doctorat d ’Etat.24 The first attempt was later published under the title
118
Nations Negres et Culture, but was rejected due to Diop’s position on the Afrikan origin
o f Ancient Egyptian civilization. Chapters from this text and Anteriorite des
Civilisations Negres: Mythe ou Verite Historique?, would later be published in English

0 S
under the title, African Origin o f Civilization: Myth or Reality.
Diop’s second attempt at his Doctorat d ’Etat, which was also rejected, most likely
because o f similar arguments which clearly showed a connection between Ancient
Egyptian culture and traditional African culture, culminated in the arguments found in
L ’Unite Culturelle De VAfrique Noire. This text was later published in English in 1962
by Presence Africaine as The Cultural Unity o f Negro Africa. Third World Press in 1978
and Karnak House in 1989 would publish versions o f this text under the tile o f The
Cultural Unity o f Black Africa.
On Diop’s final attempt at his Doctorat d ’Etat he dealt with a general analysis of
political and social structures within Precolonial Afrika. While stemming from a general
understanding of Afrikan cultural unity, but not specifically wedded to Ancient Egypt,
this was the manuscript which granted him his degree. These arguments would find
themselves published under the title L ’A frique Noire Precoloniale and would be
translated into English under the title o f Precolonial Black Africa in 1987.
Spady also discusses Diop’s training in a multiplicity o f academic areas. This
training according to Spady, allowed Diop to produce arguments which were supported
by well-grounded evidence. Spady adds, that “[b]y utilizing his exceptional knowledge
o f several scientific disciplines Diop is doing the necessary groundwork o f identifying,

O ft
specifically, the common characteristics o f Black culture”. These “common
characteristics o f Black culture” would be best articulated in The Cultural Unity o f Black
119
Africa, where Diop draws “a systematic and rational framework which encompasses and
77
will encompass every existing fact, forgotten and unknown to him [the Afrikan]”.
The topic o f Negritude is also central to Spady’s interpretation o f Cheikh Anta
Diop and his scholarship. While Spady is clearly concerned with the philosophy of
Negritude, and its impact upon Diop, Spady moves beyond notions o f literary Negritude
and returns Negritude back to its political foundations. Diop, who was clearly influenced
by Negritude, finds a connection between the cultural focus o f his work and the cultural
focus found within literary Negritude. However, Diop was most concerned with
operationalizing scientific concepts which could be used in order to transform the
conditions o f Afrikan people. Thus, Diop was concerned with the cultural aspects which
could best be used to support these ends. Therefore, Diop’s focus dealt with history and
7R
linguistics. Thus in order to support the cultural unity o f Afrikan people, Diop relied
upon Afrikan history and the linguistic unity o f Afrikan languages to support his position.
In The Cultural Unity o f Black Africa, Diop relies upon both historical and sociological
analysis to support his argument. These factors Spady picks up on in order to connect
Diop’s idea of “Black unity” to Negritude.
Spady has added relevant aspects to the political implications o f Cheikh Anta
Diop’s work, by showing the relationship between Diop’s scholarship, political
independence and the philosophy o f Negritude. Connected to this analysis is Diop’s
theory o f cultural unity, as found throughout The Cultural Unity o f Black Africa,
Precolonial Black Africa or Black Africa: The Economic and Cultural Basis fo r a
Federated State. Spady’s initial essay on Diop’s theory o f cultural unity centers on the
connection of Negritude, political unity and political independence, which are all
120
grounded in Diop’s understanding o f cultural connective tissue found throughout past and
present experiences of all Afrikan people.
Lancinay Keita, at the time Lecturer o f Philosophy at the City University o f New
York, published an influential article in Presense Africaine. Presence Africaine
previously published numerous articles by Diop, all o f which were only available in
French. Keita’s work, which was specific to Diop’s scholarship on Ancient Afrika, was
an important introduction to the philosophical potential o f Diop’s work in the creation of
an alternative and accurate comprehension o f Afrikan history connected to Afrikan
cultural unity. Keita correctly argues that discussions of Afrikan history, and more
specifically an Afrikan philosophy o f history, were hampered by the work o f Georg
Hegel. However, the contributions o f Cheikh Anta Diop to this discussion o f an Afrikan
philosophy o f history required that we revisit the general assumptions which were at the
foundation o f Hegel’s approach.
Based primarily upon the work o f Diop’s African Origin o f Civilization, Keita
argues that
Diop’s philosophy o f African history runs counter to the classical Hegelian model
in that he argues that historical movement in Africa reached its classical zenith
with Egyptian civilization then progressed, via Nubia, to Ghana, Mali and
Songhay, which in turn gave rise to various W est African high cultures (Hausa,
Bomu, Yoruba, etc.). The subsequent period witnessed the decline o f African
civilization, slavery in the Americas and, finally, colonialism on the continent
itself.29
This is the same philosophy o f history that Spady argued, “broaden[ed] the base o f
Negritude.”30
Consistent with Spady, Keita acknowledges that, “Diop supports his thesis by
appealing to linguistic, cultural and archeological evidence to show that the temporal
121
-j 1
links between different ages of African history are not based upon speculation.” What
can clearly be called the “Diopian approach” is an essential component to this philosophy
of history. And this philosophy o f history is also based upon the assumption o f a cultural
unity among Afrikan people, which is evident throughout Afrikan history. Therefore, it
is the role o f this philosophy o f history to enumerate the interconnected nature o f the
Afrikan experience across space and time.
While Keita does not develop Diop’s argument o f cultural unity, since he bases
his analysis solely upon Diop’s arguments in African Origin o f Civilization, Keita’s
contribution to the Anglophone dialogue on Cheikh Anta Diop is still significant. By
providing an informative commentary in a predominately Francophone academic journal,
Keita plays an important role in introducing the Anglophone world to the work,
perspective and potential o f Cheikh Anta Diop’s philosophy o f history.
As previously discussed the Black World/Negro World, was a critical journal with
a Pan-Afrikan cultural perspective, which engaged the conditions o f Afrikan people in
America and throughout the diaspora. As an outlet which published perspectives and
scholarship from a Black Nationalist vantage point, Black World would publish a number
o f articles that were relevant to the life and work o f Cheikh Anta Diop. First o f these
publications, was an interview by Harun Kofi Wangara (Harold G. Lawrence). Clearly
influenced by Spady, Wangara was primarily concerned with making the ideas and
scholarship o f Cheikh Anta Diop available to members o f the Anglophone world,
specifically those o f Afrikan descent in America.
According to Wangara, “Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop is a pioneer thinker whose
revolutionary theories may well turn the tide o f African historical perspectives.
122
Unfortunately, there are many yet outside the Francophonic world who do not know his
works.”33 It was therefore Wangara’s primary concern to conduct this interview and
produce more information about Diop which was accessible to those throughout the
English-speaking Afrikan diaspora.
On two occasions, Wangara met with Diop to discuss problems in Afrikan
historiography, the role o f Afrikans throughout the diaspora in rewriting Afrikan history,
and the research projects Diop was currently working on. On W angara’s first visit, he
felt, “ [w]hat [Diop] had been saying was so interesting and revolutionary that...other
English-speaking Blacks should benefit from it,” and asked Diop if he would consent to a
formal interview.34 During the formal interview between Diop and Wangara, Diop
expressed concerns regarding the lack o f discussion between English-speaking and
French-speaking Afrikan and Afrikan diasporic peoples.
Diop was also concerned with this lack o f discussion throughout the multi-lingual
Afrikan diaspora. In response to a question regarding the lack o f Afrikan American
access to ideas discussed and advanced throughout the Francophone world, Diop
responded, “Outside o f these institutes, the public at large does not read English in
Francophone Africa. This, therefore, is one o f the reasons for the lack o f contact.”35
Diop continued by stating,
I believe that contacts o f this sort should be increased. It is necessary that a

greater number o f Afroamericans come to our country so that we might increase
these contacts. Remember that Africa is your Motherland and that above all you
are at home here and that, consequently, you will always be welcome. And,
therefore, I place my greatest hopes on the pursuit o f these contacts.36
This aspect o f Diop’s concern for connecting with scholars throughout the Afrikan
diaspora would be relevant upon his 1985 visit to the United States, where he met with
123
members o f the Bennu Study Group, including Larry Williams, Asa Hilliard, Charles
-3 7
Finch, Askia Toure, Charlyne Harper and others.
Wangara also discussed with Diop issues related to Afrikan history and
historiography. Diop expressed his interests in making others aware o f his work and the
work that needed to be produced in the area o f Afrikan history. Diop also expressed his
interest in working with younger scholars. While Wangara and Diop discussed a variety
o f issues, most important of all was Wangara’s ability to bring more o f Diop’s work to
light and further introduce Diop to the English-speaking Afrikan world. Furthermore,
knowledge o f Diop’s scholarship provided a viable connection that Pan-Afrikan scholars
throughout the English-speaking Afrikan diaspora would rely upon in the future. This
includes, Jacob Carruthers John Henrik Clarke and Ivan Van Sertima, and to a lesser
extent Molefi Kete Asante. All o f which discuss their relationship with Diop and the
impact his scholarship had on their philosophical and historical perspectives.38
As previously mentioned, James Spady provided the first English publication on
Cheikh Anta Diop to be produced in the United States. Spady was also the first scholar
to specifically introduce, develop and devote a whole article to the centrality o f Diop’s
cultural unity argument.39 Building upon his previous publication40, Spady began
attempting to tease out the cultural unity argument o f Diop in much more detail. Through
a review o f Diop’s publications, speeches and the commentary o f others, Spady
developed an understanding o f Diop based upon these available sources. It should be
noted that at the time of these publications, 1975, only one text o f Diop had been
translated into English.41 Therefore Spady relied heavily upon the original texts o f Diop,
which included a number o f books and articles, all published in French.
124
After a brief biographical sketch, Spady placed attention on the political
undercurrent behind all o f Diop’s work. Through Diop’s role in the Student’s African
Democratic Assembly in France (RDA), where he served as Secretary-General to his role
as chairman o f the political unit o f the RDA, Spady contextualizes Diop’s scholarship
within the historical context o f Afrikan decolonization.42 Extending his previous
arguments on Diop’s relation to Negritude, Spady continues to distinguish the Diopian
focus on Afrikan culture from the Negritude focus on Afrikan culture, which was
popularly espoused by the likes o f Leopold Senghor.
Spady, in this publication, is most concerned with Diop’s discussion o f cultural
unity, which was linked to his argument for political impendence and political unity, all
o f which undergird his scholarly publications. According to Spady “less attention has
been given to his [Diop’s] concept o f cultural unity which is central to an understanding
of his historical works.”43 By focusing on the cultural unity o f Cheikh Anta Diop, Spady
attempts to illuminate a central component o f Diopian analysis.
Diop’s use and development o f a theory o f Afrikan cultural unity began as early
as the mid-1940s.44 Through Diop’s days as a student in France, he continued to rely
upon a theory o f cultural unity in his argument for a regional and/or continent wide
federated state. Diop continued to connect the concept o f culture and his theory of
cultural unity to a functional political purpose. Thus, Diop believed “culture is central to
the development of the national consciousness which in turn is the mainstay in building
and maintaining a civilization.”45 By extension, the maintenance of a national
consciousness is contingent upon cultural unity which is pervasive and evident
throughout the nation.
125
Given the historical context, Diop was able to use the Afrikan decolonization
movement as a testing ground for his arguments on cultural unity. At the First
International Congress o f Black Writers and Artists in 1956, “Diop was able to expose
his thinking o f cultural unity to the greatest assembly o f Black scholars during the 1st half
of the 20th century.”46 Subsequently Diop produced a number o f publications, which
would link the idea of political unity with cultural unity for Afrikan peoples. As Spady
reiterates, all o f Diop’s attempts at his Doctorate were connected to the cultural unity
argument. As a motivating political force Diop relied heavily upon his theory o f cultural
unity within his intellectual discourse and political agitation.
Diop also tested his ideas regarding what would later be called the Two Cradle
Theory in 1959 at the Second International Conference o f Black Writers and Artists in
Rome.47 While presenters such as Sekou Toure, Aime Cesaire and Frantz Fanon,
discussed “the political implications o f culture and the role o f culture in destroying the
system o f colonization, it was equally important for Cheikh Anta to speak to the origin of
cultural differences between Europe and Africa.”48 Thus Diop developed his theory o f
the two cradles o f human civilization, focusing upon family life, material and climatic
conditions, along with the development o f distinct belief systems. As Spady clearly
argues, “This concept o f cultural differences between Africa and Europe had been present
in all of his works published prior to this congress. However, this International Congress
o f Black Artists and Writers provided him with a testing ground for some o f the ideas to
be included in his final thesis.”49 Given the reception o f this address, it would be no
surprise that the arguments for cultural unity would be central to the future scholarly
works o f Cheikh Anta Diop. According to Spady, “There is one central theme which
126
flows through all o f Diop’s work. It is the concept o f cultural unity which is a
synthesizing factor. Culture for Diop is a weapon in the battle for African liberation.”50
Spady’s review and focused analysis of cultural unity within the work o f Cheikh
Anta Diop between 1948-1964, is an important contribution for understanding the
developing knowledge base o f scholars on Diopian scholarship. As the publications of
Diop were to be translated and available in English, Spady’s work would be a useful
reference point for understanding a more holistic Diopian analysis. It should also be
stressed that up until this moment only The Cultural Unity o f Negro Africa, was available
in an English translation and those who were familiar with Diop’s work hardly made any
reference to this text. However, Diop did make a name for him self through his political
activism, challenging scholarship and commitment to the concept o f culture as a
politically viable tool in the liberation o f Afrikan people.
It is also important to note that James Spady has probably been the most prolific
scholar to have written on Cheikh Anta Diop, prior to 1980. The previous publications
that have just been reviewed attempt to primarily focus upon the work that Spady has
produced in relation to Cheikh Anta Diop and his theory of cultural unity. However,
another work which is somewhat less focused on this topic was published in the first
edition o f the Journal o f African Civilizations. The journal’s editor, Ivan Van Sertima,
refers to Spady as “one o f the leading specialists on Diop in this country [A m erica]...”51
However, as the change in focus by scholars interested in Diop’s work moved away from
the cultural unity arguments in the early 1980s, Diop’s argument regarding this topic are
not specifically engaged. As Spady argues, he has dealt with them in other places, but as
this dissertation suggests, it is questionable whether or not one can discuss the
127
significance o f the Afrikanness o f Ancient Egypt, without placing that argument in the
context o f the relationship to his theory o f cultural unity. And while Spady refers to
L ’unite Culturelle de L ’A frique Noir as a “natural outgrowth” o f Nations Negres et

ey
Culture , the relationship between these texts is not engaged, thus leaving the link
between these two text uninvestigated. However, as previously stated Spady’s continual
publication on the work Diop calls for his place within this genealogy o f Cheikh Anta
Diop, and more specifically his Two Cradle Theory in Afrikan-centered thought.
As scholar-activists within the English speaking Afrikan diaspora became more
familiar with the name o f Cheikh Anta Diop, it was necessary to make his publications
accessible. And obviously as these books were published it would be necessary that
journals such as Freedoms Journal, Black Books Bulletin and Black World provide
accurate assessments o f these texts. This came by the means o f competent scholars
producing relevant book reviews. O f these, John Henrik Clarke would play an extremely
important role in not only making it possible for Diop’s work to be published by an
American press in English, but also by reviewing some o f these publications. Clarke’s
review o f African Origin o f Civilization, while not explicitly focused upon the theme o f
cultural unity played an essential role in the continued introduction o f D iop’s work to the
English-speaking Afrikan diaspora.
Most importantly, Clarke provides clarity as to the movement o f the works and
ideas of Cheikh Anta Diop within the United States. In this review, originally published
in Freedomways, Clarke states, “For over seven years his [Diop’s] books were offered to
American publishers with no show o f interest. Now two o f his books will be published in
the United States within one year [African Origin o f Civilization by Lawrence-Hill
128
Books], [Also,] Third World Press in Chicago is preparing to publish his book, The
Cultural Unity o f Negro Africa,”53 While Clarke does not explicitly develop nor pay
exact attention to Diop’s theory o f cultural unity, which under girds his argument for the
Afrikan origin o f civilization, we should stress the importance o f book reviews as integral
components o f the transmission o f the ideas o f Cheikh Anta Diop and a Diopian analysis
in Afrikan-centered thought.
John Henrik Clarke’s discussion and review o f The Cultural Unity o f Black Africa
in Black World does develop Diop’s theory o f cultural unity.54 More o f a review essay
rather than a book review, Clarke assesses the major arguments o f The Cultural Unity o f
Black Africa, which center upon the domains o f social organization, lines o f descent and
an analysis o f belief systems. Clarke is most concerned with Diop’s discussion o f
Afrikan matriarchy and its implications for reinterpreting the Afrikan woman in Afrikan
history. As Diop argued, matriarchy was indigenous to Afrika, while patriarchy was
indigenous to both Europe and Asia. Given the matriarchal nature o f Afrikan history and
culture, Clarke declares that this text is clearly about “the study... o f the African women
in power and how that power developed.”55 Thus, through the proper analysis o f Afrikan
history we can reevaluate and develop an accurate assessment o f the Afrikan woman in
Afrikan history. Clarke argues that, “ [t]he first accomplishment o f the African woman, in
partnership with the man, was the creation o f a functioning family unit. This major step
in human development laid the foundation for the organization o f all subsequent societies
and institutions.”56 Clarke continues and provides what he calls “an Afrocentric view of
the African women in power.”57
129
Through this analysis, Clarke discusses the role of women throughout Afrikan
history, including Isis, Queen Tiy, Nefertiti, Cleopatra, Hypatia, Makeda, Kahina, Nzinga
and Yaa Asantewa. This analysis is based fundamentally upon D iop’s argument
regarding the matrifocal nature o f Afrikan society. In Clarke’s assessment, Diop’s text
“furnishes the basis for an honest re-examination o f the relationships between men and
ro
women in societies in general and in African society in particular.”
Clarke’s usage o f The Cultural Unity o f Black Africa, as the basis for his
discussion o f Afrikan women in Afrikan history touches upon an important component of
the Two Cradle Theory which will not explicitly be extended until the work o f Ifi
Amadiume. Diop was always sensitive to issues o f gender and this was a foundational
component o f his scholarly interests. From his discussion of bicamerialism59 to the basic
assumptions o f the Two Cradle Theory all o f these arguments were grounded in a clear
understanding o f gender, and more specifically the role o f women within Afrikan history.
While this clearly was an aspect o f Diop’s work, it has not been completely incorporated
in current trends o f Diopian scholarship. Amadiume has developed and critiqued this
lack of focus within Diopian scholarship, especially by Afrikan males who are all too
much focused on the grandeurs o f Ancient Afrika. We will engage these points further as
we review Amadiume’s role in her approach to understanding and articulating a Diopian
analysis.
As my review o f the Two Cradle Theory suggests, Vulindlela Wobogo would be
the scholar-activist to develop the nomenclature o f the Two Cradle Theory for the
arguments found in The Cultural Unity o f Black Africa. In W obogo’s “Diop’s Two
Cradle Theory and the Origins o f White Racism,” he applies the arguments found in The
130
Cultural Unity o f Black Africa to sociological phenomenon.60 In doing so, Wobogo
provides an analysis o f the origins o f racism and capitalism based upon the assumptions
o f Diop’s Two Cradle Theory. It should be noted that W obogo’s text functions as one o f
the first publications which is an actual application o f the Two Cradle Theory. This is
important, because rather than develop theory for the sake o f theory, we are able to move
Diop’s theoretical work to the level o f application, thus making it relevant as a culturally-
specific mode o f analysis, especially for those in Africana Studies.
Wobogo begins this text by asking the reader what the most plausible origin for
white racism is. After nullifying a number o f options, Wobogo argues that Diop’s theory
“implies clearly that white racism was a result o f early European nomadism and the
ethnocentric-xenophobic mentality which resulted from it. Ethnocentrism is a lack of
tolerance for other races and xenophobia is a fear o f strangers. Diop himself does not
explicitly make this connection but his theory clearly implies it if interpreted correctly.”61
Wobogo then outlines the Two Cradle Theory based upon climatic and specific living
conditions. These components are then the distinguishing characteristics o f a given
cradle. Thus they determine the basic distinctions between the Southern and Northern
Cradles.
These distinct and contrasting cradles provide the basis o f an analysis and
interpretation o f cultural differences, which thusly explain the origins o f specific
sociological phenomenon. Through a thorough comparison of the Northern and Southern
Cradles, Wobogo concludes that “[w]hite racism originated in pre-capitalist European
nomadism. It is from this specific condition that the ethnocentric-xenophobic mentality
o f Europeans developed.” It is this “ethnocentric-xenophobic mentality” which lies at
131
the heart of white racism. Similarly, “capitalism had its origins in early European
extreme individualism.” The complete development of this argument can be found in
Civilization or Barbarism, where Diop outlines what he calls the “Laws o f Ethnic
Relations in History.”64 While Diop does not reference W obogo’s work, and we are not
sure if he was even aware o f W obogo’s interpretation o f his scholarship, the conclusions
which Wobogo reached based upon The Cultural Unity o f Black Africa are consistent
with those discussed within Civilization or Barbarism.
W obogo’s contribution to the understanding and usage o f a Diopian analysis is
relevant on a number o f levels. First, Wobogo provides the definitive nomenclature
which will eventually be used by scholars within the Afrikan-centered movement to
describe the ideas found in The Cultural Unity o f Black Africa. Arguably it is W obogo’s
thorough assessment o f Diop’s work which distinguished this work as a viable reference
point. Secondly, W obogo’s application o f Diop’s analysis allowed Afrikan-centered
scholars to move this theory to the level o f application. W obogo’s work stands as a
preeminent contribution to the transmission o f Diopian thought throughout the Afrikan-
centered community, for these two reasons.
Another mode o f transmitting and introducing Afrikan people to Diop was
through the few interviews Diop conducted with journals publishing primarily in English.
In the same edition o f the Black Books Bulletin, where Wobogo published the previously
reviewed article, Shawna Maglangbayan and Carlos Moore published an interview with
Diop.65
Diop was asked a number o f questions regarding his recent publications, current
research and future projects. His discussion o f the Two Cradle Theory clarifies his
132
position, along with the limits to which he would take the theory. It should be noted that
while neither Diop nor Maglangbayan reference these arguments as the Two Cradle
Theory, this does not negate W obogo’s usage o f this nomenclature because W obogo’s
original piece is published in this same edition and volume of the Black Books Bulletin.
As some have connected the Two Cradle Theory with the work o f Frances Cress
Welsing [and Michael Bradley]66, Diop was asked questions specific to Cress W elsing’s
Theory o f Color Confrontation. The question posed to Diop was, “In a booklet The Cress
Theory o f Color Confrontation and Racism (1970), Dr. Frances Cress Welsing has argued
that the origin o f racism must be found in the awareness by whites o f their minority status
and melanic deficiency as compared to the dark-skinned majority o f mankind. What is

cn
your opinion?” Diop responds by stating, in part,
...there can be no doubt that the cultural outlook o f these proto-whites was
eventually conditioned during the glacial epoch by the extremely harsh conditions
of their Northern Cradle until the moment o f their migratory movements towards
the southern areas around 1500 B.C. Molded by their environmental cradle, these
early nomadic whites undoubtedly develop a social consciousness typical o f the
hostile environment to which they were confined for a long period. Xenophobia
was one o f the traits o f this social consciousness. Patriarchal hierarchization
another.68
However, Diop is not as concrete when attempting to link the social consciousness o f
Europe with the individual consciousness o f Europeans. Therefore Diop adds that,
“Nevertheless, we must be careful because when we deal in this abstract realm, the realm
of individual consciousness, and extend it over such long periods o f time for which we
have no documented data, a great amount o f caution is in order.”69 Diop concludes his
response to this question by stating, in part,
What is quite evident, however, is that xenophobia, is definitely an entrenched

trait of European cultures from way back. I think even European scholars would
agree with me on this. In fact, as it turns out, one o f the weaknesses o f Black
133
civilization, particularly during medieval times, was the openness, the
cosmopolitanism o f these societies. The medieval black kingdoms were open to
peoples o f all horizons. And today, one o f the basic weaknesses o f African
societies is that they still maintain this inherent cosmopolitan trait.70
Diop answered other questions related to his previous and upcoming publications, the
historical development o f Afrikan civilization, along with the role o f the Pan-Afrikan
community in transforming the conditions o f continental Afrikan people. As discussed
within his previous interview with Harun Kofi Wangara, Diop also stressed the linkage
between Afrikan people in the United States and those throughout the continent of
Afrika. In response to a question regarding the role o f the media’s negative effect upon
Black people’s understanding o f Afrika, Diop stated, “The mass media has a negative
effect on all peoples. As concerns the effect it has on the blacks in the Americas, I can
only hope for an intensification o f the cultural contacts between blacks in Africa and
those in America. I believe that this is the only way that we can arrive at a cultural
71
renaissance that will profit all o f us.” In his true Pan-Afrikan commitment, he
concludes this interview by stating, “We must support each other to keep from sinking.
That’s an important fact. Although we belong to different political worlds, we share a
common cultural soul. To reinforce this common identity is in itself to fight against the
77
nefarious effects o f the mass media.”
Both interviews and book reviews continued to function as a mechanism for
transferring Diopian thought to the English-speaking Afrikan diapsora. In 1977 Jacob
Carruthers reviewed The Cultural Unity o f Negro Africa, which was recently published
by Third World Press.73 Carruthers’ review outlines the central components o f Diop’s
theory, more specifically, the fact that social structures and environmental conditions
134
determine the cultural differences o f Afrikan and European peoples. According to
Carruthers,
The [Two Cradle] theory in brief is that the severe climate and environmental
isolation o f a branch o f mankind caused both biological and cultural changes in
the original human type resulting in the loss o f pigmentation biologically and the
development o f an individualistic, xenophobic, aggressive, nomadic culture
among the white isolates in contrast to a cooperative xenophilic, peaceful,
sedentary culture among the Black who still inhabit the more benign climatic and
environmental zones.74
But Carruthers goes further and argues that “these early moulds had permanent effects on
the two civilizations which have endured until the present time.” This interpretation of
the Two Cradle Theory is consistent with the modem Afrikan-centered movement’s
understanding and of those who develop concepts and theory from it in Africana Studies
today.
Carrruthers also argues that Diop provides “a methodological approach to the
continuous stream o f Afrocentrism that enables future African scholars to complete the
task o f recapturing our African heritage.”76 What is most important from this short
review is Carruthers explicit focus upon the issue of methodology in Afrikan
historiography. Central to this methodology is the creation o f an Afrikan historiography
which is reflective of the interests o f Afrikan people, as evidence o f the teleological and
ideological assumption of the Afrikan worldview. Carruthers therefore suggests that only
a methodology o f Afrikan history which is grounded in the concept o f cultural unity will
reflect the interest o f Afrikan people.
By stressing the need to investigate Diop’s theory o f cultural unity, Carruthers
shows the relationship between the Nile Valley and other Afrikan cultures, via the Two
Cradle Theory. Again, we are concerned here with how scholar-activists understand this
135
theory and utilize it. Carruthers, in the early 80s, will become the preeminent Diopian
scholar who is committed to this mode o f analysis as central to Afrikan-centered
scholarship. Carruthers’ short review is just a glimpse to the potential impact o f Diop on
77
the shaping o f the modern Afrikan-centered movement.
78
Iva Carruthers, an early member o f the Chicago Afrikan-centered community ,
relied upon Diop’s Two Cradle Theory in order to investigate the role o f the Black
woman, along with what she refers to as the “War on African Familyhood”.79 Iva
Carruthers relies upon similar arguments in her investigation o f the “War on African
Familyhood,” published in Sturdy Black Bridges: Visions o f Black Women in Literature.
Here Carruthers is concerned with suggesting the manner in which the white women’s
feminist movement has become a destructive element for Afrikan womanhood, manhood
and familyhood. Carruthers argues,
Today one o f the most serious assaults to African familyhood is being forged by
the white feminist movement; the theory for which is emerging from a
predominantly Jewish elite group and its organizational aspects characterized by
white and black female organizations. The blacks in these organizations (1)
dismiss race as unimportant or secondary to their ‘sexually inferior status’ or (2)
claim autonomy and independence from the white feminists but form cautious
alliances with them in the interests o f black womanhood. Further examination o f
the evolution o f the Aryan family reveals the insidious nature o f the feminist
movement, its relationship to contemporary Aryan population patterns, and its
irrelevance to the real needs o f black women.80
Carruthers argues that by relying upon Frances Cress-Welsing’s “theory o f white
supremacy,”81 and Diop’s “opposing cradles o f civilization, we can establish that the
Aryan race, Asiatics and Europeans, were biological mutants, whose environmentally
induced abnormal struggle for survival would totally prescribe their institutional and
social organization.”82 Carruthers commentary is followed by a review o f the basic
characteristics o f the Northern Cradle, as originally discussed in Diop’s African Origin o f
136
Civilization, Thus Carruthers utilizes this basis for distinguishing between the two
cultural terrains, suggesting that social and familial networks which developed within the
Northern Cradle were distinct from those which developed within Southern Cradle. By
providing further evidence throughout Aryan history, Carruthers stresses the conflictual
and patriarchal nature o f Aryan history and culture. Adding that,
...today’s feminist movement is but an extension o f the continued struggle for

dominance between Aryan sexes, representing the decaying social organization o f
a group prescribed by defective birth and its inseparable culture. At the center o f
their war between the sexes is the need for obsession with conquest and dominion.
On the otherhand, black problems o f family organization today are but an
extension o f the continued struggle for survival and effort to retake our rightful
place in the world since our first meeting with the Aryan and his institutions.
The attack or war on Afrikan familyhood, thus manifests itself when Afrikan people rely
upon the norms o f one cultural group, as if they are universally applicable. Relying upon
similar arguments, previously discussed, Carruthers adds that
In attempting to examine African familyhood on its own terms we see that

African family tradition reinforced familyhood, not malehood or womanhood.
There was no endemic antagonism between the sexes but rather a holistic
approach to community organization out o f which both men and women would
find self-definition, security and continuity. African women are the Mothers of
Civilization and community life, and African men are the Fathers o f civilization
and community life. This traditional harmonious relationship was especially
revealed between mother and son.84
Given the mother-child relationship as primary in developing communal order and
responsibility, Carruthers argues that the attack on the Afrikan familyhood is centered
upon disuniting this important relationship. She adds that
...African familyhood was vital to the world view characterized by collective

identity, i.e., the community and oneness with nature. It is precisely for that
reason that the Aryan has always directed special attention to destroying African
familyhood, because from family flows life, community, institutions, and
civilizations. It is our ability to survive all these assaults that attests to the
• os
correctness o f our traditional way.
137
The “traditional way” which Carruthers relies upon is grounded within the
framework of Diop’s Two Cradle Theory which is useful for properly interpreting
Afrikan familyhood functioning.
Over the course o f the 1970s, we have the first glimpse o f Cheikh Anta Diop’s
Two Cradle Theory as digested by the previously mentioned scholar-activists. While
early discussions o f Diop were rather cursory covering aspects o f his intellectual history
to introduce others to his work, with Third World Press’ publication o f The Cultural
Unity o f Negro Africa, Diopian scholarship seems to have taken a clear focus upon his
Two Cradle Theory. Familiarity with Diop’s scholarship allowed for the works of
Wobogo, Jacob Carruthers and Iva Carruthers, to be the initial attempts at application and
extension o f Diop’s theory. The 1980s would see more scholars attempting to build upon
this tradition, but at the same rate certain scholars attempting to take Diopian analysis in
yet other directions.
IV. The 1980s Response
In “Africanity and the Black Woman,” published in the Black Books Bulletin, Iva
Carruthers concerns herself with developing a “careful examination” o f the Black woman
“validated by our historical past.”86 Relying upon Diop’s Two Cradle Theory, Carruthers
argues that Afrikan people have developed notions o f personhood and familyhood based
upon the characteristics o f “appositional unity, mutuality, and interdependence.”87 She
further adds that, “ [i]t is upon this foundation o f African appositional unity and mutuality
that the female and male principles are evident in the social organization o f African life.
As a land rich in natural resources where God’s gifts were plentiful and the sun shone
oo
upon the people, African culture developed as distinctly and agriculturally based.” In
138
order to substantiate, the African lifestyle which developed out o f these Southern Cradle
conditions, Carruthers adds that
African mutuality is thus evident by the harmonious and interdependent

relationship between man and woman, male and female. The one who brings
forth individual life, Mother, emerges as sacred and highly revered. She is
symbolically linked with the other giver o f collective life, Mother Earth - deified
as Isis - Goddess o f Cultivation. The one who makes possible individual life,
Father, emerges as the provider, nourisher and protector. He is symbolically
linked with the falcon, i.e. power and deified as Horus - Son o f God.89
Carruthers relies upon examples from Ancient Egypt and the Akan o f Ghana, to further
validate her argument. However, to support her point on reevaluating the Black Woman
she relies heavily upon Ancient Egypt. In doing so, Carruthers utilizes the Kemetic
concepts o f “MUT NTR” as “Divine Motherhood” and “HRW” “Divine Kingship,” to
stress her understanding o f Black womanhood. According to Carruthers,
In partnership and harmony with HRW the role and status o f African woman is
embodied in the concept o f MUT NTR or Divine Motherhood. As all life springs
from the womb o f woman, mother or earth, legitimacy, morality and humanity are
represented by African woman, symbolized by the snake. Thus, ‘do not give
mother cause to blame you, lest she raise her hands to God’. In our tradition
therefore, African women and mothers, irrespective o f biological ties, are
responsible for the upbringing o f children and legitimizes the behavior o f sons,
whether sons assume the role o f child, husband, father or king. This special
relationship o f mother to son ties the community together.90
These notions o f womanhood and manhood are distinct from that which was found
within the Northern Cradle, according to Carruthers interpretation o f Diop. She adds
that,
...the wandering tribes o f Europe were always in search o f new land, a place in
the sun and the means by which they could control their hostile environment.
Their familial institutional development, appropro to their environment and
nomadism, begins with a creation myth in which woman comes from man and
through her evilness and seducements condemns man to life which must end in
catastrophe. For the individual this catastrophe is death and so from this
civilization emerges a science and technology which seeks to control and subdue
God and nature and thereby life.91
139
Providing further evidence to support this position, thus linking this cultural tradition
throughout Indo-European history and Aryan-Greco-Roman Arabic history, Carruthers
correctly argues that “ [i]t is out o f this tradition (that o f struggle between the sexes) that
today’s feminist movement is rebelling, including the ‘scientific’ declaration that woman
was the first sex as evidenced by chromosomal evolution. Black woman have no
historical connection to this movement; excepting as victims o f slavery, colonization and
menticide.” By grounding her argument within Diop’s Two Cradle Theory, Iva
Carruthers would be the first in a line o f female scholars who have used Diop’s work to
substantiate a culturally-specific understanding o f womanhood and familyhood, within
the Afrikan world.
Relying upon the concepts o f appositional unity, mutuality and interdependence,
Carruthers concludes by arguing that “ [t]o be sure, the Africanity o f the Black woman is
epitomized by MUT NTR. In partnership with the Black man she must return to tradition
and pledge to define, recreate and control at all costs those aspects o f living and
community which restore African glory and redeem the race.”93 This process will be
done through a reanalyzation first o f womanhood, manhood and familyhood which is
grounded within Diop’s Two Cradle Theory,
Iva Carruthers, in both o f the previously discussed works, relies upon Diop’s Two
Cradle Theory, it should also be noted that Carruthers has provided one o f the first
arguments which is critical o f the nomenclature o f “matriarchy.” In both texts,
Carruthers clarifies why she prefers not to use the term. In the previously reviewed work,
Carruthers argues that
140
The concept o f African matriarchy is a misnomer in that it is merely antithetical to
another Aryan concept, patriarchy. That is to be expected because Aryan
observations and characterizations emerge from the Aryan world view; a view
when superimposed on African reality inevitably creates Aryan explanations o f
African behavior, thus leading to lies, misrepresentations, and confusion.94
In the context o f discussing Africanity among Black women, Carruthers states
It should now be evident why I have resisted the concepts o f matriarchy,

matrilineal and mother right to define the Africanity o f Black women. To do so is
to force African realiy into Eurocentric prescriptions and thus miss the essential
richness and nature o f the Black woman’s status in African tradition. Traditional
positions o f power and respect and independence for the Black woman are evident
for the Royal families as well as the average woman. It is from this tradition and
source that we see great African women in power.95
Carruthers critical stance on the concept o f “matriarchy” is extremely important
especially to the future work o f such scholars as Ifi Amadiume, Nah Dove and others,
who were critical o f Diop’s usage o f this terminology. While Iva Carruthers does not
critique Diop specifically, like Amadiume per se, it is extremely important to note that
she was one o f the earliest female Afrikan-centered scholars to utilize Diop’s Two Cradle
Theory and was also critical o f the nomenclature which was central to its original
articulation.
It should also be noted that Iva Carruther’s was one o f many female Afrikan-
centered scholars who published within Black Books Bulletin. This further substantiates
my claims regarding the centrality o f this publication in development and transference of
Diop’s scholarship throughout the English-speaking Afrikan world.
During the 1970s, in the English-speaking Afrikan diaspora, we were able to find
perspectives which were favorable o f Diop’s scholarship. As we enter the 1980s, some
of these voices begin to critique many o f the basic assumptions connected to Diop’s Two
Cradle Theory. First among these is the work o f Isidore Okpewho.96
141
On two occasions, Okpewho attempts to critically examine the work o f Cheikh
Anta Diop, with a special emphasis on the arguments found in The Cultural Unity o f
07
Black Africa, a text which Okpewho refers to as Diop’s “most controversial work.”
However, at the onset, Okpewho’s critique o f the work is flawed. Consistent references
to Diop’s scholarship as having “an unmistakably polemical tenor,”98 referring to his
linguistically based arguments as “tendentious comparisons,”99 or “linguistic
excursions,”100 and referring to Diop’s whole theoretical product as “grandiloquent
theories,” 101 among a host o f other labels, Okpewho essentially negates the penetrating
scholarship o f Diop. Even in reference to Diop’s argument concerning the matrifocal
foundations of Afrikan culture, Okpewho refers to this as “Diop’s mother-fixation.”102
And while Okpewho is superb at slinging terms to describe and discredit the work of
Diop, he provides insufficient evidence to support his claims.
For instance, one would think that after critiquing the matriarchal and mother-
focused position held by Diop, Okpewho would counter these arguments with some form
o f contradictory evidence. Instead, Okpewho discusses the “feminine mystique” o f some
Negritude writers as the main reason for Diop’s focus on this component o f Afrikan
culture. After a short review o f Leopold Senghor’s Hosties noires, Okpewho states,
“Diop shares with Senghor this image o f mother and womanhood as a symbol o f life,
tenderness, and warmth, qualities which he finds alien to the Aryan culture.” 104 As
Okpewho continues, he discusses the role o f Afrikan matriarchy in Diop’s text, but at no
point during his discussion does Okpewho discredit the culturally grounded nature o f this
argument. Therefore, we are left with the conclusion that since this argument is remotely
related to Negritude, it is invalid, because in no other way are the arguments proven
142
otherwise. What we are left with is an attempted critique o f Diop’s work, based not upon
fact and/or contradictory evidence, but a mere philosophical disagreement on the role and
usage o f culture in relation to the Afrikan experience.
Many o f the same arguments are found in Okpewho’s Myth in Africa: A Study o f
Its Aesthetics and Cultural Relevance.105 Here Okpewho continues with an attempted
critique, void o f counterevidence to prove otherwise.106 In the final analysis Okpewho’s
critique is only reflective o f the Europhiliac intellectual products that Chinweizu was
extremely critical o f in The West and the Rest o f Us.107 Okpewho, therefore, represents
the incoming tide o f continental Afrikan scholars who are clear reflections o f colonial
educational systems void o f any Pan Afrikan cultural commitment. Arguably, given
Diop’s intellectual development during the Afrikan decolonization movement, he was
mainly spared from the crippling effect o f European consciousness on the Afrikan
intellectual.
While continental Afrikan scholars both praised and critiqued the work o f Diop,
those in the English-speaking Afrikan diaspora were still amazed with the forthrightness
o f Diop’s position and the meticulous evidence he provided to support his arguments. As
previously stated in the 1980s, chief among these would be Jacob Carruthers.
In a short article, published in the Black Books Bulletin titled “Reflections on the
History of the Afrocentric Worldview,” Jacob Carruthers relies upon Diop’s Two Cradle
1 Oo
Theory as the basis for his understanding o f a “Universal African Worldview.”
According to Carruthers, “There is a distinct and universal African worldview. This
concept is being illustrated by the idea presented by Cheikh Anta D iop’s book, The
Cultural Unity o f Black Africa, which I would modify to include the idea o f the Cultural
143
Unity o f Black African people throughout the world.” 109 Carruthers continues by
extending the argument o f the Two Cradle Theory to “the 9th dynasty circa 3000 B.C.E.,”
and the Instructions o f Merikare. These instructions, read in part,
Lo the miserable Asiatic

He is wretched because o f the place he’s in
Short o f water, bare o f wood.
It’s paths are many and painful because o f mountains.
He does not dwell in one place.
Food propels his legs
He fights since the time o f Horus.110
Carruthers continues in explaining the connections between these arguments and those of
Diop by stating, “The Asiatics (Europeans as a distinct group had not yet arrived in the
Egyptian world), were nomadic, violent, and basically savage. What is also apparent is
the fact that the worldview o f the ancient Black Egyptians contained formulations o f
what emerges in Cheikh Anta Diop as the Two Cradle Theory.” 111 By extending the
historical foundation o f the Two Cradle Theory, Carruthers shows that its very basis was
articulated by the Ancient Egyptians.
After showing the basis o f Diop’s theory o f cultural unity in Ancient Egyptian
society, Carruthers then continues by stating, “the African worldview is the only viable
base for African liberation [this] is equally supported by ancient and continuous
traditions.” 112 By relying upon evidence from Ancient Egypt to the Haitian Revolution,
Carruthers provides sufficient evidence to show that, in fact, across space and time the
Afrikan worldview has been essential to the survival o f Afrikan people.
In conclusion Carruthers reiterates the importance o f clinging to the Afrikan
worldview and also attempts to provide further evidence for its articulation from the
Instructions o f Merikare to Diop’s publication o f The Cultural Unity o f Black Africa.
144
tVi
These arguments o f cultural unity are also found in the work o f Hosea Easton, a 19
i n
century Afrikan American thinker. According to Carruthers, “The major concepts of
the African worldview can be seen in the thought o f Hosea Easton who in 1837 traced out
the history o f the world as basically a clash between the bellicose European and Asians
on the one side and the peaceful African on the other.” 114 While Carruthers is aware o f
the flaws in Easton’s other arguments115, Carruthers ability to show this connection in
Afrikan thought is o f most importance.
Carruthers’ review o f the historical development o f the Afrikan worldview
provides the historical connective tissue for a central component o f Afrikan-centered
research. Not only is this work grounded in a Diopian analysis, but Carruthers’ extension
o f the Two Cradle Theory to Ancient Afrika and throughout the intellectual and social
commentary among a number o f Afrikan diasporic thinkers is necessary in showing
continuity in Afrikan thought. Carruthers’ commitment to this process, on drawing
linkages from the past and through the present, will develop and become clear as he
continues to develop an Afrikan-centered methodological approach to Afrikan
historiography, one which is especially connected to the Two Cradle Theory and the
Afrikan worldview.
The development o f such an approach to Afrikan history (and for an Afrikan
social science, for that matter) is one o f Carruthers’ first goals in Essays in Ancient
Egyptian Studies, which was the first attempt at engaging Diop’s Two Cradle Theory in
book format.116 While Carruthers does not solely focus upon the Two Cradle Theory, he
does argue its relevance in the “construction” o f an Afrikan worldview methodology
which is crucial for Afrikan historiography and an Afrikan social science. Carruthers
145
argues that, “the formulation o f an African worldview is the essential beginning point for
all research which is based upon the interests o f African people. There can be no African
117
history, no African social science without an African worldview.”
Building upon arguments found in his review o f The Cultural Unity o f Black
Africa and “Reflections on the History o f the Afrocentric Worldview,” both published in
Black Books Bulletin, Carruthers begins by discussing the significance o f the Two Cradle
Theory. This consists o f a clear analysis o f the general argument and a summation o f the
theory. Carruthers continues by saying, “This is not the place to analyze the theory, nor
to critique the implications o f certain o f its aspects. It is sufficient that the theory offers
an analytical framework for our research into the ancient Egyptian civilization. On the
point that the African orientation is almost the exact opposite to the Eurasian perspective
we are in complete agreement with Professor Diop.” 118 It is this basis from which
Carruthers argues we should develop an Afrikan worldview as the basic methodological
framework for understanding Afrikan historiography.
Through the construction o f this worldview we will then be able to properly
analyze Afrikan culture, and also be able to distinguish it from that o f “Aryan culture and
history.” 119 Therefore, “The two cradle theory meets with a prime requisite of
methodology for an African worldview, in that, it is based on the African heritage.” 120
As in his previous work, Carruthers relies upon the Instructions o f Merikare, as a basis
171
for extending Diop’s argument.
While Carruthers understands Diop’s conclusions and the connections which later
scholars have made regarding the impact o f environment on cultural behavior and
consciousness, Carruthers cautions by stating,
146
There are, o f course, several serious questions that must be raised with Diop’s
formulation, one is the assumption that the determinant o f cultural behavior is
primarily environmental. While this assumption is a part o f our intellectual
heritage dating back to at least the 9th dynasty, we should examine it with all due
respect to the ancient wisdom and ethical sense o f our revered ancestors. This is a
difficult task precisely because o f the implications o f any other answer to the
question, why do they act like they do?122
The critical questions and skepticism which Carruthers brings to the basic assumptions o f
the Two Cradle Theory speaks to Carruthers’ ability to respect tradition and our
ancestors, but at the same rate, also look for further underlying explanations o f
phenomenon. However, the questions and skepticism which Carruthers puts on the table
are engaged by scholars within Africana Studies who utilize the Two Cradle Theory to
develop assumptions and concepts for their respective subject areas. Specifically, the
Afrikan/Black psychologists have operationalized the concept o f culture, to such an
extent that we are now able to see cultural manifestations across space and time which
are still consistent with its original inception. These ideas will, however, be developed in
the following chapters.
Throughout Essays, Carruthers continues to rely upon the assumptions and
conclusions o f the Two Cradle Theory in his investigation o f Ancient Egypt. For
instance, Carruthers relies upon the conclusions o f the Two Cradle Theory to explain the
contrasting creation narratives between Kemet and Greece. Relying upon arguments
Diop originally posited in African Origin o f Civilization, Carruthers shows that the
orientation o f the Kemetians towards creation, the Creator and the created were reflective
o f harmony. On the other hand, the Greek creation narrative, as a representation o f the
Northern Cradle, manifests itself to be reflective o f alienation and fatalistic dualism.
Speaking o f the Kemetic creation narrative, Carruthers states
147
Man came into being the first time as a part o f what the Creator made. Man is
never separated from that order and social life is only one phase o f it. Man and
nature are brothers and not strangers. Man, thus, can partake o f the essence o f
plants, animals and cosmic forces. When he flies from his body at death, he can
take whatever form he wants and visit any city he desires. Man is a divine part o f
a world in which all other parts are divine.123
On the other hand, the Greek creation narrative is permeated by “fatalistic
dualism,” where there is “alienation between man and his Creator. Out o f this theme
grows the pessimism and skepticism which characterizes the thoughts o f the great
European sages from Plato to Marx and beyond.” 124 These are the same conclusions
which Diop reached when he closed, The Cultural Unity o f Black Africa where he states,
... by referring to respective cradles o f the Aryans and Meridionals [Afrikans],

that one can understand this divergence in the contents o f human consciousness
which apparently should be one, uniform. It has already been seen that, in
passing from South to North, geography, climate and the conditions o f existence
effectively reversed the moral values, which become opposed to each other like
the two poles: every defect here is a virtue there.125
Carruthers also extends his analysis to the different forms o f governance between
Kemet and Greece. Connected to governance in Kemet is the notion/concept/ntr Maat
(Divine order or truth). According to Carruthers, “Maat was the foundation o f the cosmic
and social order whose temporal embodiment agent was the Pharaoh. There is no
equivalent for Maat, but it encompasses the concepts o f Right, Justice, Truth and correct
ethics, as well as the eternal cosmic order.” 126 It was the Pharaoh’s responsibility, along
with others, to function and govern based upon the principles and characteristics o f Maat.
“Thus, Maat (Justice) is the foundation for official conduct. The governing official is
supposed to not only govern with fairness, impartiality and efficiency, but his very life is
supposed to be a model o f good behavior.” 127 This must be seen in contrast to
governance within Greece, where “interest was never considered the foundation o f the
148
juridical order.” Other western notions o f individualism, freedom, etc. are all
reflective o f this fundamental flaw within the European social order. Diop reached
similar conclusions in The Cultural Unity o f Black Africa, Precolonial Black Africa, and
Civilization or Barbarism.
Carruthers, like Wobogo, has taken the theoretical works o f Diop and applied
them to historical and sociological phenomenon, respectively. This sets a foundation for
proper interpretation o f culturally-specific experiences across space and time. As the
1980s came to a close, a number o f publications would come out which were specific to
developing and/or discussing the scholarship o f Cheikh Anta Diop.
While it is obvious that scholars utilize Diop’s work, it is also obvious that some
take the liberties to extend or collapse some o f Diop’s arguments to advance their own
ideological interpretation. This is in contradistinction to the work o f Ifi Amadiume,
probably one of the most unapologetically Diopian scholars emerging from West Afrika.
Amadiume relies upon Diop’s Two Cradle Theory and is clearly grounded in the role o f
gender within African societies. Amadiume, trained in social anthropology, is a jointly
appointed professor o f Religion and Afrikan/Afrikan American Studies at Dartmouth
College. Her first major publication which utilizes and builds upon the work o f Diop was
African Matriarchal Foundations: The Case o f Igbo Societies. Published by Karnak
House, this text utilizes the general assumptions o f the Two Cradle Theory in order to
explain the gendered structure o f Igbo society in ancient and modem day Nigeria.
The concept of gender is a very important component o f Diop’s Two Cradle
Theory which many scholars who utilize the theory, never clearly develop or even bring
to light. Amadiume is aware o f this, but she is also concerned with understanding gender
149
129
and the power o f women beyond simplistic lists o f Afrikans queens and rulers.
Therefore, Amadiume argues “In looking at women and power, I believe that it is more
useful to research into favorable systems which have guaranteed power, not just listing,
or giving account o f individual women who have been rulers, even though they may have
operated extremely masculine systems, oppressive to women.” 130 On all too many
occasions certain scholars have equated Diop’s Two Cradle Theory with “just listing”
powerful individual women, however systems o f equality, balance and order are more
important according to Amadiume.
Ifi Amadiume argues that the matriarchal foundation o f Igbo societies is evident
even though anthropological and historical texts focus upon patrilineage as the defining
familial structure. In African Matriarchal Foundations: The Case o f the Igbo Societies,
Amadiume relies upon Diop’s Two Cradle Theory to frame her analysis o f Igbo societies.
Amadiume argues that, “[i]n tracing the cultural links and Black unity, it is hoped that
this presentation o f the matriarchal base o f Igbo societies will go a long way in
supporting Diop’s thesis o f the cultural unity o f Black Africa.” 131 While Amadiume’s
work validates the matriarchal foundations o f Igbo societies, she is also critical o f Diop’s
notion o f “harmonious dualism.” She in fact argues that,
[i]t was not a ‘harmonious dualism’ between men and women in matriarchal
systems or a corporate co-existence between matriarchal and patriarchal systems.
In whatever system, men incessantly sought to control women and their services,
and succeeded more often than not. In the Igbo societies where they did not
1T?
• •
succeed completely, women combined power with autonomous organizations.
However, Amadiume is clear that it is/was the matriarchal foundations o f Igbo societies
which allowed the creation o f autonomous organizations which yielded power to women.
Through Amadiume’s analysis it is evident that matrilineality and matrifocality clearly
150
are at the foundations o f Igbo society. Amadiume also stresses the notion o f “mother-
focus/matrifocality”. While she does not make this distinction, it should be clear that
these terms are more specific and useful when discussing Afrikan societies, as opposed to
the term “matriarchy”. Given the etymological origin o f matriarchy in comparison to
matrifocality and mother-focus, the latter terms are more culturally applicable.133
Furthermore, while Amadiume does not support Diop’s notion o f “harmonious dualism”
it is clear that within an Afrikan sense, matriarchy does not exist, at least not as in
opposition to patriarchy.
Similar to the previously mentioned work o f Wobogo and Carruthers, Amadiume
has applied the assumptions o f Diop’s Two Cradle Theory in order to support Igbo
society as a manifestation o f the Southern Cradle. Throughout the 1990s Amadiume will
produce a number of publications which develop her understanding o f Cheikh Anta Diop,
his work and its impact upon Afrikan Studies.
It should also be noted that in 1989, Kamak House published an edition o f Diop’s
Cultural Unity. At this time, the text had gone through three different English
publications.134 The first edition by Presence Africaine and the second by Third World
Press. The Third World Press edition included a preface and afterword, by John Henrik
Clarke and James Spady, respectively.135 However, it was the Kamak House edition
which had an important introduction by Ifi Amadiume. Her African Matriarchal
Foundations, had already been published by Karnak House and given its reliance upon
Diop’s Two Cradle Theory she was at this moment, one of few scholars continuing to
advance a Diopian analysis fundamentally grounded in the Two Cradle Theory.
151
Amadiume’s introduction begins by placing Diop’s focus upon cultural
homogeneity within the context o f the 1950s nationalist/independence movement. In
order for culture to function as a politically viable tool in the liberation o f Afrikan people,
Diop argued that it was necessary to construct a notion o f cultural unity that was
continuous across space and time. Amadiume’s interpretation o f Diop’s Two Cradle
Theory is grounded in the central factor o f social organization, which we understand to be
the manifestation o f the concept o f matriarchy. According to Amadiume, “What Diop
took firm grip on and used to argue the ‘profound cultural unity’ o f Africa is the history
o f African matriarchy. He thus proceeded from analysis o f material conditions to
ideological superstructures.” 136 This focus upon matriarchy in Afrika led to two
irreducible systems o f social structures, matriarchy in Afrika and patriarchy throughout
Europe. As previously discussed these develop into distinct cradles, within a respective
environment creating distinct social belief systems.
While Amadiume understands the nature o f Diop’s argument, she also questions
certain aspects. Amadiume argues that “Diop’s theory o f two irreducible systems seems
to me difficult to accept academically, given the limitations imposed on the organic
approach to societies which leads to the portrayal o f society as static rather than dynamic
in itself. I do however accept the irreducibility o f the matricentric unit as a social
fact.” 137 This is the same argument which she advances in her Afrikan Matriarchal
Foundations. For according to Amadiume, “[t]he ‘natural’ and social fact o f the
matricentric unit is basic to all societies, as symbolized by the pregnant woman.” 138
However, it is within the patriarchal system o f domination, control and oppression o f
women in which this “social fact” must be denied. In agreement with Diop, Amadiume
152
advances the matriarchy o f Afrikan societies, but also advances that patriarchy can
manifest itself within Afrika as a competitive social system. Therefore, “matriarchal and
patriarchal principles o f social organization or ideologies have presented two juxtaposed

1 -JQ
and contesting systems.” Diop discussed the notion o f “harmonious dualism” which
Amadiume argues is somewhat misleading, when in fact there were, at times, two
systems vying for social control.140
Yet while Amadiume does not accept all o f Diop’s argument she is able to
acknowledge this text, as “classic” within Afrikan social history. However, o f most
concern to this analysis are Amadiume’s comments regarding those who have attempted
to utilize some o f Diop’s arguments. Amadiume, argues “[bjecause Diop took on the
fundamental issue of matriarchy from an Afrocentric perspective and interest, as opposed
to a compromised struggle for women’s rights in patriarchal systems, what scholar will
match the feminism of Cheikh Anta Diop? For him, matriarchy is an ‘ensemble of
institutions favorable to womanhood and to mankind in general.’” 141 This is an important
question given the role o f matriarchy within Diop’s Two Cradle Theory.
While we are aware o f Diop’s scholarship on Ancient Afrika, the question
becomes why are we not aware o f his position on issues of gender and the centrality of
matriarchy in the Two Cradle Theory. Most complicit within this misrepresentation of
Diop are Africana men, who only advance Diop’s ideas half-heartedly. According to
Amadiume, “As for African men, they feel contented to cite only those aspects o f the
work o f the great thinker which serve their purpose, especially the reclaiming o f ancient
Egyptian civilization. The fundamental thesis o f this work, which rests on African
matriarchy, is the least given importance and applied.” 142 Amadiume’s critical
153
assessment o f the role o f Africana men in poorly representing Diop’s scholars, returns to
the necessity o f revisiting and accurately assessing Diop’s impact on Afrikan-centered
scholarship.
One well-known scholar publishing scholarship generally related to Cheikh Anta
Diop, would have to be Molefi Kete Asante o f Temple University’s Department o f
Afrikan American Studies. While Asante’s scholarship spans across communications,
literary theory, history and a host o f other areas seemingly related and connected to
Africana Studies, his specific discussion regarding Diop’s Two Cradle Theory is
somewhat limited. And while the second edition o f his best-selling Afrocentricity143,
acknowledges Diop as a prime contributor to his philosophical perspective, it is
interesting to note that in previous and subsequent editions, Diop did not receive a similar
acknowledgement. While this is not a slight against Asante and his particular approach
to Cheikh Anta Diop, it does speak to the problems o f clearly articulating what a Diopian
scholar must be focused upon. As this dissertation suggest, a central focus must be
Diop’s Two Cradle Theory in any analysis that is considered Diopian.
In one o f his earliest discussions o f Diop’s Two Cradle Theory, Asante argues that
...w hile the European seeks to conquer nature, to subdue it, the Asian flees from
the illusion of the world, and the African finds coexistence with nature and a
harmonious relationship with all o f the elements o f the universe. Diop (1978) has
understood this as the Two Cradle theory o f human civilizations: Europe and
Africa, where Asia becomes a combination o f the two cradles. Actually for Diop
the African cradle predates the European but the special characteristics o f the
European cradle are associated with the glaciers, particularly as they related to
fire and ice, the dual gods o f W esterners.14
Any reading o f Diop’s text would not lead to these conclusions, especially regarding fire
and ice as the “dual gods o f Westerners”. In fact these seem like an imposition o f the
work of Michael Bradley, and in fact within the next sentences Asante bears all o f his
154
cards stating: “In Iceman Inheritance (1978) Bradley extends Diop’s position,
contending that Europeans carry with them the enduring myth o f Ragnarok. There is a
sense in which Europe is still trying to resolve ice and fire according to Bradley’s
thesis.” 145 However, Asante previously stated that this was the thesis o f Diop. While still
positing that he is “Diopian,” 146 Asante still chooses to reference Bradley regarding the
origins o f the nature o f western society.147
A close reading o f Bradley’s Iceman Inheritance will not lead to a coterminous
argument with that o f Diop’s Two Cradle Theory, for a number o f reasons. First, Bradley
does not accept that Europeans are purely homo-sapiens, something which Diop
unapolegetically advanced.148 Secondly, Bradley posits that there was a possible
interbreeding between homo-sapiens and Neantherdals. Thus the Neantherdal traits are
the origin o f European aggression. While Bradley advances that environmental
conditions affected the psychology o f Neantherdals, the role o f environment is not central
to his argument as to that o f Diop. Therefore, to utilize Bradley in order to support or
substantiate Diop’s Two Cradle Theory is irreverent. While the “Iceman Inheritance”
argument as espoused by certain members o f the Afrikan-centered movement may be
valid, these are not Diopian and should be left out o f the discussion o f Diop because they
undermine the social scientific basis o f Diop’s work.149
Another influential scholar within the Afrikan-centered movement was Ivan Van
Sertima. Van Sertima’s work on the relationship between West Afrikans and
Mesoamerica has placed his work within a good portion of Afrikan-centered discourse.
Van Sertima has also played a key role as editor o f the Journal o f African Civilizations,
since its inception in 1979. Through publication o f over 10 volumes ranging from
155
African Presence in Early America, to African Presence in Early Europe, Black Women
in Antiquity, and Egypt: Child o f Africa to Blacks in Science: Ancient and Modern, Van
Sertima has maintained a premier journal concerned with a proper appreciation of
Afrikan people. According to Van Sertima, the Journal o f African Civilizations “is the
only historical journal in the English-speaking world which focuses on the heartland
rather than on the periphery o f African civilizations. It therefore removes the ‘primitives’
from the center stage it has occupied in Eurocentric histories and anthropologies on the
African.” 150 Many o f Van Sertima’s publications which dealt with Ancient Afrika
included the work o f Cheikh Anta Diop, specifically those focusing on the origin of
Ancient Egyptian civilization, along with the contribution o f Ancient Egypt to world
civilization. However, the most important publication o f the Journal o f African
Civilizations, is the volume which is focused upon the work o f Diop, himself.
First published in 1986, the same year that Diop made his transition, this volume
has gone through subsequent printings, the most recent in 2000. Ivan Van Sertima, along
with Larry Obadele Williams have compiled a serious amount o f scholarship specific to
the life and works o f Cheikh Anta Diop. A focus will only be placed up those pieces
which are specific to Diop’s arguments on the Two Cradle Theory.
James Spady’s “The Changing Perception o f C. A. Diop and His Works: The
Preeminence o f a Scientific Spirit,” 151 is much like many of his previous publications on
Cheikh Anta Diop. Most importantly, Spady attempts to locate Diop within the context
of Afrikan historical thinkers who were attempting to correctly situate Afrikan people,
history and culture within in their proper context. Spady provides a general and well
developed overview o f the work o f Cheikh Anta Diop. However, unlike Spady’s prior
156
publications there is a limited discussion on Diop’s Two Cradle Theory and his argument
for cultural unity. While it is acknowledged that The Cultural Unity o f Black Africa was
the first English publication o f Cheikh Anta Diop, released by Presence Africaine in
1962, and that as early as 1952, “Diop had formulated the cultural unity theory.” 152
Analysis of this theory within this text is almost nonexistent. Like all too many o f the
publications related to Diop after the mid-1980s, a limited focus is placed upon his Two
Cradle Theory.
However, Spady is able to provide an overview to the work o f Cheikh Anta Diop
which will be helpful to the lay person first being introduced to the work o f Diop.
Furthermore, Spady’s ability to develop the historical relationship between the work of
Diop and the English speaking world is commendable. Spady does provide a very good
interpretation o f the earliest responses to Diop’s work. Spady also attempts to highlight,
not only Diop’s training within the social sciences, but more importantly his training in
the physical and natural sciences. By stressing this component o f Diop’s intellectual
development Spady is able to show Diop as a preeminent Afrikan scientist who had the
ability to clearly impact and change the Afrikan world.
Asa Hilliard’s review o f the 1978 edition o f The Cultural Unity o f Black Africa,
published by Third World Press, investigates the cultural, political and social
implications o f Diop’s argument. As Hilliard states, “The Cultural Unity o f Black Africa
is a cornerstone in the structure o f mental and physical liberation.” 153 In a limited
number o f pages, Hilliard summarizes and analyzes the arguments o f Diop regarding
cultural unity. According to Hilliard, “The Cultural Unity o f Black Africa is important
because it creates an independent African centered conception o f Africa which restores
157
its people to their rightful role as participants and creators in the historical process, not
as mere spectators.” 154 It is Hilliard’s connection o f Diop’s discussion o f culture and the
liberation o f Afrikan people which has the most implications for Afrikan people and
Africana Studies. As Hilliard states,
The political and social function o f culture is well understood by those groups that
have become viable. Cultural disintergration is also seen in groups that are weak.
Sometimes these things are manipulated by colonizers with cold calculated intent.
Students o f culture may be aware o f the fact that it serves as a kind o f glue that
binds individuals into a group. Shared culture is the indispensable basis for group
unity. Group unity is the prerequisite to liberation. Therefore, African and
African diasporan people have an economic and political interest in the
development o f a cultural understanding o f themselves.1 5
Hilliard’s extended discussion on the use o f culture is in line with Diop’s understanding
o f the role o f culture. In fact, in an earlier interview with Carlos Moore, Diop argued
“There is no doubt that culture will be used as a weapon in this struggle [of
decolonization and independence], this is indispensable. That is why it is important that
this weapon be at all times adapted to the struggle for national independence, for culture
shall, essentially, be in the service o f the struggle for national liberation.” 156 Thus, during
the context o f the decolonization movement, Diop saw the colonial powers advance
views that would emphasize the supposed disunity amongst a variety o f Afrikan peoples
and cultures. To counter this, Diop stuck to his notion o f cultural unity and developed it
into a formidable critique of European colonialist activities.
While Van Sertima, along with Williams, provide over 300 hundred pages of
relevant information regarding Cheikh Anta Diop, there is still a limited discussion o f
Diop’s Two Cradle Theory and the implications o f this theory. For instance, this text
could and should have included work by both Jacob Carruthers and Vulendin Wobogo,
who have already been discussed within this review. Iva Carruthers could have also been
158
included, especially given her early focus upon the gendered and matrifocal dimensions
o f Diop’s scholarship. However, with these weaknesses in the text, Great African
Thinkers: Cheikh Anta Diop still functions as another tool for introducing the English-
speaking Afrikan world to Cheikh Anta Diop, along with its ability o f consolidating
Diopian scholarship into one text. If we return to the transition in focus on Diop’s work,
this text functions as a classic example. Only Hilliard’s text deals specifically with
Diop’s Two Cradle Theory. While some interviews republished in this text, include a
brief mention of the theory the majority o f the work is specific to Ancient Afrika.
Chris Gray, author o f Conceptions o f History: Cheikh Anta Diop and Theophile
Obenga , one o f the only English published texts that pays specific attention to Cheikh
Anta Diop attempts to discuss the role o f both Diop, and his protege Theophile Obenga,
in the areas o f history and linguistics. In this text Gray is also concerned with the lack of
attention given to Diop and Obenga within “mainstream” scholarship in Afrikan Studies.
Through a well-developed analysis o f the lives of Diop and Obenga, Gray provides a
useful portrait of the context in which their work is the best to be understood.
As previously mentioned, the fundamental concern at hand here is the discussion,
articulation and/or critique o f Diop’s Two Cradle Theory and arguments o f Afrikan
cultural unity. While Gray acknowledges the role that cultural unity has played within
the historical and linguistic work o f Diop , these arguments actually only become
secondary within the larger analysis o f D iop’s work. For instance, Gray argues
Most o f Diop’s historical writings (and a significant portion o f Obenga’s) are

concerned with proving this ancient Egyptian connection. Diop is also known for
having presented a theory o f African cultural unity, arguing that African
civilization is essentially matriarchal and European civilization essentially
patriarchal, and that these civilizations existed as separate historical and
159
geographical entities before coming together in the Mediterranean and giving
birth to ancient Greece.159
The privilege that Gray, along with other Diopian scholars of the 1980s, gives to Diop’s
work on Ancient Afrika attempts to restructure the nature of Diop’s scholarship from its
very foundations. As previous chapters suggest, Diop’s discussion o f Ancient Afrikan
civilizations was fundamentally connected to his theory o f cultural unity. Therefore, to
separate these arguments and privilege one over the other, is misleading at best and
disingenuous to Cheikh Anta Diop and the advancement o f Diopian scholarship, at worst.
On some occasions, Gray’s analysis o f Diop’s work is somewhat reminiscent of
Okpewho whose analysis o f Diop’s scholarship was earlier put into question. Regarding
Gray, he refers to a good portion o f Diop’s work as consisting o f “sweeping
arguments,” 160 in which Diop creates “broad sweeping brush strokes” about the historical
experiences o f Afrikan people.161 One can venture to say that Gray, much like Okpewho,
has no serious respect for the historical project Diop was attempting to construct.
References to his work, along with Obenga’s, as “sweeping” and “broad” clearly shows
that Gray is not aware o f the historical project which they are attempting to create.
What can be called Diop’s usage o f “broad” and “sweeping” statements develops
out o f his arguments for cultural unity. This cultural unity was based upon a connected
experience that large (macro) cultural groups share. Furthermore, this connected
experience extends across space and time. In order to substantiate these arguments Diop
grounded them in the most ancient experiences o f Afrikan people and also showed their
manifestation among varied Afrikan peoples across space and time.
Another aspect o f Diop’s scholarship that Gray chooses not to engage with any
serious depth, is the role of migrations. Diop argued that the migratory paths o f Afrikan
160
i /r'y
peoples is reflective o f their cultural connection. This further substantiates the passage
o f culture across space, and thus the possibility o f Afrikan cultural unity.
While Gray attempts to privilege some o f Diop’s arguments he does discuss
certain scholars who influenced many important components o f his Two Cradle Theory.
First, is the influence of Leo Frobenius. According to Gray, “D iop...w as influenced by
Froebenius, in fact his ideas regarding matriarchy (sedentary and agriculture-based) and
patriarchy (nomadic and pastoral) seem to have their roots in Frobenius’ notions of
‘Ethiopian civilization’ (conditioned by the plant; civilizations o f farmers and gatherers)
and ‘Hamitic civilization’ (conditioned by the animal; civilizations o f herders, hunters
and nomads)” While Diop, o f course, does not espouse any Hamitic-based arguments,
there is a correlation between his work and that o f Frobenius. And in fact, Diop utilizes
the cultural classifications o f Frobenius in “A Critical Analysis o f the Criteria of
Parameters Used to Define African Cultural Areas,” 164 in which Diop discusses
Frobenius classification o f Afrikan cultures as “the most serious and systematic attempt
to divide Africa into culture areas or distinct civilization...” 165 However, after a review of
Frobenius’ classification system Diop concludes “Today, despite Frobenius’s invaluable
contribution, his brilliant study on the typology o f African civilizations is out o f date and
his identification criteria have lost much o f their value.” 166 In summation, Gray is correct
to assert that Diop was influenced by Frobenius, but it would be incorrect to suggest that
Diop took Frobenius’ arguments whole cloth without critical reflection.
Secondly, Gray pays attention to what some have referred to as Diop’s

i fin >
materialism , which was the basis o f Diop’s Two Cradle Theory. Gray suggests that
Diop and Obenga were considerably influenced by Marx. In reference to Diop, Gray
161
states that Diop, “is more interested in using Marx and Marxist ideas as a basis for his
notion o f materialism thus allowing him to ‘objectively’ discover and describe a true
African historical identity. Some o f his applications o f materialism are unorthodox and
brings into play a different method o f seeing.” 168 While this assessment is accurate, Gray
fails to recognize that Diop uses these materialist arguments in the context o f his larger
theory o f cultural unity. Therefore, his reliance upon materialism must deviate from the
manner in which Marx discussed it. Marx was not so much concerned with the concept
o f culture, as he was concerned with “objective material conditions.” 169
While Gray is concerned with the scholarly work o f both Diop and Obenga, he is
also concerned with their place within “mainstream” historical and linguistic
scholarship.170 While Diop’s scholarship may not have been accepted among mainstream
academics, his work was accepted by others including a wide audience throughout the
Afrikan/Black community o f Paris, Francophone Affika, Caribbean people living in
Europe, along with Afrikans living in the Caribbean and the Americas.171 Therefore, it
must be suggested that if Diop has been accepted within these communities, is it still
necessary to be accepted among “mainstream” academics.
Building upon his discussion o f Diop’s acceptance within certain communities
Gray states, “the main currents o f Cheikh Anta Diop’s legacy can be found within two
different traditions: Black American scholarship in the United States and the continuing
scholarly production and projects o f Theophile O benga...with Obenga in francophone
Africa and with the field of Afro-American studies in the States, Diop’s ideas enjoy wide
17 7
currency and lively discussion.” One could argue that with Theophile Obenga’s
location within the United States and his current teaching position at San Franscico State
162
University’s Department o f Black Studies, that the discipline o f Africana Studies is the
main vehicle for the transference o f Diopian scholarship. While this will be developed in
the following chapter, it is interesting to note that Gray acknowledges this fact.
And while Gray is correct to assert that Afrikan American scholars have been a
part of the international community who have accepted and continued to develop Diop’s
work, his discussion o f the transference o f this scholarship along with the prominent
thinkers who have utilized this work is somewhat inconsistent with the historical record.
Gray is correct when he states that Spady published the first English publication on or
about Cheikh Anta Diop. However, Gray does not acknowledge that in 1962 Presence
Africaine had already published an English version o f The Cultural Unity o f Black Africa,
which Spady references his in text.
Furthermore, the scholarship o f Jacob Carruthers is mentioned in an extremely
minimal context. In fact, Gray does not even specifically reference the work of
Carruthers. He in fact utilizes a citation from Martin Bernal’s Black Athena, to support
1 I'X
his tertiary reference to the work o f Carruthers. However, with Essays in Egyptian
Studies published in 1984, along with the numerous articles published in the Black Books
Bulletin and Black World, it is hard to accept Gray’s discussion as the most accurate
assessment o f the work of Diop amongst English-speaking scholars.
Overall, Gray makes a respectable attempt at bringing Diopian scholarship to
light. With his knowledge of Diop’s work Gray is able to place important questions on
the table for future scholars to investigate, from Gray’s concern o f Diop’s lack o f
“mainstream” acceptance to an ability to show the connection between Diopian
assumptions and those o f Frobenius and M arx.174 However, Gray’s analysis is flawed in
163
more areas than one. Specific to the structure, content and goal o f this chapter, Gray fails
to clearly discuss the development o f Diopian thought within the English-speaking
Afrikan diaspora, a point that he acknowledges as important to understanding the
possibly impact o f Cheikh Anta Diop. Furthermore, his focus upon the Ancient Afrikan
arguments o f Diop dilutes Diopian scholarship turning it into glorification o f Ancient
Afrikan civilizations. As this dissertation has shown, Diop was much more complex than
this and deserves clarity in discussing his intellectual role within the Afrikan-centered
movement and its subsequent impact upon Africana Studies.
V. The 1990s Response and Present Scholarship
Given the development o f scholarship in relation to Cheikh Anta Diop and his
Two Cradle Theory, recent developments within these areas should be based upon and
grounded in the previously discussed twenty-plus years o f Diopian related scholarship.
The following review o f related scholarship, from the 1990s until present is grounded in
this context and therefore looks upon the most recent scholarship from a rather critical
position. Therefore, questions will be posed o f this group o f scholar/activists,
specifically for the mere fact that there is a body o f scholarship which is on or about
Diop’s Two Cradle Theory, which can function as a reference point for further
development. Again, returning to Carr’s discussion o f a genealogy o f Afrikan-centered
thought, it is essential that we develop continuity in our work as a reflection o f the
movement and direction which our scholarship has taken us. Furthermore, as the work of
Diop has become more visible a sizable group o f scholars continue to appear who label
themselves as Diopian. However, what this “Diopianness” is based upon is still up for
164
question. As this dissertation suggests, one o f the key components must be a grounding
within Diop’s Two Cradle Theory.
For example, Molefi Kete Asante and others have attempted to connect the
17c
general arguments o f Cheikh Anta Diop to the idea o f Afrocentricity. However,
through this body o f scholarship Diop’s Two Cradle Theory is the least interrogated and
or utilized. While the Two Cradle Theory is one o f the least engaged areas by Asante in
relation to Diop’s scholarship, he does attempt to engage Diop’s theory in a review essay
of Diop’s Cultural Unity o f Black Africa, Gray’s Conceptions o f History and
Chuckwenyre Kamalu’s Foundations o f African Thought. While Asante engages all o f
these texts, we are only concerned with Asante’s discussion o f Diop’s Cultural Unity.
According to Asante,
Diop’s own research convinced him that there were two cradles o f civilization,
the Northern Cradle and the Southern Cradle. He compared the two systems on
the basis o f dowry, respect for women, kinship, disposition o f corpses, and
inheritance. Clearly, there were differences between the Northern Cradle and the
Southern Cradle in many areas o f social practice. With this structure in place, he
examined the European arguments against the unity of African culture.176
Granted this was a review essay, but Asante still does not clearly articulate the basis o f
Diop’s theory. Diop’s theory was based fundamentally upon environmental conditions,
social structures and cultural manifestations. In a later essay, Chris Williams discusses
the inability o f “Afrocentric scholars” to accept Diop’s “cultural materialism,” thus
creating a misinformed understanding o f Diop’s w ork.177 While a review essay may not
be the place to explicitly discuss the centrality o f these arguments to Diop, it should also
be noted that review essays which were published after the Third World Press edition of
the text by both John Henrik Clarke and Jacob Carruthers, clearly laid out the nature of
Diop’s Two Cradle Theory.
165
Asante continues his review, by discussing the manner in which Diop attempted
to substantiate his understanding o f Afrikan cultural unity. Relying upon aspects of
social practices and other components which distinguish Afrika from Europe,
surprisingly Asante continues by stating, “ [w]hile additional work needs to be done on
this aspect o f Diop’s theory, it is a remarkable advance in the science o f culture beyond
178
what had been offered previously.” However, the question becomes, given the
introduction o f Diop to the English-speaking Afrikan world via the work o f James Spady,
Harun Kofi Wangara, John Henrik Clarke and others, why does Asante suggest that
certain aspects o f Diop’s theory are still up for question.
In all honesty, the truth o f the matter is that the “additional research,” that is so
needed by Asante has already been done. In fact, the Kamak House edition o f Diop’s
Cultural Unity, which Asante reviewed for this essay, was prefaced by Ifi Amadiume, a
1 *7Q
leading Diopian scholar. Amadiume, as discussed previously and hereafter has
substantiated many o f the theoretical arguments o f Diop. To be ignorant o f this work and
the plethora o f scholarly works that have engaged the many aspects o f Diop’s Two
Cradle Theory, and still consider one to be Diopian is fallacious. With this appropriation
o f Diop, the question still remains as to the substance o f his work, forgetting all the
labels, what about Diop is so important? This question still seems to be unanswered and
Diop only seems to function as a figure head among a certain group o f Affocentric
scholars.
Runoko Rashidi, a self-trained scholar o f Afrikan world history, has primarily
focused upon the role o f Afrikans in East Asian cultures. In his Introduction to the Study
o f African Classical Civilizations, he relies upon Diop’s Two Cradle Theory in his
166
investigation o f Indian civilizations. Rashidi provides brief, but convincing evidence, of
the Afrikan origin o f many East Asian civilizations, including Sumer, Elam, and Colchis,
among others. Rashidi’s specialty is the historical development o f Indian civilizations.
It is within this area that Rashidi utilizes the arguments found within the Two Cradle
Theory.
Consistent with the characteristics o f the Northern cradle, the Indo-Aryans
invaded India and usurped the original land o f the Southern cradle. According to
Rashidi, “The Dravidians are the living descendants, actual survivors, o f the Indus Valley
18 0
migrants who journeyed south into the interior o f India.” Consistent with the Two
Cradle Theory, and the Northern cradle in particular, Rashidi states that “a major turning
point in the history o f humankind and the overall ascendancy o f the Indo-European
speakers in the world at large” was the imposition o f Indo-Europeans on Southern

181
inhabitants. It was this ascendancy that created the Zone of Confluence throughout the
Asiatic world and India, in particular. Rashidi highlights the suttee and ja ti, which are
two characteristically Northern cradle customs. “The suttee was the self-immolation o f
187
the devout Hindu widow on the funeral pyre o f the deceased husband.” While on the
other hand the ja ti refers to the caste nature o f Indian society. While Rashidi disagrees
with Diop’s critique o f the non-racial basis o f the Indian caste system, it is obvious that
both of these customs are reflective o f patriarchal-nomadic society.
Rashidi also provides an expanded understanding and interpretation o f the
Northern Cradle, which must be quoted at length:
Since the late nineteenth century the original home o f the Indo-Europeans
has been placed somewhere in the vast Eurasian steppes between the frontiers o f
China on the east and the plains o f central Europe on the west. By the fifth
millennium B.C.E. wide portions o f the Eurasian steppe were peopled by
167
scattered tribes united by a proto-Indo-European language which ultimately
separated into local dialects with a common root.
The Eurasian steppes were also home o f the wild ancestors o f the horse,
which was rapidly domesticated, and the development and evolution of
increasingly sophisticated and elaborate harnesses, saddles, stirrups and related
gear, effectively exploited by the region’s nomadic populations. Whether this
occurred first among the Indo-Europeans themselves or the Mongoloids further to
the east is not known, but there is no question that the Indo-Europeans made the
first significant impact in their application o f this development. The same can be
said for the spoked-wheel chariot which the Indo-Europeans may not have
invented, but advanced technologically. The chariot appears in pre-dynastic art in
the Sahara.
Whether in the hunt or in war, the steppe dwellers made use o f the
powerful composite bow. Strengthened with bone and sinew in a manner
designed to increase its resilience, the composite bow was the most deadly missile
weapon o f the ancient and medieval world. It outdistanced the long bow and
could penetrated armor at more than a hundred yards. The composite bow and the
light, spoked-wheel chariot constituted the ultimate military weaponry o f their
era, making those that possessed and effectively utilized them highly formidable,
if not absolutely irresistible on the battlefield. The indo-European tribes north of
the Caucasus mounts learned metallurgy no later than 2500 B.C.E., enabling them
to develop a wide range o f copper and bronze weapons and tools.
Having domesticated the horse, and armed with sophisticated military
technologies, towards the end o f the third millennium B.C.E. the Indo-Europeans,
including the Aryans, drove their wagons across the veritable sea o f grass o f the
Eurasian steeps. Whether they were motivated by famine and drought, excess
populations, or forces and factors that are not understood multitudes o f Indo-
European nomads, including the Aryans, were moving like a massive human
juggernaut towards new and unknown lands, uprooting whole peoples in their
path. The numerous Black cultural centers located in the Zone o f Confluence,
and in the Southern Cradle itself, were rocked to their foundations.183
Rashidi’s clear articulation o f the nature o f the Eurasian steppes along with the
subsequent effects upon Asia and Afrika, speak specifically to the nature, content and
components o f Diop’s Two Cradle Theory. Clearly informed by this, Rashidi is thus able
to have an accurate grasp o f the historical development o f Indian civilization and the
development o f one the best examples o f inhabitants o f the Zone o f Confluence.
As I discussed in the previous chapters, the nomenclature o f the Two Cradle
Theory stated, Rashidi prefers to refer to these arguments as Diop’s “Two Cradle Thesis” .
168
Furthermore, Rashidi’s reading suggests that the theory should be called the Three
Cradle Theory. In speaking o f the Zone o f Confluence, Rashidi states, that “ [f]or Diop,
and this is critical in his view o f the evolution o f the world, the Zone o f Confluence, or
184
overlap, was a cradle in itself, out o f which emerged the Semitic world.” While this
interpretation is not consistent with the nomenclature advanced by Wobogo, others have
185
also suggested the Zone o f Confluence as a possibly cradle, in and o f itself.
Summarily, it is important to recognize Rashidi’s contribution to the further extension
and clarification o f Diop’s Two Cradle Theory. His extended discussion o f origins o f the
Northern Cradle provide much needed clarity and supporting evidence for the cultural
pecularities o f its inhabitants and descendants.
Marimba Ani, author o f Yurugu: An African-Centered Critique o f European

J o /
Cultural Thought and Behavior relies upon Diop’s Two Cradle Theory on a number o f
occasions in her attempt at delineating the problematic nature o f western European
culture, along with its detrimental effect on the consciousness and experiences o f First
World peoples. Her first utilization o f Diop’s work is in relation to “Patriarchy in the
Development of European Religion,” in which Ani outlines the key components and
assumptions o f the Two Cradle Theory and shows that, along with Diop, Amadiume and
others, the Northern Cradle, ie. western Europe was based upon the devaluing o f females
throughout religious practices. Thus, “ [a]mong the nomads, who had no permanent
residence, cremation took precedence over burial, and fire, which gave much needed
warmth in a land with little direct or close sunlight, was ‘worshiped.’” 188 In contrast,
within the Southern Cradle, “the earth takes prominence as agricultural activity and
fertility abound. The population is more peaceful, secure, and sedentary. Women play a
169
critical part in the economy and in subsistence. The female principle is the foundation o f
the cosmological conceptions.” 189 Thus the connection between patriarchy and religion is
an outgrowth o f Northern Cradle conditions, along with the subsequent social and
cultural practices o f western European peoples. What is even o f greater importance is the
fact that these cultural practices have become norms for religion among western
Europeans. Furthermore, as western Europeans advance their religious practice as
universally applicable to all humans, they then advance a culturally-specific religious
practice upon First World peoples which is not coterminous with their indigenous
spiritual belief systems.
Ani also utilizes the Two Cradle Theory within her discussion o f “Theories of
Euro-Caucasian Behavior: The Question o f Cause,” 190 in which she attempts to get to the
origin o f the unique characteristics o f western European behavior toward others. These
characteristics include: aggression, hostility, xenophilia, etc. Ani reviews a variety of
theories o f causation from Black Psychologists including Bobby Wright and Frances
Cress Welsing, Freudian Psychologists Joel Kovel, Micheal Bradley’s Icem an’s
Inheritance and melanin theorist and psychiatrist Richard King. Included in this
discussion is Diop’s Two Cradle Theory. A ni’s focus is upon the detrimental effects that
the environmental conditions o f the Northern Cradle had on the consciousness o f western
Europeans. In her attempt at extending Diop’s argument beyond that o f classical
antiquity, like most Afrikan-centered scholars who rely upon this theory, Ani argues that
the original poor environmental conditions caused western Europeans to be in constant
search o f natural resources in which they could control and manipulate. The need to
170
control natural resources was also contingent upon controlling indigenous populations.
According to Ani,
[tjhere are few facts clearer when viewing the contemporary relationship between
Europe and its diaspora and the rest o f the world than o f resource control.
Europe, itself an environment with very meager natural resources, is dependent
upon the world’s First People for its survival. Europeans, who have almost
nothing, have empowered themselves through systematic aggressive behavior
(genocide, colonialism, imperialism, slavery), by which they have appropriated
the resources o f others.191
A ni’s interpretation o f Diop’s Two Cradle Theory along with the work o f Wobogo, allow
Ani to come to the conclusion that “European behavior toward other racial/cultural
groups is a result o f the early experiences o f the Northern Cradle, since a people’s
collective personality is determined in their first intense experience as a group, much like
as a child’s personality is determined in its first, formulative years.” 192 Marimba Ani, as
a pillar o f the current Afrikan-centered movement through this text and her other
1 Q -3
works , has provided a useful application o f the Two Cradle Theory in the explanation
of current manifestations o f European behavioral patterns. Far from keeping Diop’s
analysis in classical antiquity, Ani has taken liberties to extend its usage to current
manifestations o f European domination and control.
Another important contributor to the current Afrikan-centered movement is Oba
T ’Shaka. His Return to the African Mother Principle o f Male and Female Equality, is
guided towards restoring the Afrikan family. In doing so, T ’Shaka utilizes the Two
Cradle Theory as a point o f departure. T ’Shaka in fact attempts to empirically test the
assumptions of the Two Cradle Theory, specifically the relationship between
environment and familial structure. Relying upon fourteen Afrikan societies from the
western, eastern, southern and northeastern sections o f the Afrikan continent, T ’Shaka
171
tests Diop’s theory. From T ’Shaka’s assessment, Diop was wrong in a number o f places
including: a.) the rational for the dowry system; b.) the origins o f patriarchy and
patrilineal families in Afrika; and c.) the use o f the terms “matriarchal” and “matrilineal”
as indicators o f Afrikan families.194
While T ’Shaka does reach these conclusions through an analysis o f a variety o f
Afrikan cultures and systems, his analysis must be taken with caution. First, regarding
the dowry system, Diop argued that the dowry was used to signify the weaker sex/gender.
In the Southern Cradle, the “weaker” sex/gender was that o f the male given the
matriarchal structure o f Afrikan societies. T ’Shaka argues that in fact dowry was given
in some cases from the male’s family to the female’s family, female’s family to the
m ale’s family and through a twin-dowry system where both families gave dowries to one
another. However, each dowry style was also dependent upon the nature o f the economy
and the overall structure o f the social system.
Secondly, T ’Shaka’s position regarding patriarchy and patrilineal families is
valid, but is also somewhat disingenuous especially regarding Diop’s position on this
point. Therefore, T ’Shaka correctly states that patriarchal and patrilineal families can be
found throughout Afrika. T ’Shaka, however, uses this to discredit the argument for the
matriarchal family in Afrika and throughout the Afrikan diaspora. It should be noted that
Amadiume has argued what many times poses as patriarchal and patrilineal families
throughout Afrika are in fact family systems that are grounded within matrifocal values.
And thus as T ’Shaka states, “if African patrilineal systems, stress the central features o f
the African woman in giving birth to children, and thus passing the family line, then we
are beginning to get some indications that African patrilineal systems are truly different
172
from European and Asian patriarchies.” 195 Furthermore, he also states, “African
patrilineal systems have more in common with African matriarchies and matrilineal
systems than they have with non-African patricharchies. In both African patrilineal,
matriarchal and matrilineal systems, woman are viewed as central, because o f their child
bearing power.” 196 Given T ’Shaka’s understanding o f the problematic in discussing the
relationship between patriarchy and patrilineal societies within Afrikan societies, it is
unclear the reason for a critique o f Diop’s original assumptions. Furthermore we must
remember that Diop posited that “matriarchy is not the cynical triumph...of women over
m en...it was the best to build a sedentary society.” 197 Therefore, if Diop is faulted it is
for the usage o f terms (matriarchy and patriarchy) that were inapplicable to Afrikan
reality.
This leads to T ’Shaka’s last critique which is clearly valid, and this revolves
around the problematic concept o f “matriarchy”. Amadiume has attempted to rectify this
point in her usage o f the concepts “mother-focus/matrifocal” in describing Afrikan,
specifically Igbo cultural systems. Dove has also suggested the usage o f alternative
terminology. Arguably T ’Shaka is also making reference to this point given his reference
to “the Afrikan Mother principle”.
Errol Anthony Flenderson’s relatively never discussed text Afrocentrism and

1 OR
World Politics , is a text in which Diop’s Two Cradle Theory takes center stage as a key
component in advancing an Afrocentric paradigm o f world politics. Henderson provides
a theoretical analysis and interpretation o f the Two Cradle Theory. In doing so,
Henderson is also able to engage some errors or weaknesses within the work o f Diop, and
subsequent scholars who rely upon his argumentation. For instance, Henderson critiques
173
the inability o f Diop’s theory to support the processes o f cultural transmission. By
grounding the theory in environment, Henderson posits that Diop instead o f advancing
true cultural unity, in fact advances continental unity. However, this has been rectified
by certain Afrikan-centered scholars through their construction o f culture as a concept
which cuts across space and tim e.199
Secondly, Henderson takes issue with Diop’s blatant environmental determinism.
However, Henderson rectifies this through his reinterpretation o f Diop’s work as
environmental possiblism. According to Henderson, Diop
suggests that environmental constraints conditioned the range o f choices available

to its inhabitants while allowing them some freedom o f choice among these
restricted options. Environmental possibilists insist that environmental limitations
are discoverable and thus Diop’s ‘discovery’ o f the two cradle theory. Diop’s
thesis may be gainsaid by the fact that the operative force regulating the
emergence o f these cultural divergences may be just as well reflected through
nonenvironmental and nondeterminists factors such as those suggested by
cognitive behaviorism ...For Diop’s thesis to be persuasive he must, at least,
suggest some theory o f learning. He would have to outline the vehicle for
cognitive acquisition from one’s environment if he is to maintain that conduct is
initiated in response to some environmental condition.200
Henderson’s critique o f Diop’s environmental determinism is hard hitting, yet Henderson
fails to consider the role of consciousness, in both his critique o f continental vs. cultural
unity, and o f D iop’s environmental determinism. Furthermore, cultural practice in and of
itself functions as a mode o f learning in which cultural values and mores are transmitted
from one generation to the next.
Connected to the deterministic weaknesses Henderson sees in Diop’s theory, is
also Diop’s reliance on Marxist thought. This is the similar conclusion which Gray
reached, but in keeping with the notion o f genealogy it is interesting to notice that
Henderson does not include this as a substantiating point o f reference. However, be that
174
as it may, Henderson argues that “Diop’s thesis is beholden to a materialistic concept of
history.” He continues by stating, “It is not so much that this is inaccurate, only that Diop
relies on this materialist axiom to provide the girth o f most o f his ‘theory’” .201 This
ultimately goes back to the deterministic nature o f Diop’s argument. However, as
Henderson concludes, there is nothing inaccurate about this position. One could argue, as
Henderson does, that sociopolitical change is hard to explain under this high level of
determinism and materialism but as the scholarship o f Afrikan-centered scholars suggests
there are still levels in which we can explain cultural continuity and change across space
and time.
As this chapter has continuously maintained, within the past 15 years Ifi
Amadiume has been the most consistent Diopian scholar, especially regarding the
importance of his Two Cradle Theory. Another contribution o f Amadiume in the 1990s,
was her Reinventing Africa: Matriarchy, Religion & Culture, where she continues to
take Diop to task on a number o f issues in relation to the arguments he originally
developed in Cultural Unity. She also includes critical commentary on his more recent
Civilization or Barbarism, all o f which were related to the general conclusions connected
to the Two Cradle Theory. While Amadiume is critical o f certain components o f Diop’s
scholarship, much like Jacob Carruthers, Amadiume understands the overall relevance of
Diop’s work and is committed to the overall project o f Afrikan liberation. In doing so,
she is able to provide a healthy critique o f his work and at the same time respect his
intended goal.
Within Reinventing Africa, Amadiume continues to advance her nonacceptance of
Diop’s notion of matriarchy as a form o f ‘harmonious dualism’, arguing her
175
interpretation o f competing systems.202 This argument has been developed in previous
publications, and has been previously discussed above in this review. Thus it is
unnecessary to revisit it at this juncture.
Developing out o f her critique o f certain scholars who focus upon Diop only in
relation to Afrikan civilizations, Amadiume advances a similar critique against Diop,
arguing that Diop consistently forgot to include the base/foundation o f Afrikan societies
which were not centralized states as those found within classical Afrika. In fact, she
argues that noncentralized societies were the basis from which centralized Afrikan
societies were able to project their power. Similar to her previous publications,
Amadiume also includes a critique o f Diop’s use o f the concept “matriarchy”. This is
exemplified in her usage o f the concept “matrifocality/mother-focused”.
Beyond her issue o f nomenclature with the concept “matriarchy,” Amadiume also
argues that Diop’s usage o f the concept “matriarchy” is limited to succession and
Queenship within Afrikan societies. However, matriarchy is much more complex than
this in an Afrikan context. Feminity/womanhood, according to Amadiume, functioned as
an ideology and moral philosophy which shaped the cultural and social context of
Afrikan societies. Most important from Amadiume’s analysis is her ability to develop
and articulate what she refers to as a Diopian moral philosophy, the nature o f which can
be found in both centralized and anti-state decentralized political systems.204 Similar
arguments were developed in her earlier work, but growing out o f Diop’s macro-analysis
Amadiume attempts to develop an analysis applicable to the whole o f Afrika.
While Amadiume critiques the concept o f matriarchy, she does attempt to clarify
it within an Afrikan context. According to Amadiume, “[mjatriarchy, as was constructed
176
by African women, had a very clear message about social and economic justice. It was
couched in a very powerful goddess-based religion, a strong ideology o f motherhood, and
a general moral principle o f love.”205 As previously stated, this in turn has allowed
matriarchy to be the foundation o f a culturally-specific moral philosophy.
The reality o f Diop’s arguments are proven as Amadiume shows the continuity of
western sexism and patriarchy,
[f]or the West, therefore, in spite o f the women’s and feminist movements,
Engel’s theory - expressed over a hundred years ago - o f the privatized family as
the seat o f patriarchy and European women’s oppression, has not altered. This is
in spite o f the legislative reforms from the top and the so-called widening o f
personal choices. The basic patriarchal cultural values o f European civilization
have not altered, because European women have not produced an alternative or
opposition culture as a social institution, with formal or structural recognition, as
was the case with traditional African women’s organizations.206
However, consistent within the Southern Cradle, Amadiume argues that
Africans...were basically agriculturalists. Their basic matriarchal system meant

that woman was the agriculturalist, while man was the hunter. For this reason, it
was the women who was the mistress o f the house and keeper o f the food.
Husbands consequently used to go to wives at marriage, hence the bride wealth
system and the strong mother-linked ties between brother and sister. This strong
love among children of a mother was not undermined by an out-going marriage.
In Africa, therefore, a woman’s power was based on her very important and
907
central economic role.
Amadiume also provides a very clear analysis o f the origins o f state violence,
which is clearly grounded and found within Diop’s Northern cradle. Amadiume states
that,
[i]t appears as if both the ideology o f state violence and the instruments o f state
violence have their origin in the European systems. It was the Indo-Europeans,
the Hittites, who first domesticated the horse and used it to extend their
domination in the Near East. The Egyptians in turn got the chariot from the
Hyksos who invaded Egypt in 1500 BC. From Egypt, horse-drawn vehicles
spread into the Eastern Sudan in the first millennium BC, then to the Western
Sahara.208
177
This continued into West Afrika, thus imposing other forms o f state violence upon
Afrikan societies.
Amadiume’s clear focus on the gendered argument within Diop’s work
strengthens her analysis and allows her to stay true to Diop’s scholarship. Building upon
previously mentioned comments in her Introducion to the Kamak House edition of
Cultural Unity, Amadiume argues that too many Africana men are not able to accept a
culturally focused, and still gendered interpretation o f Afrikan phenomenon. Thus, when
discussing scholarship within Afrocentric circles, Amadiumes argues that “unlike Diop to
whom gender ideology was a central issue, these other brothers o f ours have failed to
address the fundamental issue o f gender politics, and are therefore unable to discuss an
alternative, non-masculinists philosophy and political system to the centrist European
imperialism that they seek to overturn.”209 Amadiume also connects this to the focus
among certain Afrocentric scholars, who over emphasize Afrikan civilizations, as
opposed to the root of these civilizations which were those anti-state decentralized
societies. As previously stated, Diop was also victim to this position.
The relevance of Diop’s work through the lens o f Amadiume becomes clear in her
current analysis o f Nigerian society where she uses gender, matriarchy and a moral
philosophy, as a lens to understand the current conditions o f Nigerian women. By
showing how both Islam and western imperialism worked together to undermine the
conditions o f women in Nigeria, Amadiume demonstrates that in fact, the matriarchal
past o f Nigerian women gave them a position o f power, that only an external patriarchal
source in conjunction with previous vestiges o f patriarchy could undermine. These
arguments go directly with Diop’s arguments regarding the matriarchal nature o f Afrikan
178
societies.210 And while Amadiume questions Diop’s conclusion that patriarchy was a
completely external force within Afrika, she does clearly accept that Islam and western
imperialism exacerbated patriarchal cultural norms already in existence in Nigerian
society.
Amadiume’s refreshing wholistic analysis o f Diop’s Two Cradle Theory places
him within the most accurate context. According to Amadiume,
Cheikh Anta Diop comes out in defense o f women and their true heritage,
deconstructing what he terms ‘masculine imperialism’ and patriarchy. He takes
on the fundamental issue o f matriarchy from an Afrocentric perspective, as
opposed to a compromised struggle for women’s rights in patriarchal systems.
Unfortunately, African men who claim to be followers o f Diop simply quote those
aspects o f his work which suit their purpose. The main thrust o f his thesis, which
rest on African matriarchy, is the least cited or applied.211
Amadiume’s honest assessment o f the scholarship surrounding Diop and his Two Cradle
Theory speaks to certain internal issues within the Afrikan-centered movement that are
not often directly engaged. However, given the focus o f Diop’s work it is possible to use
an honest review o f his work to rectify these issues which hinder the progressive
movement o f Afrikan people.
Nah Dove’s reliance on Diop’s Two Cradle Theory to develop, what she refers to
as “African Womanism,” is an attempt at providing a cultural basis to arguments of
scholars such as Clenora Hudson-Weems.212 However, while Dove is concerned with
developing a culturally-based theory ground in a culturally-specific understanding o f
gender, her usage o f Diop’s Two Cradle Theory actually misses the mark.
Using Diop’s Two Cradle Theory as the basis for a cultural clash between
Afrikans and Europeans, Dove argues that at the basis of this clash was a cultural
difference grounded in Afrikan matriarchy and European patriarchy. Furthermore, Dove
179
looks and finds the origin o f racism within this same cultural clash between the
xenophobic European and the xenophiliac Afrikan. Relying upon the work o f Micheal
Bradley, Bobby Wright and Frances Cress-Welsing, Dove attempts to develop a
compelling argument grounded in the fundamental assumptions o f the Two Cradle
Theory.
While Diop’s Two Cradle Theory does provide as a viable explanation of
culturally distinct experiences, Dove’s analysis lacks a true Diopian component given her
lack of grounding within the works o f Diop and other Diopian scholars. The most glaring
component is in the midst o f her discussion o f racism and white supremacy, which takes
up a good portion o f her analysis. Dove’s analysis o f the origins o f white supremacy and
racism, in the context o f Diop’s Two Cradle Theory was first advanced by Vulinden
Wobogo, the first scholar to use Diop’s Two Cradle Theory in this manner. However,
Wobogo is not mentioned nor referenced, even though Dove’s discussion is an extended
replication o f his original argument. What this leads to is a disrupting o f the intellectual
genealogy o f Diop’s Two Cradle Theory within certain Africana academic circles. As
previously stated, the usage o f Diop’s analysis is necessary but it should be done within
the context of proper points o f reference.
Another examples o f misapplication and utilization o f Diop’s work can be found
in Charles Verharen’s “Environment, Culture, and Ethics: An African Concept of
Evil,”213 which was published in Presence Africaine, as an attempt to investigate the
concept o f evil in accordance with Diop’s Two Cradle Theory. Therefore, Verharen
“contrasts the African and Eurasian concepts o f evil to determine whether Diop’s ‘two
cradle’ hypothesis merits further research.”214
180
In his comparison between a Eurasian (Judeo-Christian) concept o f evil and an
Afrikan concept o f evil, Verharen makes a number o f important points, the first being
that within the Eurasian tradition “evil is rooted in life.”215 Therefore, humans exist as
and with evil, and the only way to get away from that which is evil is in the afterlife.
Secondly, the concept of evil within the Eurasian tradition allows for evil to be
personified through a being in the form o f satan or the devil. Thusly, “Satan is well-
established as a self-conscious, self-designated rival for God’s power whose influence on

"71(\
humans must be a primary source o f their misery.” Given these distinctions, that evil
only exists in life and evil is personified, a clear division can be made between Afrikan
and European concepts o f evil.
For instance, while the ancient Egyptians did not personify evil, within a strict
sense, evil was understood through the NTR, Apep. Furthermore, evil could not only be
found on this physical plane, but also in the afterlife.217 Similar arguments are suggested
through an analysis of the Dogon.
Verharen is correct to make the argument that the main distinctions between these
two concepts o f evil is the fact that the Afrikan concepts are grounded within notions o f
order and disorder, and thus order and disorder must exist in order for there to be balance.
This is one reason why disorder can be found on all planes o f existence. However, what
Verharen is unable to recognize is that while Apep may be the materialization of
disorder, Apep is not representative o f evil in and o f itself. Rather, disorder within the
Kemetic tradition is understood via the concept o f Isfet. Still Verharen’s attempt at
comparing these two systems is commendable.
181
While Verharen’s comparative analysis o f these two concepts o f evil seems to fall
in line with Diop’s Two Cradle Theory, he in fact turns Diop’s theory on its head when
discussing the relationship between environment and technology. Verheran maintains
that “[finding sharp differences between Eurasian and African concepts o f evil might
seem to support Diop’s hypothesis about cultural demarcation along lines o f latitude.
However, Diop may be right about attitude but wrong about latitude.”218 Relying upon
the work o f Jared Diamond, Verheran states, “The most important initial consideration is
a culture’s ability to feed itself. Africans, according to Diamond, were dealt a poor hand.
Europeans, however, were blessed with an abundant variety o f plants and animals,
910
especially large animals that could be domesticated.” Verheran adds, “Large
populations and abundant food supply gave Europeans ample leisure to develop complex
990
technologies.” Verharen, in agreement with Diamond posits that this availability to
resources in turn led to the development o f plant and animal technologies. These
advances then became the basis o f technological advancement. However, Verheran’s
arguments fly in the face o f the general assumptions o f the Two Cradle Theory. They in
fact reflect a serious misreading o f Diop’s work and support an older version o f
environmental determinism as discussed in the works o f Aristotle, Montesquieu and
Hegel.
According to Diop’s Two Cradle Theory, technological advances within Europe
were only a solution to survival and existence given their poor environmental conditions.
As previously discussed, Diop’s analysis was based fundamentally on environmental
conditions in which each cradle had distinct features. For Verharen to suggest that the
Northern Cradle had abundant plant life and animals, totally negates the impact o f the
182
Riss and Wurm glaciations which virtually wiped out all these life sustaining
environmental factors.221 Furthermore, it was the lack of these supplies that led to a need
for nomadism as a mode o f sustenance. Again, Verharen’s analysis attempts to flip
Diop’s original work on its head and is inconsistent with the breadth o f relevant literature
on this topic.
However, Verharen continues his analysis as he attempts to connect technological
development with systems o f ethics between the distinct environments, but Verheran
does not get to the reason as to why there are distinct advances in technology. Given his
unsophisticated use o f the Two Cradle Theory, Verharen makes a mockery o f Diop’s
work and in fact contradicts Diop’s general assumptions and conclusions. While
Verharen attempts to be concerned with the philosophical implications o f environment
and culture, he fails to engage the origin of these distinctions which the Two Cradle
Theory clearly posits. Thus Verharen can conclude that “ [w]e cannot now claim to know
the correlations between environment and ethics. But we can advance the hypothesis that
there is a causal correlation between technology and ethics.”222 Thus, following
Diamond’s argument regarding technology and ethics, and negating Diop’s argument on
environment and ethics, Verharen has reached his conclusions. But given Verharen’s
inability to fully exhaust the possibilities o f Diop’s work, he does not clearly engage the
relationship between environment and technology, and the nature o f technology which is
developed given distinct environmental conditions.
Jacob Carruthers’ Intellectual Warfare and Mdw Ntr, Divine Speech: A
Historiographical Reflection o f African Deep Thought From the Time o f The Pharaoh to
the Present reflect Carruthers’ continued reliance upon the arguments o f Diop to advance
183
an Afrikan-centered approach to the experiences o f Afrikan people. Within both texts it
is safe to say that Carruthers understands Diop’s Two Cradle Theory as a “valid
framework for understanding the past.”223 While Mdw Ntr, Divine Speech224 is
concerned with developing the philosophical basis for properly understanding the
experience o f Afrikan people, Intellectual Warfare is a compilation o f a number of
important essays, some of which were previously published. A few o f these were already
reviewed but a short synopsis o f some o f his conclusions based upon the work o f Cheikh
Anta Diop is in order.
First, is the central role o f the Two Cradle Theory in the development o f an
Afrikan worldview. Carruthers’ developed this point as early as 1977 and it has become
essential in how others have attempted to articulate the origins o f worldview
distinctions 225 Secondly, Carruthers’ extension o f the Two Cradle Theory to the 9th
century into Ancient Kemetic society provides a stable foundation for the distinctions
which Diop and others discuss as the basis o f cultural distinctions. Third, Carruthers
continues to advance Hosea Easton as an Afrikan American precursor to Diop’s
articulation of the Two Cradle Theory. Carruthers also reviews the methodological
contributions o f Diop to the modem Afrikan-centered movement. Focusing specifically
upon Diop’s Two Cradle Theory, Carruthers also argues that Diop was less consistent on
some areas o f this argument.
This is most evident throughout Diop’s final publication, Civilization or
Barbarism. In which Diop advances the Stolen Legacy argument, thus suggesting that
key components of western philosophy are in fact Afrikan. Carruthers takes issue with
this point given the distinctions one can make between Kemetic and Greek philosophy.
184
These were similar arguments that Carruthers made in Essays in Egyptian Studies and
Mdw Ntr, Divine Speech.
Secondly, rather oddly, Diop has argued that “a communitarian life-style can
become the most individualist and self-centered being.”227 Those who have followed
Diop’s work have questioned how he could come to these conclusions and Carruthers’
critique of Diop’s possible acquiescence to this position gets to the heart o f the issue. As
Carruthers argues “the explanation o f the abandonment [of manifestations o f the
Southern Cradle] is based upon the earlier statement which attributes the change in the
worldview of individual Africans to changes in the social (not natural) environment. The
destruction o f viable African societies, has resulted in a Europeanized African who is a
robot blindly carrying out the directions o f his master.”228 Therefore, while there may be
an abandonment o f these fundamental values connected with the Southern cradle this is
individually based and can not be connected to a social abandonment by Afrikan people
as a community. These works o f Carruthers which engage Diop’s scholarship are
important points as we revisit the develop o f Diopian thought amongst Afrikan-centered
scholars.
Similar to arguments posited by Ifi Amadiume, Nah Dove attempts to look at the
role of the Two Cradle Theory as a formidable basis in explaining distinctions in state
formation. Using Kemet as the foundation for the modern state Dove posits that the
advancement o f the Afrikan state must be grounded in a mother-centered matrix.
According to Dove, “mother-centered matrix is a concept that moves away from the
common use o f matriarchy, denoting societies dominated by women. Diop’s
(1959/1991) definition o f matriarchy relates to male-female reciprocity as a basis for
185
social order. Mother-Centered Matrix acknowledges this reality, offering terminology
more in keeping with and relevant to this belief.”230 This mother-centered focus therefore
9T1
reflects societal and cultural constructs which are mother-focused and mother-led.
In her discussion o f Diop’s Two Cradle Theory, Dove shows that the intention of
Diop’s work was to show the cultural distinctions between Afrikan, Asian and European
cultural values and constructs. However, Dove argues that Diop, while creator o f a such
an important theory, falls victim to this when he in fact discusses the notion o f state
construction and development. Therefore, “[e]ven Diop did not escape from the Western
cultural-historical paradigm ...Diop applied a European cultural-based theory from Marx
to his ideas on state construction and development, thereby unwittingly limiting his own
theoretical analysis.” However, in still using his theory, but also distinguishing between
the limits effected o f Marxist modes o f production, Dove continues by stating “ [t]his
work takes Diop’s cradle theory further by arguing that the defining cultural-social
characteristic of national or state societies is mother-centeredness or lack thereof. More
emphasis on this distinction will facilitate an understanding o f the fundamental conflict
between African and European civilizations and state development.”232
While Dove is not alone in critiquing Diop’s use o f supposed Marxist logic, her
analysis falls short given her inability to develop her critique. If this was such a
weakness with Diop’s work, why use his Two Cradle Theory as your conceptual launch
pad? Furthermore, Dove’s analysis and usage o f the Two Cradle Theory is limited to a
paragraphed discussion, in a section titled “Diop’s Cradle Theory Revisited”. Somewhat
similar to her previous publication which only generally engaged Diop’s work, Dove
186
clearly does not extend his arguments or provide any new clarity, unlike, for example, the
works o f Carruthers and Amadiume.
Christopher W illiams’ recent contribution regarding “the connection between
ontology, paradigm formation and praxis”233 is a critical attempt at seeing through the
intellectual laziness found within the Afrocentric paradigm.234 Williams is mostly
concerned with the non-acceptance o f materialism among Afrocentric scholars. Most
important to our discussion is his assessment o f the “cultural materialism o f Cheikh Anta
Diop”235. Relying upon Diop’s use o f material conditions to substantiate the structure of
Ancient Egypt, Williams ponders on the reasons that would allow Afrocentrists to
disregard this understanding of culture, as opposed to the non-materialist understandings
o f culture. In relation to current Afrocentric articulations o f culture, Williams asks
“would he [Diop] have abandoned materialists analysis o f culture altogether?”236 And
while Williams is only able to “speculate,” this is an important question to ask.
Williams may be correct to assert that “the Afrocentric paradigm rejects
materialism in favor o f granting superior ontological status to ideational focus,” any
perusal o f Black personality theory states otherwise.237 However, related to Diop’s
materialism, this is something that can not be denied, but this is also reflective o f the fact
that those who claim to be Diopian, only pick and choose that which they seem to think is
relevant, and truthfully blind themselves to the holistic nature o f his arguments. Diop,
clearly understood that all arguments were useful if they were able to advance and change
the conditions o f Afrikan people. Thus Diop could correctly assert, “Consequently, no
thought, no ideology, is in essence, foreign to Africa, which was their birthplace. It is
therefore with total liberty that Africans can draw from the common intellectual heritage
187
o f humanity, letting themselves be guided only by notions o f utility and efficiency.”
Only those ignorant o f his work would make such fallacious arguments regarding the
inability o f critiques along lines o f social structure, economics and class.
Two o f the most recent discussions o f Diop’s Two Cradle Theory have been
published within the last year by Molefi Kete Asante and Troy Allen. Asante’s Cheikh
Anta Diop: An Intellectual Portrait is an attempted understanding o f the scholarly and
intellectual contributions which Cheikh Anta Diop provides for Afrocentric
scholarship.240 While Asante sparingly discusses Diop’s Two Cradle Theory, he does
provide attention to the work. Allen’s work also contributes to the discussion o f Diop’s
Two Cradle Theory within Afrocentric circles.241 While focusing solely upon the
relationship between the Two Cradle Theory and the Afrikan origins o f Kemit, Allen
revisits Diop’s original articulation as discussed in African Origin o f Civilization: Myth
or Reality. However, both o f these new publications reflect most o f the weaknesses
outlined as emblematic o f the 1990s scholarship around the Diop’s Two Cradle Theory.
A simple review o f citations shows that these works and others o f this type, discuss
previously developed ideas by earlier scholars who do not find themselves referenced or
acknowledged as precursors in these more recent discussions.
While this review has attempted to review the majority o f works within the
Africana academic discourse, along with a few contributors from outside o f this
movement, who engage Diop’s Two Cradle Theory, a number o f works were left out,
especially those that minimally engage the Two Cradle Theory. For instance, J. D.
Walker242, Victor Okafor243, Greg Thomas244, Philip Ogo Ujomu245, F ran c is

OdA ^AH
Muyumba , and Regina Jennings , all tangentially incorporate the Two Cradle Theory
188
within their analysis or provide a general overview o f Diop in relation to this theory. But
each of these provides limited clarity on the theory, nor do they provide any criticality in
their discussion, therefore they were left out o f this analysis.
Figure 2 outlines the development and movement of Cheikh Anta Diop’s Two
Cradle Theory throughout Africana academic discourse, with a special emphasis upon
key thinkers and figures within the Afrikan-centered movement. As a visual
representation o f the previously discussed scholarship, this figure represents relationship
between these thinkers and their scholarship as it relates to the movement o f Diop’s Two
Cradle Theory.
VI. An Attempt at Synthesis
There are a number o f trends which should be discussed in order to clearly
explain the transmission and movement of Diop’s Two Cradle Theory throughout the
English-speaking Afrikan world in written Africana academic discourse, and specifically
the Afrikan-centered scholar-activist community. The first point deals with the fact that
the majority o f scholarship which was published regarding Diop’s theory o f cultural unity
was within the United States. As Gray accurately points out, those within the United
States have extensively picked up on Diop’s work and have spent a considerable amount
948
of time developing his initial arguments. However, this should not negate the Afrikan-
centered community throughout London and more specifically the publishers at Karnak
House. In fact, a good portion o f publications reviewed in this chapter were published on
this press. This also includes the latest edition o f Diop’s Cultural Unity. As previously
discussed, Ifi Amadiume, Chris Gray and Jacob Carruthers have published texts on
Karnak House, all o f which were relevant to the work o f Diop. Therefore, while it is
189
A Genealogy of Writings in Africana Discourse of the Two Cradle Theory
| Instruction of Merikare. circa 3000 1

j Easton, 1837/1969 f*
Diop. 1959/1962*1978/1989
I Maglangbayan. 1976 ]
J. Carruthers, 1977
I. C a m ith m , 1979
Okpewbo. 1983 !
Van Sertima, 1986 I. Cam ifhe rs, 1980
J C arnithers, 1980a
[ Spady, 1986 j
J, Carruthers, 1980b
I Hilliard, 1986
^ Kambon, 1992
Asante. 1983
Amadiume, 1992 I
Amadiume, 1997 i 3. C arnithers, 1995
T’Shaka. 199?
| Henderson, 1995 | Aai, 1997
J. C arruthers, 1997
Weaker Link
Williams. 2005 Weak Link
^ J. Carnithers, 1999
Figure 2. Genealogy o f Writings in Africana Discourse on the Two Cradle Theory
190
obvious that the number of publications within the United States supersedes those from
other areas o f the English-speaking Afrikan diaspora, this should in no way suggest that
Diop’s work does not flourish and is irrelevant in other areas o f the Afrikan diaspora.
Secondly, as the introductory section o f this chapter suggests James Spady, John
Henrik Clarke, Jacob Carruthers and Ifi Amadiume have been the most preeminent
Diopian scholars, who have played a pivotal role in shaping the interpretation o f Diop’s
work in the English-speaking Afrikan diaspora. While Spady and Clarke both played
crucial roles within the early 1970s, the number o f publications which they produced in
relation to Diop’s Two Cradle Theory began to wane as the 1970s came to a close.
However, with the 1980s Jacob Carruthers would establish him self as the next
generation’s Diopian scholar. His publications throughout the late 1970s and early 90s
were essential in advancing Diop’s ideas. Carruthers’ work deserves serious attention
given his ability to stick to the argumentation o f Diop and yet also be able to be critical of
some o f the flaws within Diop’s logic. This has been referred to within this chapter as
Carruthers’ ability to be critical, but at the same rate respect tradition.
Carruthers’ work with the Association for the Study o f Classical African
Civilizations (ASCAC) gave him a community-based scholarly organization which
would be a venue for continued discussion o f Diop’s work. Therefore, through ASCAC
Diop’s ideas would be advanced and passed on to another generation. This generation
consists o f the works o f Adisa A. Ajama, Mario H. Beatty, Greg Kimathi Carr and
Valethia Watkins.249 These scholars, along with others, are those who have the
responsibility of passing this scholarship, along with other aspects o f Afrikan-centered
research, to yet another generation o f Afrikan-centered scholars.
191
The final point in relation to Jacob Carruthers is his development and articulation
o f an Afrikan worldview as an outgrowth o f Diop’s Two Cradle Theory. While we will
discuss this in more detail in the following chapter, in discussing this genealogy it is
necessary to suggest a connection between the work o f Kobi Kambon (Joseph Baldwin),
and his discussion o f an Afrikan worldview, and Carruthers’ discussion o f an Afrikan
worldview. It should also be stressed that one o f Kambon’s earliest publications was
published in Black Books Bulletin, a journal based in Chicago, IL. via Third World
Press. The connection between this articulation o f an Afrikan worldview is remarkable
and it is safe to say that this discussion o f an Afrikan worldview, grounded in the work o f
Diop, is yet another aspect o f this connective web o f scholars.
Another important advancement in the movement o f Diop’s Two Cradle Theory
throughout the English-speaking Afrikan world, in the late 1980s until present, is the
work of Ifi Amadiume. Her multiple publications, which are specific to Diop’s Two
Cradle Theory, have played a fundamental role in setting an example for scholarship
reflective o f the next generation o f Diopian scholars. Furthermore, Amadiume’s attempt
at returning to the gendered nature o f Diop’s Two Cradle Theory is a serious attempt at
staying true to Diop’s original argumentation. Amadiume’s ability to place this in the
forefront o f her interpretation o f the Two Cradle Theory makes those scholars who
attempt to produce Diopian analysis aware and sensitive to issues o f gender. Just as
Afrikan-centered scholars center themselves within the concept o f culture, our discussion
o f culture must be grounded in an accurate assessment o f gender relations via
philosophical positions, options, approaches and so forth, many o f which we usually
never question, but accept as givens. However on all too many occasions, that which we
192
take as a given is reflective of masculinist interpretations o f phenomenon. As Amadiume
points to glorification o f Ancient Afrikan civilizations, material technological
advancement, centralized states, among other areas, she definitely suggests that all too
many times much o f what may pass as Afrikan-centered, and Afrocentric for that matter,
is nothing but uncritical Afrikan glorification o f the same elitist logic, so prevalent within
Eurocentric thought. And yet, while Diop was clearly a victim o f this tendency,
Amadiume’s work suggests that a true and accurate assessment o f Diop’s Two Cradle
Theory can possibly lead us in the proper direction.
As far as the future of Diopian scholarship and the role o f Diop’s Two Cradle
Theory within it, it is clearly the role o f scholar-activists who are aware o f the connective
web o f scholars discussed above to be true to this intellectual genealogy. In all honesty
this will be the only way in which we can guarantee that an accurate intellectual
infrastructure be in place for the advancement o f Africana Studies, Afrikan-centered
scholarship and Afrikan people.
Africana Studies will play a crucial role within this process. As we continue to
develop research projects which are specific to extending the genealogy o f the discipline,
we will substantiate our intellectual basis in front o f conceptual and political adversity.
However, it is through our knowledge o f the past that we can extend our intellectual
projects into the future. But as Semmes suggested in his discussion Negro Digest/Black
World, all too many times, scholars within Africana Studies who attempt to develop
theories and concepts usable for the liberation o f Afrikan people, are ignorant o f those
attempts that took place in previous generations.251 As the next generation o f scholars
193
within Africana Studies continues to advance the discipline, we must be aware o f the true
intellectual history o f the discipline, in order to avoid these pitfalls.
As this chapter has attempted to suggest, many o f the theories and concepts which
we take for granted within Africana Studies must be thoroughly exhausted and critically
interrogated, in order to hold future generations o f scholars accountable. However, as the
last 15 years of scholarship on Diop’s Two Cradle Theory suggests, there have been
many people who attempt to discuss Diop’s Two Cradle Theory but many do so without
any serious acknowledgement of its place within Africana academic discourse and more
specifically, Afrikan-centered thought. While the next chapter focuses on the role o f
Diop’s Two Cradle Theory within the creation of culturally-specific assumptions,
concepts and theories within Africana Studies, it is necessary that we keep these points o f
synthesis in mind because they shall inform future directions we may need to take as we
attempt to continually defend our existence as a culturally-specific academic discipline,
developed and created in the interest o f Afrikan people.
VII. Conclusion
This chapter has reviewed the relevant scholarship on Diop’s Two Cradle Theory.
Relying upon Carr’s notion o f an Afrikan-centered genealogy, work from the early 1970s
until the present that primarily focused upon D iop’s Two Cradle Theory, was critically
examined. The intended goal o f this chapter was to provide an Afrikan-centered
intellectual genealogical outline o f Cheikh Anta Diop’s Two Cradle Theory in Africana
academic discourse. This review has gone beyond that on some occasions to include
those critics o f Diop’s Two Cradle Theory, along with brief reviews o f certain scholars
who do not focus specifically on the Two Cradle Theory. However, the goal was to focus
194
primarily upon this theory and its place within Africana academic discourse and more
specifically, Afrikan-centered thought. The rational for this chapter’s structure and
content is based upon the fact that as we recognize the connective web o f scholars,
publishers, journals, etc. which published relevant scholarship on Diop and his Two
Cradle Theory, we are able to see the impact these scholars and journals have in shaping
knowledge within Africana Studies, specifically found among those representing the
Afrikan-centered community. The following chapter will engage the implications of
Diop’s Two Cradle Theory in order to advance culturally-specific explanations of
phenomena specific to Africana Studies.
NOTES
1 John Henrik Clarke, “Cheikh Anta Diop and the N ew Light o f African History,” in A Freedom ways
Reader, 120. N ew York: International Publishers, 1977.
2 Dr. Greg Kimathi Carr is assistant professor o f Afro-American Studies at Howard University. A s a
graduate o f Temple U niversity’s Department o f African American Studies, his work speaks to the critical
and intergenerational scholarship which will continue to establish Africana Studies as an autonomous
academic discipline.
3 Greg Kimathi Carr, “The African-Centered Philosophy o f History: An Exploratory Essay on the
Genealogy o f Foundationalist Historical Thought and African Nationalist Identity Construction,” in The
African W orld H istory P roject - The Prelim inary Challenge, 285-320. (Los Angeles: A SCAC Foundation,
1997).
4 The concept o f “Afrikan-centered” is used in contradistinction to the concept o f “Afrocentric.” B y using

the concept Afrikan-centered, this positions this research within the genealogy o f scholars who have
explicitly utilized an Afrikan worldview m ethodological framework within their scholastic endeavors.
5 See “genealogy” in Joseph Childers and Gary Hentzi, The Colum bia D ictionary o f M odern L iterary and
Cultural Criticism . N ew York: Columbia University Press, 1995.
6 The point being stressed here deals with the manner in which scholars o f Africana Studies have used
D iop’s Two C radle Theory. While Afrikan-centered scholars have relied upon D iop ’s work, the theory has
not been used systematically in the process o f developing theories and concepts that are discipline-specific
and discipline-grounded.
7 Naim Akbar, “Africentric Social Science for Human Liberation,” Journal o f B lack Studies 14, no. 4
(1984), 395-414; Naim Akbar, “Our Destiny: Authors o f a Scientific Revolution,” in Black Children, eds.
195
Harriet M cAdoo and John M cAdoo (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1985), 17-32; Naim Akbar, “The Evolution o f
Human Psychology for African Americans,” in Black Psychology, ed. Reginald Jones (Berkeley: Cobb &
Henry Publishers, 1991), 99-123; Daudi Ajani Ya Azibo, “Africentric Conceptualizing as the Pathway to
African Liberation,” International Journal o f Africana Studies 5, (1999), 1-31; Daudi Ajani Ya Azibo,
“Articulating the Distinction Between Black Studies and the Study o f Blacks: The Fundamental Role o f
Culture and the African-Centered W orldview,” in The African Am erican Studies Reader, ed. Nathaniel
Norment, (Durham: Carolina Academ ic Press, 2001), 420-441; Vernon J. Dixon, “W orldviews and
research m ethodology,” in African Philosophy: Assumption an d P aradigm s f o r Research on Black
Persons, ed. Lewis King, (Los Angeles: Fanon R & D Center, 1976), 51-102; Mack H. Jones, “Scientific
Method, Value Judgements, and the Black Predicament in the U .S.,” The R eview o f Black P olitical
Economy, 1 (1976), 7-21; Dona Richards, “The Ideology o f European Dom inance,” Western Journal o f
Black Studies 3, no. 4 (1979), 240-255; Dona Richards, “European Mythology: The Ideology o f
‘Progress’,” in C ontem porary Black Thought, ed. M olefi Kete Asante (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications,
1980), ; Dona Richards, “The Demystification o f Objectivity,” Imhotep, Journal o f Afrocentric Thought, 1,
no. 1 (1989), ; Kobi Kambon (aka Joseph Baldwin), The African P ersonality in Am erica: An African-
C entered Fram ew ork (Tallahassee: Nubian Nation Publications, 1992); Kobi Kambon, “The Africentric
Paradigm and African-American Psychological Liberation” in African P sychology in H istorical
P erspective an d R elated Commentary, ed. Daudi Ajani Ya Azibo, (Trenton: Africa World Press, 1996),
57-69; Kobi Kambon, African/Black P sychology in the Am erican Context: An A frican-C entered Approach,
o f W orldview Revisited,” in B lack Psychology, ed. Reginald Jones (Berkeley: Cobb & Henry Publishers,
1991), 15-32; Linda James Myers, U nderstanding an Afrocentric World View: Introduction to an O ptim al
P sychology (Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 1993); Wade N obles, “Toward an Empirical
and Theoretical Framework for Defining Black Fam ilies,” Journal o f M arriage an d the Fam ily 40, no. 4
(1978), 679-688.
8 Barbara Adams, John Henrik Clarke: M aster Teacher. (Brooklyn: A & B Publishers, 1992); Anna
Swanston, Dr. John Henrik Clarke: H is Life, His Words, H is Works. (Atlanta: I Am Unlimited Publishing,
2003); James Spady, “The Changing Perceptions o f Cheikh Anta Diop and His Works: The Preeminence
o f a Scientific Spirit,” in G reat African Thinkers: Cheikh Anta D iop, ed. Ivan Van Sertima (N ew
Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1986), 89-101.
9 John Henrik Clarke, “Cheikh Anta Diop and the N ew Concept o f African History,” in G reat African
Thinkers: Cheikh A nta D iop, ed. Ivan Van Sertima (N ew Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1986),110-117.
10 Ivan Van Sertima. G reat African Thinkers: Cheikh Anta D iop.
11 Carruthers, Intellectual Warfare.
12 Adams, John Henrik Clarke; Swanston, Dr. John Henrik Clarke.
13 Carr, “The African-Centered Philosophy o f History,” 313.
14 Clovis Semmes, “Foundations in Africana Studies: Revisiting N egro D igest/B lack World, 1961-1976” p.
196.
15 Ibid., 195.
16 Ibid., 197.
17 Ani, Let C ircle Be Unbroken, N ew York: Nkom info Publications, 1980.
196
18 Focus is placed upon this version because few citations and references mention the English version
published by P resen ce Africaine, which was available in 1962.
19 The only person who references this text, is actually James Spady. See below.
201 suspect that given M olefi Kete Asante’s and Maulana Karenga’s ancient Afrikan focus, along with their
outspoken position as “forefathers” o f modem Afrocentricity is the true cause o f this change in focus. See
Asante, Kemet, A frocentricity an d Knowledge-, Asante, M alcolm X as Cultural H ero & O ther Afrocentric
Essays', Asante, “The Afrocentric Metatheory and Disciplinary Implications”; M olefi Kete Asante, The
Afrocentric Idea (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1998); Karenga, Introduction to Black Studies
(Los Angeles: The University o f Sankore Press, 2002). M olefi Kete Asante & Mambo Ama Mazama,
Encyclopedia o f Black Studies, (N ew York: Sage Publications, 2004); M olefi Kete Asante & Maulana
Karenga, H andbook o f Black Studies. (N ew York: Sage Publications, 2005). A lso see W ilson Jeremiah
M oses, Afrotopia: The Roots o f African Am erican P opular H istory, (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2002).
21 James Spady, “Negritude, PanBanegritude and the Diopian Philosophy o f African History,” A Current
B ibliography o f African Affairs, 5, 11,(1 9 7 2 ), 11-29.
22 Ibid., 27.
23 Some o f these comments would later reappear in the Third World Press edition o f D iop ’s Cultural Unity
o f N egro Africa.
24 This point begs for clarity given that the collection o f D iop ’s essays between 1946-1960, entitled
Towards the African Renaissance: Essays in Culture an d D evelopm ent, states “On January 9, 1960, at the
Sorbonne, he [Diop] defended his thesis for a Ph.D. in the Humanities. This thesis was published by
Presence Africaine under the titles: L ’Afriquie noire p reco lo n ia l and L ’Unite culturelle de VAfrique noire
( P recolonial Black A frica and The Cultural Unity o f Black Africa)''' (p. 145).
25 Cheikh Anta D iop, African Origin o f Civilization: Myth O r Reality. Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books,
1974.
26 Ibid., 28.
27 Ibid., 27.
28 Carlos Moore, “Interviews with Cheikh Anta D iop,” in G reat African Thinkers: Cheikh Anta D iop, Ivan
Van Sertima, editor. N ew Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1986, pp. 249-283.
29 Keita, “Tw o Philosophies o f African History: H egel and D iop.” Presence Africaine 91, (1974), 47.
30 Spady, “Negritude, PanBanegritude and the Diopian Philosophy o f African History,” 11.
31 Ibid, 47.
32 Harun Kofi Wangara (aka Harold G. Lawrence), “African Perspective on History,” Black W orld (1974),
pp. 55-61.
33 Ibid., 53.
34 Ibid., 56.
35 Ibid., 58.
197
36 Ibid., 58.
37
Van Sertima, G reat African Thinkers: Cheikh A nta D iop.
Jacob Carruthers, “Medu Neter & The Connection to African Deep Thought,” radio interview, nd;
Adams, John Henrik Clarke', Swanston, Dr. John Henrik Clarke', M olefi Kete Asante, African Civilizations
course at Temple University, Fall 1999.
39 James G. Spady, “The Cultural Unity o f Cheikh Anta Diop 1948-1964,” B lack Images: A C ritical
Q uarterly on Black Arts an d Culture, 1 ,3 -4 (1 9 7 2 ); 14-22.
40 James Spady, “Negritude, PanBanegritude and the Diopian Philosophy o f African History.”
41 This was The Cultural Unity o f N egro Africa, published by Presense Africaine. However, as w e have
suggested this text was not readily available throughout the United States and therefore was not used
extensively as a reference point for Diopian scholarship.
42 Spady, “The Cultural Unity o f Cheikh Anta D iop,” 16.
43 Ibid., 14.
44
Ibid. 15, this essay would be republished in Towards an African Renaissance.
45 Ibid., 19.
46 Ibid. 15.
47 This essay would be republished in Towards an African Renaissance.
48 Ibid., 20.
49 Ibid., 21.
50 Ibid., 22.
51 Spady, James. “Cheikh Anta Diop and Freddie L. Thomas: Two Philosophical Perspectives o f Pristine
Black History,” Journal o f African Civilizations (1979), 15-28.
52 Ibid, 17.
53 John Henrik Clarke, “Cheikh Anta Diop and the N ew Light o f African History”.
54 John Henrik Clarke, “The Black Woman in History: On The Cultural Unity o f Africa,” Black W orld 24,
4 (1975), 12-26. This text was republished as the Introduction to the Third World Press version o f The
Cultural Unity o f Black Africa, and as an article in P resence Africaine entitled “The Cultural Unity o f
Negro A frica...: A Reappraisal, Cheikh Anta Diop Opens Another Door to African History,” P resence
Africaine.
55 Ibid, 15.
56
Ibid, 15.
57 Ibid, 17.
58
Ibid, 26.
198
59 Cheikh Anta Diop, Black Africa: The Cultural an d Econom ic Basis o f a F ederated State.
60 Vulindlela W obogo, “D iop ’s Two Cradle Theory and the Origin o f White Racism,” Black Books Bulletin
4 ,4 (1 9 7 6 ) , 20-29, 72.
61 Ibid., 21.
62 Ibid., 22.
63 Ibid., 29.
64 Cheikh Anta Diop, C ivilization or Barbarism: An Authentic Anthropology, Lawrence-Hill Books: N ew

York (1991), 123-128,
65 Shawna Maglangbayan, “BBB Interviews: Dr. Cheikh Anta D iop,” Black Books Bulletin Vol. 4, no. 4,
(1976) 30-37; also published in Ivan Van Sertima’s G reat African Thinkers: Cheikh Anta D iop (2000),
238-248.
66 Frances Cress W elsing, Isis Papers. Chicago: Third World Press, 1991; M icheal Bradley, The Iceman
Inheritance. N ew York: Kayode Publications, 1991. A discussion o f Bradley’s work w ill com e in relation
to one o f M olefi Kete A sante’s limited and yet specific discussions o f D iop’s Two Cradle Theory, which is
not available until the early 1980s.
67 Shawna Maglangbayan, “BB B Interviews,” 33.
68 Ibid., 34.
69 Ibid.
70 Ibid.
71 Ibid., 37.
72 Ibid.
73 The review which Carruthers provides is based upon a 1977 publication o f The Cultural Unity o f Black
Africa, however all sources suggest that this publication was not initially published until 1978.
74 Ibid., 46.
75 Ibid., 46; italics added.
76 Jacob Carruthers, “R eview o f The Cultural Unity o f Black A f r ic a B la c k Books Bulletin Vol. 5, 4 (1977),
46-48.
77 Jacob Carruthers, Intellectual Warfare. Chicago: Third World Press, 1999.
78 Carr, “The African-Centered Philosophy o f History,” 313.
79 Iva Carruthers, “Africanity and the Black Woman,” B lack Books Bulletin, Vol. 6, N o. 4 (1980), 14-20,
71; Iva Carruthers, “War on African Familyhood,” in Sturdy B lack Bridges: Visions o f Black Women in
Literature, Roseann P. Bell, Bettye Parker & Beverly Guy-Sheftall, editors. Garden City: Anchor Books,
1979, 8-17.
199
80 Carruthers, “War on African Familyhood,” 9.
81 Frances Cress-W elsing, Isis Papers.
82 Carruthers, “War on African Familyhood,” 10.
83 Ibid., 11-12.
84 Ibid., 12-13.
85 Ibid., 13.
86 Carruthers, “Africanity and the Black Woman,” 15.
87 Ibid., 16.
88 Ibid.
89 Ibid.
90 Ibid., 17.
91 Ibid., 18.
92
Ibid., 19.
93 Ibid., 20.
94 Ibid., 12.
95 Carruthers, “Africanity and the Black W oman,” 18.
96 Isidore Okpewho, “Cheikh Anta Diop: The Search for a Philosophy o f African Culture,” Cahiers
d ’aetudes Africaines Vol. 84 (1981), 587-602; Isidore Okpewho, M yth in Africa: A Study o f its A esthetic
an d Cultural Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983; specifically chapter 6 “Myth,
Mind and Culture: A R eview o f Predjudices”.
97 Okpewho, I. “Cheikh Anta Diop: A Philosophy o f African Culture,” 593.
98 Ibid., 588.
99 Ibid., 590.
100 Ibid.
'01 Ibid., 601.
102 Ibid., 593.
103 Ibid., p. 593-594.
104 Ibid., 594.
105 Okpewho, Myth in Africa: A Study o f its A esthetic an d Cultural Relevance.
200
106 See M olefi Kete A sante’s The Afrocentric Idea, p. 109, where he discusses Okpewho’s work related to
Diop,
107 Chinweizu. West an d the R est o f Us: White Predators, Black Slavers an d the African Elite. (N ew York:
Random House, 1974).
108 Jacob Carruthers, “Reflections on the history o f the Afrocentric worldview,” Black Books Bulletin Vol.
7, no. 1 (1980), 4-7, 1 3,25.
109 Ibid.,
110 Cited in Carruthers, “Reflections on the history o f the Afrocentric worldview,” 6.
111 Ibid.
112 Ibid., 5.
113 Hosea Easton, “A Treatise on the Intellectual Character, and Civil and Political Condition o f the Colored
People in the United States,” in N egro P rotest P am phlets, ed. Dorothy Porter (N ew York: A m o Press,
1969).
1,4 Ibid., “R eflections on the history o f the Afrocentric W orldview,” 13.
115 Carruthers is m ostly critical o f Easton’s stance that Afrikans living in America, are in fact American.
116 Jacob Carruthers. E ssays in Ancient Egyptian Studies. Los Angeles: University o f Sankore Press.
117 Ibid, 17.
118 Ibid., 16.
119 Ibid, 17.
120 Ibid.
121 Carmthers, Jacob. “R eflections on the history o f the Afrocentric W orldview”
122 Carruthers, J. Essays, 39.
123 Ibid., 69.
124 Ibid., 71.
125 Ibid., 177.
126 Ibid., 89.
127 Ibid., 97.
,28 Ibid., 110.
129 This could possibly be a slight toward John Henrik Clarke.
130 Ift Amadiume, Afrikan M atriarchal Foundations: The Igbo Case. (London: Karnak House, 1987a), 10.
201
'31 Ibid., 81.
132 Ibid, 82-83.
133 The root ‘matri’ com es from Latin meaning ‘mother’, while the stem ‘arch’ also com es from Latin
meaning ‘pow er’ or ‘rule’. Given the characteristically European cultural necessity o f power over others,
this notion is inapplicable within the Afrikan cultural context.
134 Presence Africaine - 1962, Third W orld P ress - 1978, K arnak House - 1989.
135 These were republications o f prior works that have been included in this review.
136 Amadiume, Ifi. Introduction - C ultural Unity o f Black Africa, Karnak House Edition, p. x.
137 Ibid., xv.
138 Ibid., xv, my emphasis.
139 Ibid., xv.
140 This is discussed in Afrikan M atriarchal Foundations.
141 Amadiume, Ifi. Introduction - Cultural Unity o f Black Africa, Karnak House Edition, p. xviii
142 Ibid., xviii.
143 M olefi Kete Asante, Afrocentricity: The Theory o f S ocial Change. Buffalo: Am ulefi, 1980.
144 M olefi Kete Asante, “The Ideological Significance o f Afrocentricity in Intercultural Communication”
Journal o f Black Studies (1983) 14, no. 1,4 .
145 Ibid., 4.
146 Ibid., 9.
147 Ibid., 10.
148 Cheikh Anta Diop, Civilization or Barbarism.
149 This is an extremely important point as w e try to validate the intellectually rigorous nature o f D iop ’s
scholarship. Given Bradley’s flippant application o f certain arguments which have no seriously
academically sound basis, to link Bradley’s work with that o f Diop tends to place D iop ’s work into
unnecessary questionability.
150 Ivan Van Sertima, Journal o f African Civilizations brochure.
151 James Spady, “The Changing Perceptions o f C. A. Diop and His Works: The Preeminence o f a
Scientific Spirit.” In G reat African Thinkers: Cheikh A nta D iop, edited by Ivan Van Sertima, 89-101.
Transaction Books: N ew Brunswick.
152 Ibid, 96.
153 Asa Hilliard, “The Cultural Unity o f Black Africa: The Domains o f Patriarchy and Matriarchy in
Classical Antiquity,” in G reat African Thinkers: Cheikh Anta Diop, ed. Ivan Van Sertima (New
Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1986), 102-109.
202
54 Ibid., 107, author’s emphasis.
155 Ibid, 107.
156 Cheikh Anta D iop, Black Africa, 114.
157 It should be noted that this text was published by Karnak House, which is a central publishing house in
London which has published a considerable amount o f work that is related to Cheikh Anta Diop.
158 Chris Gray, Conceptions o f H istory: Cheikh Anta D iop an d Theophile Obenga. London: Karnak
House, 2.
159 Ibid., 20.
160 Ibid., 21.
161 Ibid., 24.
162 Cheikh Anta Diop. P recolonial Black Africa.
163 Chris Gray, Conceptions o f H istory, 43
164
Cheikh Anta Diop. A critical analysis o f the criteria or parameters to define African cultural areas. In
D istinctive characteristics an d common fea tu res o f African cultural areas south o f the Sahara, edited by
UNESCO, 56-74. Paris: UNESCO 1985.
165 Ibid., 72.
166 Ibid., 73.
167 Chris Williams. “In D efense o f Materialism: A Critique o f Afrocentric O ntology.” R ace & C lass 47,
no. 1 (2005), 35-48.
168 Ibid., 43.
169 Nah D ove. “An African-Centered Critique o f Marx’s Logic.” Western Journal o f Black Studies 19 no. 4,
(1995): 260-271.
170 Ibid., 61.
171 Ibid., 67.
172 Ibid., 71.
173 Ibid., 75.
174 Manu Ampim, however, takes Gray to task, along with all others who insist on devaluing D iop ’s usage
o f materialism and the question o f D iop ’s Marxism. W hile it is accepted that Diop used arguments which
were akin to Marxist materialism, Ampim is quick to clarify that Gray and others have it wrong to argue
that Diop was directly influenced by Marx or that he espoused Marxist-Leninism, which in fact he did not.
Manu Ampim, “The Problem o f the Bem al-D avidson School” in Egypt: C h ild o f Africa, edited by Ivan
Van Sertima (1994), 191-204. Transaction: N ew Brunswick.
203
175 Ali A. Mazrui, “The Re-invention o f Africa: Edward Said, V. Y. Mudimbe, and Beyond” Research in
African Literatures 36, 3 (2005), 68-82.
176 M olefi Kete Asante, “Afrocentric Concepts in African Historiography: A R eview Essay” Research in
African Literatures. 23, 2 (1992), 192.
177 Christopher J. Williams, “In D efense o f Materialism: A Critique o f Afrocentric O ntology” Race &
Class, 47, 1 (2005), 35-48.
178 Ibid, 192.
179 It is also important to note that Asante does not even attempt to engage Am adium e’s critique o f certain
Afrocentric scholars, o f which Asante, himself, is included. These points are only important for the mere
fact that speak to nature o f issues and current trends in Diopian scholarship.
80 Runoko Rashidi, Introduction to the Study o f African C lassical Civilizations, 80.
181 Ibid., 83.
182 Ibid., 86.
183 Ibid., 84-85.
184 Ibid., 79.
185 Amadiume, Reinventing Africa: M atriarchy, Religion & Culture.
186 Marimba Ani, Yurugu: An African-C entered Critique o f European Culture an d Thought. (Trenton:
African World Press, 1997).
187 Ibid., 171-177.
188 Ibid., 172.
189 Ibid., 172.
190 Ibid., 447-472.
191 Ibid., 465.
192 Ibid., 465.
193
Dona Richards, “The Ideology o f European Dom inance,” Western Journal o f Black Studies 3, no. 4
(1979), 240-255; Marimba Ani, Let the C ircle be Unbroken: The Im plications o f African Spirituality in the
D iaspora. N ew York: Nkonim fo Publications, 1980; Dona Richards, “European Mythology: The
Ideology o f ‘Progress’,” in C ontem porary Black Thought, ed. M olefi Kete Asante (Beverly Hills: Sage
Publications, 1980); Dona Richards, “The Demystification o f Objectivity,” Imhotep, Journal o f Afrocentric
Thought, 1, no. 1 (1989), 23-34.
194 Oba T ’Shaka, Return to the African M other Principle o f M ale an d Fem ale Equality. (Oakland: Pan
Afrikan Publishers), 183.
195 Ibid., 195.
204
196 Ibid., 197.
197 Diop, Cultural Unity o f Black Africa, 108.
198 Errol Henderson, Afrocentrism an d W orld Politics: Towards a N ew Paradigm , Praeger 1995.
199 Daudi Ajani Ya A zibo, “Africentric Conceptualizing as the Pathway to African Liberation,”
International Journal o f Africana Studies 5, (1999), 1-31; Daudi Ajani Ya A zibo, “Articulating the
Distinction Between Black Studies and the Study o f Blacks: The Fundamental Role o f Culture and the
African-Centered W orldview,” in The African Am erican Studies Reader, ed. Nathaniel Norment, (Durham:
Carolina Academ ic Press, 2001), 420-441; Linda James Myers, “The D eep Structure o f Culture: The
Relevance o f Traditional African Culture in Contemporary Tim es,” Journal o f Black Studies, 18, no. 1
(1987), 72-85; Kobi Kambon, “The Africentric Paradigm and African-American Psychological Liberation”
in African P sychology in H istorical P erspective an d R elated Commentary, ed. Daudi Ajani Ya Azibo,
(Trenton: Africa World Press, 1996), 57-69; Kobi Kambon, African/Black P sychology in the Am erican
Context: An African-C entered Approach, (Tallahassee: Nubian Nation Publications, 1998); Wade N obles,
“Toward an Empirical and Theoretical Framework for Defining Black Families,” Journal o f M arriage and
the Fam ily 40, no. 4 (1978), 679-688.
200 Henderson, Afrocentrism and W orld P olitics, 104.
201 Ibid., 104-105.
202 Ifi Amadiume, Reinventing Africa: M atriarchy, Religion & Culture, (London: Zed Books, 1997), 93.
203 Ibid., 146.
204 Ibid., 63 & 117.
205 Ifi Amadiume, Reinventing Africa: M atriarchy, Religion & Culture, p. 101
206 Ibid., 197.
207 Ibid., 102.
208 Ibid., 121.
209 Ibid., 69.
2,0 Ibid., 64.
211 Ibid., 177.
212 Clenora Hudson-W eems, Africana Womanism: R eclaim ing Ourselves. (Troy: Bedford Publishers,
1995).
213 Charles Verharen, “Environment, Culture and Ethics: An African Concept o f Evil.” P resence Africaine
158, no. 2 (1 9 9 8 ), 47-62.
2,4 Ibid., 48.
215 Ibid., 50.
216 Ibid., 51.
205
217 Ibid., 52.
218 Ibid., 55.
219 Verharen, “Environment, Culture and Ethics,” 55.
220 Ibid., 56.
221 Cheikh Anta Diop, C ivilization or Barbarism, 11-20.
222 Verharen, “Environment, Culture and Ethics,” 59.
223 Ibid., 225.
224 The arguments in this text w ill be utilized in the subsequent chapter in order to discuss the impact o f
Carruthers and others on the development o f Africana philosophy based upon D iop ’s Two Cradle Theory.
225 See work o f Black Psychologists, who w ill be discussed in the follow ing chapters in more detail
regarding this point.
226 Jacob Carruthers, M D W N T R , 17.
227 Carlos Moore, “Interviews with Cheikh Anta D iop,” in G reat African Thinkers: Cheikh Anta D iop, ed.
Ivan Van Sertima (N ew Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1986), 268.
228 Jacob Carruthers, Intellectual Warfare, 1 9 99,232.
229 Nah D ove, “Defining a Mother-Centered Matrix to Analyze the Status o f W om en,” Journal o f Black
Studies 33, 1 (2002), 3-24.
230 Ibid., 22.
231 Ibid., 6.
232 Ibid., 5-6.
233 Christopher J. Williams, “In D efense o f Materialism: A Critique o f Afrocentric Ontology” Race &
Class, 4 7 (1 )2 0 0 5 ,4 6 .
234 Ama Mazama, The Afrocentric Paradigm , Trenton: Africa World Press, 2002; Adisa Alkebulan,
“Defending the Paradigm,” Journal o f Black Studies 37, no 3 (2007), 410-427.
235 Williams, “In D efense o f Materialism,” 42.
236 Ibid., 42.
237 Kobi K. K. Kambon, The African P ersonality in Am erica.
238 See Amadiume citations, listed above.
239 Diop, Civilization or Barbarism , 4.
240 M olefi Kete Asante, Cheikh Anta Diop: An Intellectual Portrait. Los Angeles: The University o f
Sankore Press, 2007.
206
241 Troy Allen, “Cheikh Anta Diop’s Two Cradle Theory: Revisited,” forthcoming publication in the
Journal o f Black Studies. Available via Sage Publications at http://online.sagepub.com.
242 J. D. Walker, “The Misrepresentation o f D iop ’s V iew s,” Journal o f Black Studies 26, no. 1 (1995), 77-
85.
243 Victor Oguejiofor Okafor, “Toward an A fficological Pedagogical Approach to African Civilizations”
Journal o f Black Studies, 27, 3 (1997), 299-317.
244 Greg Thomas, ““Erotics o f Aryanism/Histories o f Empire: H ow ‘White Supermacy’ and

‘H ellenom ania’ Construct ‘Discourses o f Sexuality’” CR: The N ew Centennial R eview 3, 3 (2003), 235-
255.
245 Philip Ogo Ujomu, “C. A. D iop ’s Reconstruction o f the History o f African Philosophy: A Critique,”
163, no. 3 ,(2 0 0 1 ), 80-89.
246 Francois N. Muyumba, “Sheikh Anta Diop: A Critical V iew o f Africa in the Twenty-First Century.”
The G reat Lakes Research Journal, 1, 1 (2004), 19-34.
247 Regina Jennings, “Cheikh Anta Diop, M alcolm X and Haki Madhubuti: Claiming and Containing
Continuity in Black Language and Institutions” Journal o f Black Studies 33, 2 (2002), 126-144.
248 Gray, Conceptions o f History.
249 See African W orld H istory P roject: The P relim inary Challenge.
250 Joseph Baldwin, “Black Psychology and Black Personality,” Black Books Bulletin 4, no. 3 (1976), 6-11,
65.
251 Semmes, “Foundations in Africana Studies: Revisiting N egro D igest/B lack World, 1961-1976”.
207
CHAPTER 5
THE TWO CRADLE THEORY IN AFRICANA STUDIES:

THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS
Many o f the problems in Black Studies are directly related to the affirmation that
little systematic theoretical work has been done in the field.1
I. Introduction
As a contribution to the intellectual development o f Africana Studies, the previous
chapter have provided clarity on Diop’s Two Cradle Theory and showed its genealogical
development with Africana academic discourse. However, as a contribution to the
intellectual infrastructure and development o f Africana Studies, our scholarship can not
only be remotely related to the culture and experiences o f Africana people. As a
contribution to the discipline o f Africana Studies, our work must be systematically
applied to already existing components and structures, or it must be used to developed
new conceptual components for the discipline, only in hopes o f clarifying and elucidating
the disciplinary nature o f Africana Studies.
In order to fulfill the previously mentioned criteria for research in Africana
Studies, this chapter will discuss the role that Diop’s Two Cradle Theory can play and has
played within Africana Studies. A focus will be primarily upon the Two Cradle Theory's
usage as it pertains to theory and theory production within the discipline. By focusing
upon Diop’s Two Cradle Theory and showing how it has contributed to the development
o f key concepts along with theoretical frameworks within Africana Studies, this chapter
attempts to functions as the application o f the previously elucidated theory. Theoretical
application in this sense not only refers to how this theory has been used to explain a
given phenomenon, but more importantly, for the discipline o f Africana Studies, it refers
208
to how this theory has been used in the organization and proper conceptualization of
culturally specific knowledge which is consistent with the function and purpose o f
Africana Studies. By showing the use o f the Two Cradle Theory in Africana Studies, this
research fulfills the need to connect our research directly to the discipline. Connection in
this sense suggests the necessary relationship between knowledge and its organizations
within a particular intellectual infrastructure (i.e. academic discipline).
However, first it is necessary that we relocate ourselves within the intellectual
context o f Africana Studies. This will require a revisiting o f the definition, function and
purpose o f Africana Studies. Included in this discussion will be a review o f the
relationship between disciplinary conceptualizations in Africana Studies and theory
production. This will be followed by an overview o f the theory types found within
Africana Studies. In conclusion, we will discuss the implications o f Diop’s Two Cradle
Theory as it pertains to concept and theory production in Africana Studies.
II. Africana Studies: Definition, Conceptualization

and the Role of Multi-Area Theories
As this dissertation maintains, Africana Studies is best understood under the
nomenclature o f an academic discipline. While some have questioned the d iscip lin ary
o f Africana Studies and have suggested such nomenclature as field o f study, area o f
inquiry, program, etc., each o f these terms are limited in scope and minimizes the
analytical potential o f Africana Studies when constructed and articulated as an academic
discipline.
Karenga, Smith, Spurlock, along with Little, Leonard and Crosby have all
provided varied definitions o f a discipline. Most simply it should be understood that an
209
academic discipline refers to a focused intellectual study with varied dimensions. In the
case o f Africana Studies, the focus is upon the culture and experiences o f Africana people
across space and time, while the varied dimensions refer to the multiple subject/content
areas. Therefore, the scholar o f Africana Studies is required to be grounded within
Africana culture and s/he must also be knowledgeable o f the Africana experience across
time and space via a number o f subject/content area vantage points.
In defining Africana Studies, we also have stated that it refers to an academic
discipline based in the cultural experiences o f Africana people and interpreted through
the Afrikan worldview, with the ultimate goal o f changing the life chances o f Africana
people. There are three key components found within this definition and many others,
•3
used to define Africana Studies. They include: 1.) subject matter, 2.) perspective and
3.) the goal/purpose o f the discipline.
Regarding the subject matter of Africana Studies, it should be clear that our focus
is upon the Afrikan experience, Africana culture and Africana people across space and
time. Therefore, across the varied time periods and experiential conditions o f Africana
peoples, scholars within Africana Studies should have a working knowledge o f the
Afrikan experience. For instance, scholars within Africana Studies should be
knowledgeable o f the Ancient Afrikan conditions o f Africana people, while at the same
time have a working knowledge o f the modem movements o f Africana people within the
Afrikan world. The goal is not to be dilatants dabbling in a variety o f areas thus
providing no clear consistency. In actuality, our goal is to be in the search for cultural
and historical continuities. These can be found through the usage o f the Afrikan
worldview. Through the Afrikan worldview as our methodological framework, we have
210
the ability to investigate the Africana experience across space and time in an attempt to
find continuity and change, so that our interpretation of the Africana experience is
consistent with many o f the varied experiences o f Africana people.
Secondly, is the component o f perspective. The question o f perspective within
Africana Studies attempts to suggest the manner in which the whole discipline sees and
interprets phenomenon. Therefore, as we speak o f unity within the subject matter o f
Africana Studies, the notion o f perspective also suggests conceptual and philosophical
unity as a consistent and continuous means o f interpreting phenomenon that can be found
throughout the varied areas o f the discipline. As the following section will suggest, grand
theories, commonly referred to as paradigms, function as holistic/complete intellectual
frameworks which provide interpretative value for a discipline.
It should be noted that at the inception o f Africana Studies, advocates o f the
discipline were aware o f the importance o f perspective. Though many o f the original
arguments for Africana Studies seemed to be in regards to subject matter, there were a
number o f advocates who argued for not only relevant subject matter but more
importantly an accurate and relevant perspective in which to understand this subject
matter.4 This should not be understated because many scholars discuss and analyze
Africana people and culture, but how you do it (i.e. your perspective) is the crucial
element.
While the issue o f perspective is important in defining the discipline o f Africana
Studies, it has also been the sole focus o f certain scholars within the discipline. This has
lead to too much discussion o f grand theories and not enough academic investigation o f
other forms of theoretical developments which can sustain the disciplinary structure of
211
Africana Studies. Therefore, as previously suggested the issue o f perspective can be
easily rectified and once this is done we can move on to the other vital areas which
impede the intellectual development o f Africana Studies. However, let us return to the
discussion o f the key components defining Africana Studies.
The final component to define and characterize Africana Studies is the purpose
and goal o f the discipline. Therefore, it is the role o f Africana Studies to use the
knowledge and information gained from a critical investigation o f the Africana
experience to change the current conditions o f Africana people. This is done through the
processes o f knowledge production, transformation o f consciousness and motivated
action. Knowledge production functions as a means o f changing Africana people’s life
chances by providing useful information that can be used to transform how they see
themselves, the world and their particular place within it. The transformation o f one’s
consciousness is the first step in creating culturally responsible members o f the Africana
community, who will make contributions to their community. The first two processes
contributed to the final process o f motivated action, whereby students are able to be
productive contributors to the larger society.
Africana Studies does not study the current and/or past conditions o f Africana
people for the sake of studying, but it does so in an attempt to provide viable solutions
that Afrikan people can use to better their lives. In its systematic investigation of
Africana culture and phenomenon from an Afrikan-centered perspective (i.e. Afrikan
worldview), Africana Studies attempts to positively inform and impact the lives of
Afrikan people. It is through this discipline that we are able to investigate and interrogate
the contributions that Afrikans have made to the Afrikan world and use our knowledge of
212
their contributions as the directions in which future generations o f Afrikans should
venture. The mission which was set out in the late 1960s reflects the same mission that
present-day Africana Studies seeks to address. Today, Africana Studies functions as a
vehicle for critical thinking that is committed to advancing functional and relevant
education.5 In doing so, an investigation o f the Afrikan/Afrikan American past becomes
pertinent for culturally grounded and critically relevant interpretations o f an Africana
future.
Thus through the components o f subject matter, perspective and goal/purpose, we
have come to an understanding o f Africana Studies which suggests that it is an
investigation o f the culture and experiences o f Africana people, from the perspective o f
the Afrikan worldview with the ultimate goal o f changing the conditions o f Africana
people. It is from this definition that we can best understand the necessity o f developing
intellectual concepts which help in the discipline’s ability to function in congruence with
the previously discussed definition.
Theories and the development o f theories play a fundamental role in Africana
Studies’ ability to reach its historical and present goal. Therefore, the focus which we
place upon developing theories and applying them as an accurate means to interpreting
Africana Studies should be one o f our first orders o f business as an academic discipline.
Within Africana Studies there are primarily two theory types in use, these include grand
theories and subject/content area theories.
A grand theory in Africana Studies consists o f a theory which can be applied,
utilized and employed within all subject/content areas, o f the discipline.6 Examples of
grand theories within Africana Studies include Afrocentricity, Black Feminism and Black
213
Marxism.7 These grand theories attempt to explain the complete subject matter and/or
content o f the discipline. Grand theories provide disciplinary holism and are useful when
Q
attempting to clearly discuss the complete body o f the discipline.
Theories that are specific to a given content/subject area specific are also found
within Africana Studies. Some examples include Baldwin’s theory o f Black Personality9,
Welsch-Asante’s theory o f the Afrikan aesthetic10, Gayle’s theory o f a Black aesthetic11,

19
or Keto’s theory o f Africa-centered historiography. These theories are a product o f one
particular area o f knowledge within the discipline. Many times these theories are utilized
in both, Africana Studies and western academic disciplines.
Both grand theories and subject/content area theories have played prominent roles
in the theoretical work produced within Africana Studies. As Karenga correctly asserts,
one obstacle in the creation and maintenance o f a grand theory in academic disciplines,
and by extension Africana Studies, “is the problem o f priority in the competition for
1T
paradigmatic achievement”. Thus given the previously discussed grand theories, each
is vying for the role o f the central grand theory or paradigm in Africana Studies. While
this does reflect a healthy dialogue within the discipline, Lewin14 and Karenga15 are
correct to suggest that attention needs to be given to the development o f a grand theory
within Africana Studies. Therefore, it should be clear at the level o f grand theory
creation in Africana Studies, while there are grand theories, their competing nature does
not allow for the discipline to move forward on one intellectual, ideological and
philosophical accord.16
In regards to the subject/content area theories, they pose a number o f problems
within Africana Studies. As Daniels suggests, all too many times what passes for theory
214
within Africana Studies is in fact a watered down version o f theory, applied to Afrikan
people but grounded in some other mainstream discipline.17 Secondly, given the fact that
many o f the elders within the discipline have been trained in mainstream disciplines, their
primary frame o f reference is the discipline in which they were initially trained, along
with the disciplines theoretical frameworks. Third, while it is true that there are over 15
graduate programs in Africana Studies today, few o f these programs are producing the
scholars and scholarship which is necessary in order to advance Africana Studies as an
autonomous academic discipline. This problem speaks to the initial crisis o f Black
1X
Studies, which was originally outlined by Khatib and most recently discussed by
Azibo.19
Another problem is that many times theories and scholarship which should be
placed within Africana Studies is not included in the body o f literature, due to either the
role o f mainstream disciplines in determining the structure and content o f their disciplines
or Africana scholars who are committed to mainstream disciplines at the expense o f
Africana Studies. Stewart discusses this problem with the work o f W.E.B. Dubois, who
in too many cases has been co-opted by sociology and history, at the expense o f his
methodological and conceptual contributions to Africana Studies.20 Semmes21 and
Dagbovie , make similar arguments regarding E. Franklin Frazier and Carter G.
Woodson, respectively. Young and Deskin23 and Hill-Collins24 both discuss their
contributions as specific to western/mainstream sociology without even suggesting that
their work can contribute to Africana Studies. Finally, on too many occasions scholars
who have interests within the Afrikan diaspora are given validation as they attempt to
construct theories within the discipline, but these scholars are not actually in Africana
215
Studies and their work is just another manifestation o f non-Africana Studies theory
posing as theory in and reflective o f Africana Studies.
Given the previously discussed problems with both grand theories and
subject/content area theories, it is necessary that alternative models o f theories for
Africana Studies be developed. One alternative model for theories within Africana
Studies would consist o f those theories that fall between grand theories and
subject/content area theories. These theories can be referred to as multi-area theories. A
multi-area theory within Africana Studies functions between a grand theory and a
subject/content area theory. A multi-area theory’s usage refers specifically to a given
theoretical explanation within the discipline o f Africana Studies. Therefore, a multi-area
theory within Africana Studies could possibly give explanative value to the psychology,
sociology and history o f Africana peoples, while not speaking directly to other areas of
knowledge within Africana Studies. For example, a multi-area theory within Africana
Studies might attempt to explain the Black child. In doing so, this multi-area theory
would have to rely upon information from Africana sociology, Africana psychology,
Africana history, etc. In validating the inter/multidisciplinary nature o f Africana Studies,
a multi-area theory must rely upon at least three subject/content areas in order to make
sense o f a specific disciplinary phenomenon. However, it should be understood that the
goal of a multi-area theory within Africana Studies is to provide an
inter/multidisciplinary explanation o f its intended phenomenon.
Connected to the concept of multi-area theory is the fact that multi-area theories
within Africana Studies are reflective o f a particular conceptualization o f the discipline.
On the issue o f conceptualizing Africana Studies there have been many arguments as to
216
its structure within academia, from Nathan Hare, Martin Kilson, Nathan Huggins,
Delores Aldridge, Maulana Karenga and Molefi Asante to the National Council for Black
Studies.25 All have argued for a variation in regards to the structure o f Africana Studies.
The focus here, however, needs to be between two general structural assumptions. The
first being the autonomous nature o f Africana Studies as an academic discipline,
espoused by Hare, Aldridge, Karenga, Asante and others. On the other hand there is the
position that Africana Studies is a dependent academic entity and thus must rely upon
other “traditional” disciplines for its life-blood. Kilson and Huggins have been the most
vocal on this point, but this should not negate the most recent articulation from scholars
such as Lewis Gordon and Noli we Rooks. Both scholars have recently, covertly and
overtly, articulated Africana Studies as a dependent academic discipline.26
While it would be wrong to negate the role o f traditional disciplines within the
historical development o f Africana Studies, for one to suggest that they are at the
foundation o f Africana Studies undermines our disciplinary autonomy and in all actuality
can be the seed of the demise o f Africana Studies. This is especially the case if
traditional disciplines attempt to be honest about the historical contributions o f Africana
people to knowledge and knowledge production within traditional academic disciplines.27
While this will not happen within the near future, we must recognize that if Africana
Studies continues to rely upon the need to be connected to traditional disciplines for its
very existence, our necessity within higher education can be put into serious question.
This point also goes back to an accurate way o f articulating exactly what Africana
Studies consists of. Our maintenance o f Africana Studies as an academic discipline
which is based upon the development o f knowledge, from the perspective o f Africana
217
people which can and must be used to transform the condition o f Africana people, is
clearly the type o f discipline which speaks to the needs o f the Africana academic and
therefore we must take our rightful role within institutions o f higher education as an
academic discipline committed to the interests o f Africana people. However, if we
conceptualize Africana Studies as a dependent field o f study or academic area, which is
only concerned with knowledge on or about people o f Afrikan descent, this negates our
existence within higher education.
It is obvious that all traditional disciplines discuss Africana people, albeit from an
antiquated perspective and as an afterthought, however we are still discussed.28 But
given that Africana Studies is not only about knowledge and it is fundamentally about the
use of knowledge to transform the conditions o f Africana people, traditional disciplines
can not be the life-blood o f Africana Studies. Due to the inability o f tradition disciplines
to clearly and consciously engage the issues o f perspective and goal/function as discussed
within the previous definition o f Africana Studies, our existence can never actually be put
into question. But this is only the case if we stay true to a functional definition o f
Africana Studies, which is reflective o f its historical development.
Therefore, as this dissertation has argued the conceptualization o f Africana
Studies which best academic fits the structure o f Africana Studies is one that defines
itself as an academically autonomous interdisciplinary discipline. This is also the best
structure which leads to the development o f multi-area theories within the discipline,
because it mandates the necessity o f interdisciplinary scholarship. Building upon the
conceptualization o f Africana Studies as developed by Maulana Karenga29, there are a
plethora of subject areas30 which can be found within Africana Studies. Karenga limits
218
his construction to seven subject areas, but given the expansiveness o f the discipline
along with the multifarious nature o f the Africana experience, seven subject areas is
definitely too limiting. The construction o f Africana Studies, which I posit, argues that
there are at least twelve subject areas which make up the breadth o f the discipline. These
subject areas include: 1.) Africana Philosophy, 2.) Africana History, 3.) Africana
Literature, 4.) Africana Spirituality, 5.) Africana Aesthetics, 6.) Africana Psychology, 7.)
Africana Sociology, 8.) Africana Politics, 9.) Africana Economics, 10.) Africana
Education, 11.) Africana Gender Studies and 12.) Africana Science and Technology.31
It should first be stressed that the use o f “Africana” to preface what some would
consider being traditional areas o f study is not simply the placement o f an adjective.
Therefore, Africana Sociology, for example, is distinct from traditional sociology as
espoused by Africana/Black sociologists. And while many Africana sociologists may not
link their work directly to Africana Studies, their work when placed within the proper
context o f Africana intellectual history makes the most sense as a subject/content area o f
Africana Studies. Thus as the following discussion of Africana History, Africana
Philosophy and Africana Psychology will suggest, given the connection between each
subject area to Africana Studies they depart from traditional disciplines at a crucial
juncture and join Africana Studies in their missions to transform Africana people and the
Africana community.
For example, Africana Sociology in and o f itself becomes discipline-specific and
discipline-grounded given its development as a distinct subject/content area which
distinguishes itself from traditional/western sociology. This comes about through the
importance o f the Africana Studies’ perspective and function, which traditional sociology
219
can not engage. When Lander declared The Death o f White Sociology and Alkalimat and
Walters discussed the need for a “Black Social Science” they were all speaking to the
failure o f traditional sociology and the need to develop a “Black Sociology” which would
on
be helpful in transforming the conditions o f Africana people. While their perspective
was not specifically grounded in a notion o f the Afrikan worldview, their perspective
along with the function/goal o f this field were the defining characteristics which allowed
them to move beyond traditional sociology. It is a combination o f subject matter,
perspective and goal/purpose, which makes Africana Sociology, and the other eleven
subject/content areas specifically connected to Africana Studies rather than to traditional
disciplines.
In distinguishing subject/content areas o f Africana Studies from just Blackenized
forms o f traditional disciplines, we must keep in mind that a good portion o f the elders
within Africana Studies, who are currently within the discipline, are here by choice.
These scholars have articulated a similar weakness with traditional disciplines and the
need for their placement within Africana Studies as opposed to traditional disciplines.33
Arguably, this ultimately speaks to the validity o f my position on the nature o f Africana
Studies as a distinct academic discipline, in comparison to traditional disciplines.
It should be noted that while the conceptualization o f Africana Studies, multi-area
theories and subject/content areas o f Africana Studies, as discussed within this
dissertation is an extremely useful way o f understanding scholarship with Africana
Studies few have attempted to advanced similar arguments, especially in such a holistic
manner. In saying this, while the subject areas to be discussed as areas within Africana
Studies are known by many, only the work o f Karenga attempts to connect them to the
220
discipline.34 Others have discussed the importance o f history, psychology, sociology,
economics, etc. to Africana Studies, but not as subject/content areas which develop out o f
an interdisciplinary structure grounded within a concrete definition o f Africana Studies.
This is a glaring weakness for the mere fact that as we attempt to conceptualize Africana
Studies as an autonomous discipline, those who are trained within traditional discipline
and are still doing working within Africana Studies are not connecting their work back to
the definition, function and purpose o f Africana Studies. In articulating this concept o f a
multi-area theory and showing how it can and has manifested itself within Africana
Studies, my goal is also to provide an alternative approach for discussing the structure
and content of Africana Studies.
As previously stated, Karenga uses a similar approach in his conceptualization of
Africana Studies. However, Karenga fails to extend his argument beyond his seven
subject areas and more specifically he fails to rely upon the relationship between the
discipline and its subject areas, beyond his introductory texts. Anderson also relies upon
a subject/content area approach in his conceptualization o f Africana Studies, but he
provides even less connective tissue between his understanding o f Africana Studies and
i t
its subject/content areas.
The process o f conceptualizing Africana Studies as an autonomous discipline is
not only about organizing knowledge on or about the Africana experience so that it fits
into a nice rubric. It must also be about having a dialogue about this knowledge which is
consistent with the basic assumptions o f the discipline. At this point, we can return to the
concepts o f unity and continuity. Both concepts are important for understanding the
221
Africana experience, they are also extremely relevant as we consider the academic
organization o f Africana Studies.
While scholars of Africana Studies acknowledge different areas within the
discipline (history, sociology, psychology, economics, etc.), many do not attempt to draw
connections between these areas and the overall structure and content o f Africana
Studies. Therefore, while these disciplines contribute to information about Africana
people, it is unclear at what point and from what perspective we are approaching these
areas. This is not the case for all areas connected to Africana Studies. The work done by
a good portion o f Black psychologists and Black sociologists has been very helpful in
clarifying general arguments o f relevance within the discipline.36 Still all too many times
people have taken concepts, ideas and arguments on or about Afrikan people directly out
o f traditional disciplines and attempted to pass them off as scholarship worthy o f the label
“Africana Studies.”37 While this point specifically speaks to the issues with
subject/content area theoretical production within Africana Studies, it also highlights the
issues o f conceptualization within Africana Studies, because the majority o f scholarship
which follows this line o f thinking takes place under the program model o f Africana
Studies. Given the program approach which in all too many cases is anti-autonomous,
work which flows out o f these disciplinary conceptualization undermines the
departmental approach for structuring Africana Studies.
This issue is exacerbated when we recognize the impact o f certain institutions in
their attempts to control the dialogue on Africana Studies. These include institutions
■JO
such as Harvard University, Princeton University and Yale University, to name a few.
Each of these institutions relies upon the program model of Africana Studies or requires
222
faculty to be joint appointed, which in and o f itself is reflective o f the program model.
While Princeton has recently attempted to move away from the program model and will
attempt to institute a Center of African American Studies, they will still continue to be
non-autonomous in their structure o f the discipline.39
While many scholars within Africana Studies who follow the program/dependent
model have attempted to critique and reinvent traditional disciplines so they were
relevant to Afrikan people, the foundations o f these disciplines is fundamentally
problematic for the future advancement o f Afrikan people and those within Africana
Studies are clearly aware o f this. The existence o f these disciplines is in total opposition
to Africana Studies which attempts to take on a mandate to change the life conditions o f
Africana people through functional and relevant information which would be taught in
the departments o f Africana Studies. Furthermore, disciplines such as Sociology,
Psychology and Anthropology though they may have the fa?ade o f attempting to be
concerned with social change, these disciplines have been increasingly used by the white
supremacist power structure as a means o f devaluing and subjugating certain populations
o f this society. In particular, each o f these disciplines has attempted to attack Afrikan
people based upon some o f the most specious claims. This critique can be made for a
good number o f disciplines within western higher education and therefore it is important
to recognize and respect the uniqueness and privileged role Africana Studies takes within
higher education and specifically within the educational experiences o f those who are
concerned with changing the life chances and conditions o f people o f Afrikan descent.
This discussion o f Africana Studies highlights some o f the current weaknesses
found within its structural development. However, the concept o f multi-area theory
223
attempts to rectify this by putting questions and solutions for theoretical production at the
center o f the dialogue on Africana Studies. It should be noted that this work is coming
out of Temple University, the first Ph.D. program in Afrikan American Studies,
developed within the world. Thus staying true to the mandate o f 1960s, the contributions
o f those such as Hare, Stewart, Gordon, Wheeler and others, this dissertation attempts to
add to the dialogue o f Africana Studies placing a serious emphasis on continuity and
unity, as central to the forward thrust o f intellectual advancements in Africana Studies.
Given this overview o f the varied theory types within Africana Studies, it is
possible that Cheikh Anta Diop’s Two Cradle Theory as used by Africana academics has
played an important role in informing the culturally-specific assumptions which inform
the assumptions and concepts o f the varied theory types within Africana Studies. An
understanding o f Diop’s Two Cradle Theory as a multi-area theory also illuminates its
usage as a theoretical contribution to Africana Studies.
III. Diop’s Two Cradle Theory in Africana Studies
Diop’s Two Cradle Theory has been used by a variety o f scholars within Africana
Studies to substantiate culturally-specific phenomenon. Scholars within Africana
Sociology40, Africana Gender Studies41, Africana Politics and Political Organization42,
Africana Philosophy43, Africana History44 and Africana Psychology45, among other areas,
have all relied upon Diop’s Two Cradle Theory. It is plausible that Diop’s Two Cradle
Theory could function as a grand theory within Africana Studies, however given the over
concentration of grand theories within Africana Studies, this dissertation focuses upon
Diop’s Two Cradle Theory as a multi-area theory within the discipline. Furthermore,
given the need to develop discipline-specific and discipline-grounded intellectual
224
components o f Africana Studies, our focus should be on developing new disciplinary
constructs which advance the future o f Africana Studies as a distinct academic endeavor.
By discipline-specific, we refer to a particular type o f theoretical production that is
primarily relevant and applicable to the discipline of Africana Studies. This is not to say
that mainstream disciplines can not benefit from discipline-specific theories within
Africana Studies, but it does suggests that the initial primary beneficiary o f these theories
should be Africana Studies and by extension Africana people. By discipline-grounded,
we refer to a particular type o f theoretical production which is grounded within the
disciplinary structure and/or conceptualization o f Africana Studies. Thus, given the
interdisciplinary and holistic nature o f Africana Studies, it makes the most sense to
develop theories that are generated from this given structure. A multi-area theory fits this
necessity.
As a starting point for substantiating the cultural differences o f Afrikans,
Europeans and Asians, the Two-Cradle Theory has been used in a variety o f bodies of
knowledge within Africana Studies to orient and substantiate the claims o f these fields.
Whether in Africana Psychology, Africana History or Africana Philosophy, the
importance o f cultural difference has been articulated with the usage o f arguments
connected to or grounded in Diop’s Two Cradle Theory. While many people utilize the
arguments of Diop, few have attempted to do a holistic analysis o f his argument. This
dissertation attempts to critically assess Diop’s Two Cradle Theory and determine its
usability as a theory which can be utilized within the interdisciplinary structure of
Africana Studies.
225
The following discussion o f the role o f the Two Cradle Theory in Africana
History, Africana Philosophy and Africana Psychology will not be based upon an
exhaustive discussion of each subject/content area. Therefore, each subject/content
area’s intellectual history, key concepts, topics o f interests, questions o f inquiry will not
be investigated. Rather our goal will be to generally relate each subject/content area to
Africana Studies, state the common linkages between the discipline and this
subject/content area dimension, along with showing the manner in which Diop’s Two
Cradle Theory has been used to develop key concepts or can be used in the development
o f key concepts and assumptions to inform the content o f each o f the discussed subject
areas in Africana Studies.
Africana History
Africana History as a subject/content area o f Africana Studies becomes an
outgrowth o f the discipline when it is grounded within the three concepts o f subject
matter, perspective and goal/function. Subject matter within this context is the historical
data specific to people o f Afrikan descent, along with the historical record as it speaks to
their interaction with non-Afrikans. The perspective used to explain this historical
experience should be one grounded within the Afrikan worldview. And the goal/function
thusly should be to utilize the newly gained knowledge o f Africana history in a manner
that will change the conditions o f Africana people.
While this may seem all too similar to our previous definition o f Africana Studies,
we must recognize that our focus in this subject/content area o f Africana Studies is all
that which is historical. This point is extremely important given the inaccurate and
interchangeable use o f Africana Studies with Africana History. While Africana History
226
undergirds Africana Studies, they are not the same given the dimensional focus o f the
subject/content area. While Karenga is correct to assert the importance o f Black History
to Black Studies, we should be careful when we give too much weight to one subject area
in our conceptualization o f Africana Studies.46 Arguably, this speaks to Daniels critique
o f the whole notion o f “discipline” and explains his understanding o f Africana Studies as
a “mw/t/discipline”.47 That being the case, while history is understood to be important to
an accurate understanding o f the Africana experience, it is not the end all and be all o f
Africana Studies.
Cheikh Anta Diop’s Two Cradle Theory has functioned within Africana History
through the development and usage o f the methodological concept o f comparative
history. Through the use o f a comparative approach grounded within the key
assumptions o f his Two Cradle Theory, comparisons o f the different macro-historical
experiences between Afrikans, Europeans and Asians can be understood from a
culturally-relative perspective. For instance, in Diop’s Civilization or Barbarism he
relies upon the comparative approach as the foundations for showing the lack of
revolutions throughout continental Afrikan history.48 Diop posits that given the socio
political structure o f Afrikan civilizations, whether they are in Ancient Afrika or during
pre-colonization, each provided the means by which change took shape gradually rather
than through anarchistic uprisings. Anarchistic uprising, as reflective o f the Northern
cradle exemplify the manner in the Two Cradle Theory can be used as a point of
comparison between macro-Afrikan and macro-European histories.
Furthermore, in both Precolonial Black Africa and African Origin o f Civilization,
Diop relied upon this comparative approach also. Within Africana Studies and Africana
227
History where culture becomes essential in differentiating our intellectual project, these
arguments become essential in establishing our critique against Eurocentric impositions
which pose as universals. Through, the Two Cradle Theory these impositions can be
understood as an outgrowth o f a particular environmentally determined experience that
has moved across space and time through the transmission o f cultural consciousness.
While scholars within traditional areas o f study take these as human norms, the Africana
Studies practioner through the Two Cradle Theory is able to get to their unconscious
origins and properly see them as cultural specific, thus questioning the relevance o f cross-
cultural interpretations.
Speaking to the importance o f the Two Cradle Theory as it relates to historical
inquiry, Carruthers states that “Diop offered his ‘Two Cradle Theory’ as a more valid
framework for understanding the past.”49 And thus, Carruthers has been the most
productive in developing concepts which are a direct outgrowth o f Diop’s Two Cradle
Theory, many o f which can and are used by certain scholars within Africana Studies.
These include not only the previously mentioned comparative historical methodology50,
but also Carruther’s concepts o f nomadic historiography and fundamental alienation.51
Both concepts are two important outgrowths o f Diop’s Two Cradle Theory that can be
used with Africana historiography.
For instance, in Intellectual Warfare Carruthers frames his discussion o f the
Eurasian work ethic by relying upon Diop’s cradle arguments used in The Cultural Unity
o f Black Africa. In sum, Carruthers argues that:
...the Aryan worldview o f antiquity which includes the classical Greeks, is based
upon a fundamental assumption o f cosmic conflict, hostility between male and
female principles, patricide, infanticide, alienation between god and man, warfare
between man and nature, competition and strife among men, and slavery as a
228
natural human institution. This Eurasian orientation, that is deeply embedded in
the Aryan worldview can be called fundam ental alienation.52
Carruthers’ concept of fundamental alienation can best be understood as a by product o f a
Two Cradle analysis in which the environmental conditions caused a disconnection from
the cosmic and interrelated nature o f the universe. Cosmic disorder, divine disharmony
and divine discord are all related ideas which help substantiate Carruthers concept o f
fundamental alienation.53 This being the case notions o f competition, superiority,
either/or logic and so on, are pervasive throughout European history. This therefore
provides a context for properly understanding the relationship between Afrikans and non-
Afrikans, especially when they are o f European ancestry. W obogo’s analysis o f the
origins o f racism, also supports the conclusions stemming from this concept of
fundamental alienation.54
The concept o f nomadic historiography is reflective o f “the chaotic human
condition” which becomes an outgrowth o f fundamental alienation.55 Furthermore,
nomadic historiography becomes “the continuous surge o f fierce but pure hearted
barbarians conquering peaceful but corrupt and lazy sedentary communities and thus
infusing the more cultivated areas with a fresh vigor that led to flashes o f the Great
Society only to lapse into complacency and sloth until new barbarians appear at the city
gates.”56 In relation to understanding Africana history, nomadic historiography becomes
another reference point in understanding the human interactions between Afrikans and
non-Afrikans.
Diop’s Two Cradle Theory also stresses the notion of cultural unity, in the context
of Africana history our focus is upon Afrikan historical unity which cuts across space and
time. By providing the very basic assumptions consistent with the Two Cradle Theory,
229
we can properly understand the historical experiences o f Africana peoples which are
linked back to an Afrikan origin. For instance, rather than interpreting mother-focused
families within the Afrikan diaspora as a bastardization of the Afrikan family due to
enslavement, through Diop’s Two Cradle Theory, we properly understand this as an
Afrikan continuum, especially given the role o f social and familial structures in this
theoretical formulation. This is just one o f many examples that can be developed through
usage o f Diop’s Two Cradle Theory in Africana history.
It should also be noted that Jacob Carruthers was the first o f the Afrikan-centered
scholars to suggest the role o f the Afrikan worldview in the development o f an accurate
understanding of Africana history. In his Essays in Ancient Egyptian Studies, Carruthers
argues that the “two cradle theory meets with a prime requisite o f methodology for an
en
African worldview, in that, it is based on the African heritage.” The Afrikan worldview
has become a pillar connected to Afrikan-centered scholarship within Africana Studies
and will be discussed in further detail below. However, Carruthers suggestion of
connecting the Two Cradle Theory to the Afrikan worldview is useful as we understand
its development as a methodological concept with Africana History, Africana Studies and
Afrikan-centered scholarship, for that matter.
Through Diop’s Two Cradle Theory Africana History gains a culturally-relative
interpretation o f history, based upon the different experiences each macro-historical
group has used in the shaping o f consciousness, as it relates to the basis o f their survival
and the creation o f how they see their reality. Carruthers has specifically developed
concepts such as fundamental alienation and nomadic historiography as an outgrowth of
the Two Cradle Theory. He has also provided the suggestive linkages between the Two
230
Cradle Theory and the Afrikan worldview. All o f the previously discussed contributions
to Africana History via Diop’s Two Cradle Theory reflect its influential role in the
shaping and interpretation o f knowledge as it is understood and organized within
Africana History.
Africana Philosophy
Philosophy within western academia is a pillar in the substantiation o f the
disciplinary claims of many traditional disciplines. Whether we speak o f history,
psychology, sociology or education, each o f the disciplines links their origin to Greco-
Roman philosophy. Thus altogether western academia is best understood as an
outgrowth o f western philosophy. While Africana Studies was institutionalized within
western academia, it is definitely not an outgrowth o f western philosophy. My discussion
o f the origins o f Africana Studies, throughout Afrikan intellectual history, as discussed in
chapter one suggests that these linkages reach back to Ancient Afrika and pre-colonial
Afrika in which knowledge systems were developed. Many o f which are reminiscent of
the form and function o f Africana Studies, today.
Given the role in which western philosophy has been shaped by the particular
experience o f western peoples it becomes incongruent in the explanation and
interpretation of Africana existence. Therefore, it is necessary that Africana Studies rely
upon its own philosophical basis. This is just one o f the important roles Africana
Philosophy must play within Africana Studies.
Africana Philosophy as an outgrowth o f Africana Studies is fundamentally
concerned with the interpretation, organization and articulation o f Afrikan thought, which
is coterminous with the manner in which Afrikan peoples interpret the world, so that our
231
ideation can be used in order to transform the conditions o f Africana peoples. Africana
Philosophy can not be concerned with speculative thought but must be concerned with
CO
what Carruthers properly refers to as “divine speech” .
Diop’s Two Cradle Theory becomes informative for this body o f knowledge for a
number o f reasons. As previously discussed the concept of an Afrikan worldview is an
outgrowth o f the notion of a particular Afrikan way o f making sense of the world. As we
understand a worldview to be imbued with philosophical assumptions (cosmology,
ontology, axiology, epistemology, logic, and so), we see that the Afrikan worldview is a
philosophical concept in and o f itself. As the previous discussion on Africana History
has stated, Carruthers has implied a connective origin between the Two Cradle Theory
and the Afrikan worldview. However, we will return to the importance o f worldviews as
they relate to Diop’s Two Cradle Theory in our discussion of Africana Psychology.
Ifi Amadiume has argued that a reading o f Diop’s Two Cradle Theory can lead to
what she terms as “moral philosophies” which are consistent with the Northern and
Southern Cradles.59 According to Amadiume, “To Diop, the moral philosophy o f a polity
seems as important as its mode o f production. This moral philosophy is clearly gendered,
hence the contrast which Diop makes between the pacifists ideological superstructures of
the so-called Asian Modes of Production (AMP) societies, particularly the
Egyptian/African model, and the warlike morality and militaristic values o f the Greco-
Roman city state.”60
In doing so, Diop’s Two Cradle Theory can explain the moral values which each
cradle develops. While warfare, conflict, violence, competition and antagonism become
the underlying values which in many cases go unquestioned within the Northern Cradle,
232
within the Southern Cradle different values developed. These included reliance upon
consensus, communal decision making, among other characteristics. Amadiume
following the logic o f Diop, stresses that these moral values and philosophies were in fact
gendered and a product o f the environmental conditions which saw the rise o f matrifocal
structures in the Southern Cradle and patriarchy in the Northern Cradle.
Consistent with this understanding o f Africana Philosophy, Amadiume attempts
to move D iop’s discussion o f a “moral philosophy” in the arena in which it can affect
social change. From her critique o f the Eurocentric moral values, “the scholarship of
Cheikh Anta Diop remains prophetic in his analysis o f philosophies o f imperialism as
expressed through the ideologies o f gender and race.”61 As a critique o f “philosophies of
imperialism” based upon “the ideologies o f gender and race,” Diop’s discussion o f the
Two Cradle Theory gets to the heart o f western philosophy which is grounded within
concepts o f hierarchy, competing systems and either/or logic. Thus by stressing the
importance o f morality and life-sustaining values that can be supported by philosophical
thought Amadiume’s reading o f Diop speaks to the function o f transformative knowledge
as it manifests within the philosophical dimension o f Africana Studies.
Marimba Ani’s investigation into what she terms “the European Utamawazo,”62
clarifies the relationship between one’s cradle origins and philosophical systems. While
Ani does not make specific reference to Diop’s Two Cradle Theory in this section o f her
text, these arguments coupled with Amadiume’s notion o f a “moral philosophy” and
Carruthers’ concept o f “fundamental alienation,” work together in providing an
explanation for western philosophy as distinct from Africana philosophy. Carruthers’
correctly asserts that “alienation is the base o f the human condition,” among Europeans
233
and impacts all aspects o f their existence. Its impact upon their epistemological
assumptions is best understood in the context of concepts such as objectivity, which
guides “a science o f dominion through detached observations and experimentation is
established.”64 The detached observer therefore understands knowledge as a means of
control. In this case knowledge acquisition is not used as a liberating process, but rather
becomes the means by which the intellectual observer attempts to manipulate
phenomenon to work in their favor. While this may be useful within western intellectual
research projects, it becomes detrimental within Africana Studies because all too many
times those being manipulate are those o f non-European ancestry, who have primarily
been Afrikan people. Africana Philosophy, therefore, suggests alternative approaches in
the understanding o f phenomenon as discussed in chapter three.
It is in the interest o f Africana Philosophy to understand these relationships
between philosophy and alternative approaches to understanding phenomenon, in order to
develop the most useful philosophical arguments in the maintenance o f Africana Studies.
Through the Afrikan worldview and a moral philosophy grounded in ethical values,
Diop’s Two Cradle Theory has developed usable concepts which further help in the
substantiation o f the knowledge base o f Africana Philosophy.
Africana Psychology
O f all the subject areas to inform modem empirical advances within Afrikan-
centered scholarship, the work o f the Afrikan/Black psychologists has been extremely
informative especially as we attempt to substantiate the knowledge claims o f Africana
Studies. As a starting point Africana Psychology can be understood as an investigation
o f the spiritual, mental and behavioral processes o f Africana peoples, through the lens o f
234
the Afrikan worldview with the ultimate goal o f properly interpreting Africana behaviors
in a way that is coterminous with their existence. Thus through this interpretation
Africana Psychology hopes to imbue Africana peoples with a positive and confident
sense o f self which can function as a change agent within their communities. As the
previous sections have alluded to, a key concept within Africana Psychology is the
Afrikan worldview.
In the previous chapter on the genealogy o f Diop’s Two Cradle Theory in
Africana Studies, we discussed the relationship between Carruthers and Kambon as an
important connection in the transmission o f Diop’s scholarship. This I suggested can be
found in the usage o f Diop’s Two Cradle Theory as the very foundation for the
articulation of the Afrikan worldview by Afrikan/Black psychologists. Thus it is
necessary to investigate the relationship between their discussion o f the Afrikan
worldview, along with its relation to Diop’s Two Cradle Theory.
As chapter three o f this dissertation has discussed, the Afrikan worldview is a
central component o f the intellectual project advanced by those calling themselves, the
Afrikan/Black psychologists. This includes scholars such as Naim Akbar, Daudi Ajani
ya Azibo, Joseph Baldwin (aka Kobi K. K. Kambon), Linda James Myers, Wade Nobles,
among others. While our discussion within chapter three stressed the role that Vernon
Dixon played in shaping their discussion o f the Afrikan worldview, in this chapter our
focus is upon the work o f Kobi Kambon and his connection o f Diop’s Two Cradle
Theory to the origin o f worldview differences. It is interesting to note that Dixon’s
original analysis include certain limitations that he acknowledged, these include the fact
that he did not “explain the origin, the historical development, or the genetic basis o f the
235
two world views”, and that he has limited his discussion to the Afrikan and Euro-
American worldviews.65 This point becomes extremely important, because it is through
the Two Cradle Theory that we can get to the “origins, the historical development or the
genetic basis” of worldview differences.
The relationship between the discussion o f the Afrikan worldview by Jacob
Carruthers and Kobi Kambon, is not mere happenstance and as the previous chapter
attempted to suggest their linkage is reflective o f them both being members o f the
Chicago school of Afrikan-centered thought. According to Carr, “The Chicago ‘school,’
widely recognized as the epi-center o f contemporary African-centered thought, counts as
its students o f the group Iva Carruthers, Jacob H. Carruthers, Kobi Kambon, Lorenzo
Martin, Harold Pates, Anderson Thompson, Conrad Worrill and the late Bobby E.
Wright.”66 As members of the Chicago school o f Afrikan-centered thought, it is logical
that these members would conceptualize concepts similarly, rely upon a group o f
common key thinkers and articulate coterminous ideas. This is definitely the case when
it comes to discussing the Afrikan worldview as connected to Diop’s Two Cradle Theory.
While Kambon’s discussion expounds upon the philosophical assumptions o f cosmology,
ontology, axiology, epistemology and so on, both Carruthers and Kambon rely upon
Diop’s scholarship as the defining characteristic in the substantiation o f worldview
differences.
It is also worth noting that Kambon, under the name Joseph Baldwin published an
article entitled “Black Psychology and Black Personality: Some Issues for
Consideration” in 1976 in the Black Books Bulletin, another very important vehicle
within the Chicago school o f Afrikan-centered thought. Kambon as a member o f this
236
group has continued to advance arguments which are consistent with those earlier works
which were published in this journal and other journals coming out o f the Chicago
school.
However, it is Kambon’s discussion o f the origins o f worldview differences
which requires our attention here. First, it must be noted that Kambon has consistently
* • • f\H
relied upon Diop’s Two Cradle Theory as the basis for worldview differences. In one
o f his most recent discussions, Kambon argues:
In his penetrating discussion o f African and European psycho-historical patterns

and motifs, Diop (1974, 1991; Wobogo, 1976) outlined a two-cradle theory o f the
early development o f the African and European branches o f human civilization,
which helps to illuminate the nature o f the African and European worldview
differences. As noted, he proposes in this model a Southern or African Cradle as
the earliest form and a Northern or European Cradle which developed much
later.68
This analysis is consistent with the work o f all the earliest scholars to incorporate Diop’s
work into their scholarship. While the Afrikan/Black psychologists draw correlations
between Diop’s Two Cradle Theory and worldview differences, it is also useful to utilize
the Two Cradle Theory in articulating the origin o f the differences. That is through a
thorough analysis o f the key components o f each worldview coupled with Diop’s Two
Cradle Theory we in fact validate the existence o f worldview differences which is
consistent with psycho-historical empirical data.
Since the key components o f a worldview system have been discussed in great
details in chapter three, I have only chosen to briefly discuss four components o f a
worldview (cosmology, ontology, axiology and epistemology) and discuss each as the
outgrowth o f a given cradle and thus their cultural terrain.
237
For instance, the cosmological assumption o f a worldview refers to the manner in
which a culture understands the structure o f the universe. Within the Afrikan worldview,
an Afrikan cosmology suggests that the universe is based upon “interdependence,
collectivism, human-nature unity/oneness with nature.”69 If we revisit the environmental
conditions o f the Southern Cradle the Afrikan cosmological assumptions becomes
logical. Therefore, the environmental conditions which provided the very basis for
human existence reflected a partner for one’s complete sustenance. This can be seen in
contrast to the Northern Cradle which would develop a cosmology guided by
“separateness/alienation, independence, human-nature conflict/control over nature”.70
The environmental conditions which required nomadism as a mode o f existence becomes
the link which would lead to such an alienated notion o f existence in which there is a
complete disconnection from the cosmos.
The ontological assumption o f a worldview refers to the nature o f a being. In the
context o f the Southern Cradle the Afrikan ontology suggests that the fundamental nature
o f all beings is spirit. While within the Northern Cradle the European ontological
assumption posits that all that exists at its fundamental level is matter. Again, if we
return to the environmental conditions as outlined in Diop’s Two Cradle Theory given the
environment which abundantly provided for those within the Southern Cradle and the
observation o f nature conducting by Ancient Afrikans, the causation for all existence was
based upon some unseen force. While within the Northern Cradle, the environmental
conditions required that only that which was material relevance became necessary for
human existence.
238
On the axiological assumption, each cradle also posited different values which
were connected to their specific conditions. The communal nature o f the Southern Cradle
required that communalism be the highest virtue. If we also considering the role o f the
community in the development o f agricultural societies we have more evidence for the
highest value being placed upon human to human relations. While within the Northern
Cradle, individualism seemed to function as the highest value in which every person was
out for themselves.
Finally, the epistemological assumption o f the worldview system focuses upon
“the way or method of knowing or coming into an understanding o f reality, o f what is
real.”71 While the Afrikan worldview relies upon an affective-cognitive synthesis, as
discussed by Vernon Dixon, this is clearly connected to the ontological assumption which
correctly asserts that exist is more than material and is fundamental that which is
inapprehensible via the five senses. However, with the European worldview cognitive
processes are imposed upon affective processes, to the extent that knowledge acquisition
only comes through counting and measuring, both o f which are only apprehensible
through the fives senses and in fact connected back to the ontological assumption.
This reinterpretation o f the components o f each worldview in relation to Diop’s
Two Cradle Theory provides what many would argue to be speculative cultural
distinctions to be understood for what they are, that is culturally-specific ways in which
people o f different cultural groups understand reality. Given the Afrikan/Black
psychologists connection o f these very important components they have been able to link
together the manner in which people o f Afrikan descent today, still have the potential to
operate from the assumptions o f an Afrikan worldview system. Much o f the scholarship
239
in Afrikan-centered mental health and personality disorders is grounded within a
conceptualization of worldview which utilizes these assumptions as the normative

79
assumptions in the interpretation o f Afrikan behaviors.
Africana Psychology’s usage, articulation and development o f the Afrikan
worldview as discussed above is not only a much needed addition to this subject area, but
it is the very basis o f one o f the key components distinguishing Afrikan-centered
Africana Studies from any other traditional academic discipline. As Carruthers argued,
“the formulation o f an African worldview is the essential beginning point for all research
which is based upon the interests o f African people. There can be no African history, no
African social science without an African worldview.”73 The Afrikan/Black
psychologists clearly understand this and their scholarship within Africana Studies
clearly speaks to the Afrikan worldview as a necessity within our disciplinary endeavors.
As a theory within Africana Studies, Diop’s Two Cradle Theory provides
concepts and components which help in the clarification o f certain subject areas.
However, as a multi-area theory within Africana Studies Diop’s Two Cradle Theory
helps in the illumination o f such concepts as the Afrikan worldview. This supports the
interdisciplinary assumptions which guide scholarship within the field. More importantly
as a multi-area theory within Africana Studies, notions o f cultural unity which undergird
Africana Studies find substantiation and evidence for their origins. While the
transmission o f unity across space and time comes the means o f cultural consciousness,
its existence becomes a foundation for knowledge claims within the discipline of
Africana Studies. Furthermore, Diop’s Two Cradle Theory provides a culturally-
grounded comparative methodology which is useful in the holistic analysis of
240
phenomenon. Each o f the previously discussed subject/content areas relying upon Diop’s
Two Cradle Theory utilize a comparative framework in hopes o f making accurate sense
o f Afrikan existence. In doing so, it should be noted that a comparative framework,
along with the assumption o f cultural unity underlies this discussion.
IV. Conclusion
The question o f the autonomous disciplinary nature o f Africana Studies has been
central to this overall discussion o f theory within Africana Studies. Cheikh Anta Diop’s
Two Cradle Theory functions on many levels as a necessary contribution in substantiating
knowledge claims made by practioners and advocates o f the disciplines. By including
Diop’s scholarship into this dialogue, we have also introduced the concept o f multi-area
theory, as yet another means o f reflective the discipline-specific and discipline-grounded
organization of knowledge within Africana Studies.
In the previous discussion o f a multi-area theory in Africana Studies, we focused
upon its ability to rely upon at least three subject/content areas and provide explanatory
value for a particular phenomenon. In the context o f our discussion o f Diop’s Two
Cradle Theory as a multi-area theory in Africana Studies, we have focused upon its
impact on concept development in Africana History, Africana Philosophy and Africana
Psychology. However, one underlying component which all o f these subject/content
areas connects to is the Afrikan worldview. This is not only because the Afrikan
worldview informs the perspective which properly interprets these components o f
Africana Studies, but it is rather because the Afrikan worldview has an interrelated and
interconnected relationship to these subject/content areas.
241
My reading of the work o f the Afrikan/Black psychologists has lead to the
conclusion that their usage o f the Two Cradle Theory substantiates the basis o f an
Afrikan worldview. However, as the underlying perspective which distinguishes
Africana Studies from other academic areas our interests should be in following the lead
o f the Afrikan/Black psychologists and the further substantiation o f worldview
differences, especially as they impact upon our interpretation and organization o f
knowledge across the varied dimensions o f Africana Studies. While the Afrikan/Black
psychologists have been the most prolific within this area, these arguments must move
into all subject/content areas.
NOTES
1 Philip T. K. Daniels, “Theory Building in Black Studies,” in The African Am erican Studies R eader, ed.
Nathanial Norment, (Durham: Carolina Academ ic Press, 2001), 372.
2 Karla Spurlock, “Toward the Evolution o f a Unitary Discipline: M aximizing the Interdisciplinary
Concept in African/Afro-American Studies,” in The African Am erican Studies Reader, edited by Nathaniel
Norment, Jr., (Durham: Carolina Academ ic Press, 2001), 647-652; William D. Smith, “Black Studies: A
Survey o f M odels and Curricula,” in The African Am erican Studies Reader, edited by Nathaniel Norment,
Jr., (Durham: Carolina Academ ic Press, 2001), 631-640; Little, et. al., “Black Studies and Africana Studies
Curriculum M odels in the United States,” in The African Am erican Studies R eader, edited by Nathaniel
Norment, Jr., (Durham: Carolina Academ ic Press, 2001), 691-712; Maulana Karenga, “Black Studies: A
Critical Reassessm ent,” in D ispatches fro m the Ebony Tower : Intellectuals Confront the African Am erican
Experience, edited by Manning Marable, (N ew York: Columbia University Press, 2000), 162-170.
3 Vivian Gordon, “The Coming A ge o f Black Studies,” in The African Am erican Studies Reader, edited by
Nathaniel Norment, Jr., (Durham: Carolina Academ ic Press, 2001), 212-220; Talmadge Anderson,
Introduction to African Am erican Studies. Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 1993; Abdul
Alkalamit & A ssociates, Introduction to Afro-Am erican Studies, http://eblackstudies.org/intro/; Maulana
Karenga, Introduction to Black Studies (Los Angeles: The University o f Sankore Press, 2002); Nathaniel
Norment, ed., The African Am erican Studies R eader (Durham: Carolina Academ ic Press, 2001).
4 Little, et. al. “Black Studies and Africana Studies Curriculum M odel in the United States”; Karenga,
“Black Studies: A Critical Reassessm ent”.
5 Anderson, Introduction to African Am erican Studies', Alkalamit & Associates, Introduction to Afro-
Am erican Studies', Maulana Karenga, Introduction to Black Studies', Norment, ed., The African Am erican
Studies Reader.
242
6 Karenga, “Black Studies and the Problematic o f Paradigm”; Arthur Lewin, “Towards a Grand Theory o f
Black Studies: An Attempt to Discern the Dynamics and the Direction o f the D iscipline,” Western Journal
o f Black Studies 25, no. 2 (2001), 75-81.
7 Norment, The African Am erican Studies Reader, Darlene Clark Hine, “Black Studies: An Overview,” in
The African Am erican Studies Reader, ed. Nathaniel Norment (Durham: Carolina Academ ic Press, 2001),
50-57; James B. Stewart, “Reaching for Higher Ground: Toward an Understanding o f Black/Afficana
Studies,” in The African Am erican Studies Reader, ed. Nathaniel Norment (Durham: Carolina Academ ic
Press, 2001), 349-367; Karenga, Introduction to Black Studies (Los Angeles: The University o f Sankore
Press, 2002).
8 Karenga, “Black Studies and the Problematic o f Paradigm”
9 Joseph Baldwin (aka Kobi K. K. Kambon), “African (Black) Psychology: Issues and Synthesis,” in
Black Psychology, ed. Reginald Jones (Berkeley: Cobb & Henry Publications, 1991), 125-135; Kobi
Kambon, The African P ersonality in Am erica: An African-C entered Fram ew ork (Tallahassee: Nubian
Nation Publications, 1992).
10 Kariamu W elsch-Asante, “The Aesthetic Conceptualization o f N zuri,” in The African Aesthetic:

K eepers o f the Traditions, ed. Kariamu W elsch-Asante (Westport: Praeger, 1993), 1-20.
11 Addison Gayle, The Black A esthetic (Garden City, NY: Doubleday Publishers, 1971).
12 C. Tsehloane Keto, “The Challenge o f the Africa-Centered Paradigm in the Construction o f African
Historical K now ledge,” in Out o f One, M any Africas, eds. W illiam G. Martin & M icheal O. West (Urbana:
University o f Illinois Press, 1990) 175-187; C. Tsehloane Keto, An Introduction to the African-C entered
P erspective o f H istory (Chicago: Research A ssociates, 1994).
13 Maulana Karenga, “Black Studies and the Problematic o f Paradigm,” 286.
14 Lewin, “Towards a Grand Theory o f Black Studies”.
15 Karenga, “Black Studies and the Problematic o f Paradigm”.
16 LeMelle, “The Status o f Black Studies in the Second Decade”.
17 Daniels, “Theory Building in Black Studies”.
18 Syed M. Khatib “Black Studies or the Study o f Black People?,” in Black Psychology, edited by Reginald
Jones, (N ew York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1980), 48-57.
19 Daudi Ajani Ya Azibo, “Articulating the Distinction Between Black Studies and the Study o f Blacks:
The Fundamental Role o f Culture and the African-Centered W orldview,” in The African Am erican Studies
Reader, ed. Nathaniel Norment, (Durham: Carolina Academ ic Press, 2001), 420-441
20 James B. Stewart, “The Legacy o f W. E. B. Du Bois for Contemporary Black Studies,” Journal o f N egro
Education 53, no. 3 (1984): 296-311.
21 Clovis Semmes, “The Sociological Tradition o f E. Franklin Frazier: Implications for Black Studies,”
Journal o f N egro Education 55, no.4 (1986), 484-494.
22 Pero Gaglo Dagbovie, “Making Black History Practical and Popular: Carter G. W oodson, the Proto
Black Studies M ovement, and the Struggle For Black Liberation,” Western Journal o f Black Studies 28, no.
2, (2003), 372-383.
243
23 Alford A. Young, and Donald R. Deskins, “Early Traditions o f African-American Sociological
Thought,” Annual Reviews o f Sociology 27 (2001), 445-477.
24 Patricia Hill-Collins, “Learning From the Outsider Within: The Sociological Significance o f Black
Feminist Thought,” S ocial P roblem s 33, no. 6 (1986), S14-S32.
25 See Princeton U niversity’s decision to change from a program to a center,

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/Sl 5/85/9 lC70/index.xml?section=topstories.
26 N oliw e Rooks, White M oney/Black Power: The Surprising H istory o f African Am erican Studies an d the
C risis o f R ace in H igher Education. Boston: Beacon Press, 2006; and Lewis R. Gordon & Jane Anna
Gordon, N ot O nly the M a ste r’s Tools: African Am erican Studies in Theory an d P ractice. Boulder:
Paradigm Publishers, 2006.
27 For instance, w e can take the role o f W .E.B. D uBois as the father o f m odem sociology. See Stewart,
28 Gordon & Gordon, N ot Only The M aster's Tools.
30 Subject areas refer to areas o f emphasis within Africana Studies, these include: Africana History,
Africana Philosophy, Africana Psychology, Africana Sociology, etc.
31 While it is unnecessary to define each o f the tw elve listed subject areas, the three used within the
application o f the multi-area theory w ill provide enough clarity and applicability for the undefined subject
areas.
32 Joyce Ladner, ed., The D eath o f White Sociology, (Baltimore: Black Classic Press, 1973); Abdul
Alkalimat (aka Gerald McWhorter) “The Ideology o f Black Social Science,” in The D eath o f White
Sociology, ed. Joyce A. Ladner, (Baltimore: Black Class Press, 1973), 173-189; Ronald Walters, “Toward
a Definition o f Black Social Science,” in The D eath o f White Sociology, ed. Joyce A. Ladner, (Baltimore:
Black Class Press, 1973), 190-213.
33 McWhorter and Bailey summarize similar arguments in regards to other traditional disciplines.
35 N ot to mention that Anderson leaves out any discussion o f religion, thus limiting his subject/content
areas down to six.
36 Cedric X. Clark, D. Phillip M cGee, Wade N obles, & Luther X. W eems (aka Naim Akbar), “V oodoo or
IQ: An Introduction to African Psychology,” The Journal o f Black P sychology 1, no. 2 (1975), 9-29.Naim
Akbar, “Africentric Social Science for Human Liberation,” Journal o f Black Studies 14, no. 4 (1984), 395-
414; Naim Akbar, “Our Destiny: Authors o f a Scientific Revolution,” in Black Children, eds. Harriet
M cAdoo and John M cA doo (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1985), 17-32. Wade N obles, “Toward an Empirical and
Theoretical Framework for Defining Black Fam ilies,” Journal o f M arriage an d the Fam ily 40, no. 4
(1978), 679-688. Kobi Kambon (aka Joseph Baldwin), The African P ersonality in Am erica: An African-
C entered Fram ew ork (Tallahassee: Nubian Nation Publications, 1992); Kobi Kambon, “The Africentric
Paradigm and African-American Psychological Liberation” in African P sychology in H istorical
P erspective an d R elated Commentary, ed. Daudi Ajani Ya Azibo, (Trenton: Africa World Press, 1996),
57-69; Kobi Kambon, African/Black P sychology in the Am erican Context: An A frican-C entered Approach,
o f W orldview Revisited,” in Black Psychology, ed. Reginald Jones (Berkeley: Cobb & Henry Publishers,
244
1991), 15-32; Linda Janies Myers, U nderstanding an Afrocentric World View: Introduction to an O ptim al
P sychology (Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 1993). Naim Akbar, “The Evolution o f Human
Psychology for African Americans,” in Black Psychology, ed. Reginald Jones (Berkeley: Cobb & Henry
Publishers, 1991), 99-123; Joyce Ladner, ed., The D eath o f White Sociology, (Baltimore: Black Classic
Press, 1973)
37 Philip T.K. Daniel, “Theory Building in Black Studies,” in The African Am erican Studies R eader, ed.
Nathanial Norment, (Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2001), 372-379.
38 N oliw e Rooks, White M oney/Black Power: The Surprising H istory o f African Am erican Studies an d the
C risis o f Race in H igher Education. Boston: Beacon Press, 2006.
39 See http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/Sl 5/85/9 lC70/index.xm l?section=topstories.
40 Vulindlela W obogo, “D iop ’s Two Cradle Theory and the Origin o f White Racism,” Black Books Bulletin
4 ,4 (1 9 7 6 ) , 2 0 -2 9 ,7 2 .
41 Iva Carruthers, “Africanity and the Black W oman,” Black Books Bulletin, Vol. 6, N o. 4 (1980), 14-20,
71; Iva Carruthers, “War on African Familyhood,” in Sturdy Black Bridges: Visions o f Black Women in
Literature, Roseann P. Bell, Bettye Parker & Beverly Guy-Sheftall, editors. Garden City: Anchor Books,
1979, pp. 8-17; Ifi Amadiume, Afrikan M atriarchal Foundations: The Igbo Case. (London: Kamak
House, 1987a); Ifi Amadiume, Reinventing Africa: M atriarchy, Religion & Culture, (London: Zed Books,
1997); Nah D ove, “Defining a Mother-Centered Matrix to Analyze the Status o f W om en,” Journal o f Black
Studies 33, 1 (2002), 3-24.
42 Ifi Amadiume, Reinventing Africa: M atriarchy, Religion & Culture', Jacob Carruthers. Essays in Ancient
Egyptian Studies. Los Angeles: University o f Sankore Press, 1984.
43 Carruthers. Essays in Ancient Egyptian Studies.
44 John Henrik Clarke, “Cheikh Anta Diop and the N ew Light o f African History,” in A Freedom ways
Reader, Ernest Kaiser, Editor. N ew York: International Publishers. 1977; John Henrik Clarke, “The Black
Woman in History: On The Cultural Unity o f Africa,” Black W orld 2 4 ,4 (1975), 12-26; Jacob Carruthers.
E ssays in Ancient Egyptian Studies. Los Angeles: University o f Sankore Press.
45 Kambon, The African P ersonality in Am erica: An A frican-C entered Fram ework {pp. 1-21). Tallahassee:
Nubian Nation Publications, 1992; Kambon, K. (2004). The W orldviews Paradigm: A s the Conceptual
Framework for African/Black Psychology. In R. Jones (Ed.), Black Psychology, (pp. 73-92). Hampton:
Cobb & Henry; Baldwin, J. A. & Hopkins, R. (1990). African-American and European-American cultural
differences as assessed by the W orldviews paradigm: An empirical analysis. The Western Journal o f
Black Studies, 14(1), pp. 38-52.
47 Daniel, “Theory Building in Black Studies”.
48 Cheikh Anta D iop, C ivilization or Barbarism : An Authentic Anthropology. N ew York: Lawrence-Hill,

1991.
49 Ibid., 225.
50 Please see my review o f Carruthers work in the previous chapters as they speak to his usage o f D iop’s
Two Cradle Theory in the context o f a comparative historical methodology.
245
51 All o f which are discussed in Carruthers, Intellectual Warfare', Carruthers, Essays in A ncient Egyptian
Studies', and Carruthers, M dw Ntr.
52 Carruthers, Intellectual Warfare, 42, my emphasis.
53 Ibid., 37-39.
54 W obogo, “D iop’s Two Cradle Theory”
55 Carruthers, “African Historiography in the 2 1 st Century,” 50-51.
56 Ibid., 51.
57 Carruthers, Essays, 16.
58 Carruthers, M dw Ntr, D ivine Speech: A H istoriographical Reflection o f African D eep Thought, From the
Time o f the Pharoahs until the Present. London: Kamak House, 1995.
59 Ifi Amadiume, Reinventing Africa: M atriarchy, Religion & Culture. London: Zed Books, 1997.
60 Ibid., 56.
61 Ibid., 52.
62 Marimba Ani, Yurugu: An A frican-C entered Critique o f European Cultural Thought an d Behavior.
Trenton: African World Press, 1994.
63 Carruthers, M dw Ntr, 100.
64 Ibid., 104.
65 Vernon J. Dixon, “African-oriented and Euro-American-oriented worldviews: Research m ethodologies

and econom ics,” R eview o f Black P olitical Economy, 7, no. 2 (1971b), 121.
66 Greg Kimathi Carr, “The African-Centered Philosophy o f History: An Exploratory Essay on the
Genealogy o f Foundationalist Historical Thought and African Nationalist Identity Construction.” In The
African W orld H istory P roject - The P relim inary Challenge, 285-320. (Los Angeles: ASCAC Foundation,
1997).
67 Kambon, The African P ersonality in Am erica: An A frican-C entered Framework. Tallahassee: Nubian
Nation Publications, 1992; Kobi Kambon, K. “The W orldviews Paradigm: A s the Conceptual Framework
for African/Black Psychology,” in R. Jones (Ed.), Black P sychology, 73-94, Hampton: Cobb & Henry,
2004; Baldwin, J. A. & Hopkins, R. (1990). African-American and European-American cultural
differences as assessed by the W orldviews paradigm: An empirical analysis. The Western Journal o f
Black Studies, 14, no. 1, 38-52.
68 Kambon, “The W orldviews Paradigm,” 80.
69 Ibid, 76.
70 Ibid.
71 Ibid.
246
72 Kobi K. K. Kambon, Cultural M isorientation (Tallahassee: Nubian Nation Publications, 2003); Kobi K.
K. Kambon, “The Cultural Misorientation Construct and the Cultural Misorientation Scale: An Africentric
Measure o f European Cultural M isidentification among Africans in America,” in Afrocentric Traditions,
ed. James L. Conyers (N ew Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2005), 15-34; Daudi Ajani Ya Azibo,
“African-Centered Theses on Mental Health and a N osology o f Black/African Personality Disorder,” The
Journal o f Black P sychology 15, no. 2 (1989), 173-214.
73 Carruthers, Essays, 17.
247
Bibliography
Abraham, Willie. The M ind o f African. Chicago: The University o f Chicago Press,
1962.
Adams, Barbara. John Henrik Clarke: Master Teacher. Brooklyn: A & B Books, 1992.
Adams, Russell L. “Black Studies Perspectives.” Journal o f Negro Education 46, no. 2
(1977): 99-117.
. “Epistemological Considerations in Afro-American Studies.” In Out o f the

Revolution: The Development o f Africana Studies, edited by Delores Aldridge and
Carlene Young, 39-57. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2000.
. “Intellectual Questions and Imperatives in the Development o f Afro-American

Studies.” In The African American Studies Reader, edited by Nathaniel Norment, 303-
320. Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2001.
. “African American Studies and the State o f the Art.” In The African American
Studies Reader, edited by Nathaniel Norment, 103-123. Durham: Carolina Academic
Press, 2001.
Akbar, Naim. “Africentric Social Science for Human Liberation.” Journal o f Black
Studies 14, no. 4 (1984): 395-414.
. “Our Destiny: Authors o f a Scientific Revolution.” In Black Children, edited by

Harriet McAdoo and John McAdoo, 17-32. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1985.
. “The Evolution o f Human Psychology for African Americans.” In Black

Psychology, edited by Reginald Jones, 99-123. Berkeley: Cobb & Henry Publishers,
1991.
Akoto, Kwame Agyei. Nationbuilding: Theory and Practice in Afrikan Centered

Education. Washington, D.C.: Pan Afrikan World Institute, 1992.
Alcoff, Linda Martin. “A Philosophical Account o f Africana Studies: An Interview with

Lewis Gordon.” Nepantla: Views from South 4, no. 1 (2003): 165-189.
Aldridge, Delores. “The Kitchen’s Filled - But Who Are the Cooks?: What It Takes to
Teach Black Studies.” Phylon, 49, nos. 1/2 (1992): 61-70.
. “Womanist Issues in Black Studies: Towards Integrating Africana Womanism

into Africana Studies.” In The African American Studies Reader, edited by Nathaniel
Norment, 183-187. Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2001.
262
Alkalimat, Abdul (aka Gerald McWhorter). “The Ideology o f Black Social Science.” In
The Death o f White Sociology, edited by Joyce A. Ladner, 173-189. Baltimore: Black
Class Press, 1973.
. “Black Marxism in the White Academy: The Contours and Contradictions o f an

Emerging School o f Black Thought.” in Paradigms in Black Studies: Intellectual
History, Cultural Meaning and Political Ideology, edited by Abdul Alkalimat, 205-222.
Chicago: Twenty First Century Books and Publications, 1990.
Alkalimit, Abdul & Associates. Introduction to Afro-American Studies,

http ://eblackstudies.org/intro/.
Alkebulan, Adisa. “Defending the Paradigm.” Journal o f Black Studies 37, no. 3 (2007):
410-427.
Allen, Robert. Black Awakening in Capitalist America. Trenton: Africa World Press,
1990.
. “Politics o f the Attack on Black Studies.” In The African American Studies

Reader, edited by Nathaniel Norment, 491-496. Durham: Carolina Academic Press,
2001 .
Amadiume, Ifi. African Matriarchal Foundations: The Igbo Case. London: Kamak
House, 1987a.
. Male Daughters, Female Husbands: Gender and Sex in an African Society.

London: Zed Books, 1987b.
. Reinventing Africa: Matriarchy, Religion & Culture. London: Zed Books,

1997.
Amin, Samir. Eurocentrism. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1989.
Ampim, Manu. “The Problem o f the Bemal-Davidson School.” In Egypt: Child o f

Africa, edited by Ivan Van Sertima, 191-204. New Brunswick: Transaction Publications,
1994.
Ani, Marimba. Let the Circle be Unbroken: The Implications o f African Spirituality in
the Diaspora. New York: Nkonimfo Publications, 1980.
. Yurugu: An African-Centered Critique o f European Cultural Thought and

Behavior. Trenton: Africa World Press, 1994.
. “Writing as a Means o f Enabling Afrikan Self-Determination.” In Defining

Ourselves: Black Writers in the 90s, edited by Elizabeth Nunez & Brenda M. Greene,
209-211. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 1999.
263
Anderson, Talmadge. “Black Studies: Overview and Theoretical Perspectives.” In The
African American Studies Reader, edited by Nathaniel Norment, 380-390. Durham:
Carolina Academic Press, 2001.
. Introduction to African American Studies. Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt Publishing

Company, 1993.
Aristotle. Politics. Grinnell, Iowa: The Peripatetic Press, 1986.
Armah, Ayi Kwei. Two Thousand Seasons. Chicago: Third World Press, 1984.
. KMT: In the House o f Life. Popenguine: PER ANKH, 2002.
Asante, Molefi Kete. Afrocentricity: The Theory o f Social Change. Trenton: African
World Press, 1988. (Republished 2003).
. Kemet, Afrocentricity and Knowledge. Trenton: Africa World Press, 1990.
. “Afrocentric Concepts in African Historiography: A Review Essay.” Research

in African Literatures 23, no. 2 (1992): 192-195.
. Malcolm X as Cultural Hero & Other Afrocentric Essays. Trenton: Africa

World Press, 1993.
. “Locating a Text: Implications o f Afrocentric Theory.” In Language and

Literature in the African American Imagination, edited by Carol Blackshire-Belay, 9-20.
Westport: Greenwood Press, 1992.
. The Afrocentric Idea. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1998.
. The Painful Demise o f Eurocentrism. Trenton: Africa World Press, 1999.
. “The Afrocentric Metatheory and Disciplinary Implications.” In The African

American Studies Reader, edited by Nathaniel Norment, 408-419. Durham: Carolina
Academic Press, 2001.
. & Mambo Ama Mazama, Encylopedia o f Black Studies. New York: Sage
Publications, 2004.
. & Maulana Karenga, Handbook o f Black Studies. New York: Sage Publications,
2005.
. “Afrocentricity: Notes on a Disciplinary Position.” In Afrocentric Traditions,

edited by James L. Conyers, Jr., 1-14. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2005.
264
Azibo, Daudi Ajani Ya. “African-Centered Theses on Mental Health and a Nosology o f
Black/African Personality Disorder.” The Journal o f Black Psychology 15, no. 2 (1989):
173-214.
. “Personality, Clinical and Social Psychological Research on Blacks: Appropriate

and Inappropriate Research Frameworks.” In African Psychology in Historical
Perspective and Related Commentary, edited by Daudi Ajani Ya Azibo, 203-234.
Trenton: Africa World Press, 1996.
. “Africentric Conceptualizing as the Pathway to African Liberation.”

International Journal o f Africana Studies 5, (1999): 1-31.
. “Articulating the Distinction Between Black Studies and the Study o f Blacks:
The Fundamental Role o f Culture and the African-Centered Worldview.” In The African
American Studies Reader, edited by Nathaniel Norment, 420-441. Durham: Carolina
. “Some Reflections on My Interactions with the Late Dr. W. Curtis Banks.”

Journal o f African American Men 6, no. 4 (2002): 61-81.
Azibo, Daudi Ajani Ya and Dixon, Patricia. “The Theoretical Relationship Between
Materialistic Depression and Depression: Preliminary Data and Implications for the
Azibo Nosology.” Journal o f Black Psychology 24, no. 4 (1998): 211-225.
Baldwin, Joseph (aka Kambon, Kobi K. K.). “African (Black) Psychology: Issues and
Synthesis.” In Black Psychology, edited by Reginald Jones, 125-135. Berkeley: Cobb &
Henry Publications, 1991.
. “Black Psychology and Black Personality.” Black Books Bulletin 4, no. 3 (1976):
6-11,65.
Bankole, Katherine Olukemi. “A Preliminary Report and Commentary on the Structure

o f Graduate Afrocentric Research and Implications for the Advancement o f the
Discipline o f Africalogy, 1980-2004.” Journal o f Black Studies 36, no. 5, (2006): 663-
697.
Banks, William Curtis. “The Theoretical and Methodological Crisis o f the Africentric
Conception.” Journal o f Negro Education 61, no. 3, (1992): 262-272.
Beale, Francis. “Double Jeopardy: To Be Black and Female.” In The Black Woman: An
Anthology, edited by Toni Cade, 90-100. New York: The New American Library, Inc.,
1970.
Beauchamp, George. Curriculum Theory. Wilmette: The Kagg Press, 1968.
Black, H., Braithwaite, H. and Kevin, T. First A id fo r the Mind. Atlanta: Authors.
265
Blassingame, John. The Slave Community: Plantation Life in the Antebellum South.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1972.
Blackshire-Belay, Carol. Language and Literature in the African American Lmagination.

Westport: Greenwood Press, 1992.
Blake, Cecil A. “Critical Issues in Black Studies: Edward Blyden’s Rhetoric on Black
Education.” Western Journal o f Black Studies 2, no. 2 (1978): 157-160.
Blyden, Edward Wilmot. African Life & Customs. Baltimore: Black Classic Press,
1994.
Bradley, Michael. The Iceman Inheritance: Prehistoric Sources o f Western M a n ’s

Racism, Sexism and Aggression. New York: Kayode Publications, 1978. (Republished
1998).
Boutain, Doris M. “Critical Nursing Scholarship: Exploring Critical Social Theory with
African American Studies.” Advances in Nursing Science 21, no. 4, (1999): 37-47.
Boyd, Herb. “The Legacy of a Genius: Cheikh Anta Diop, Part 1.” New York
Amsterdam News, October 2, 2003,2.
. “The Legacy o f a Genius: Cheikh Anta Diop, Part 2.” New York Amsterdam
News, October 9, 2003, 2.
Boynton, Robert. “Out o f Africa, and Back.” The New York Times, April 15, 2002, 34,
36.
Brodbeck, May. “Models, Meaning and Theories.” In Symposium on Sociological

Theory edited by Llewllyn Gross, 373-403. Evanston: Row, Peterson and Company,
1959.
Bynum, Edward Bruce. The African Unconscious: Roots o f Ancient Mysticism and
Modern Psychology. New York: Teachers College Press, 1999.
Campbell, N. “The Structure o f Theories.” In Readings in the Philosophy o f Science,

edited by Herbert Feigl and May Brodbeck, 288-308. New York: Appleton-Century-
Crofts, Inc., 1953.
Carr, Greg Kimathi. “The African-Centered Philosophy o f History: An Exploratory

Essay on the Genealogy o f Foundationalist Historical Thought and African Nationalist
Identity Construction. In The African World History Project - The Preliminary
Challenge. 285-320. ASCAC Foundation: Los Angeles, 1997.
266
. African Philosophy o f History in the Contemporary Era: Its Antecedents and
Methodological Implications for the African Contribution to World History. PhD diss.,
Temple University, 1998.
Carroll, Karanja Keita. “Nile Valley Civilizations, Kemit and Black Studies: Elucidating
the Foundation and Disciplinary Basis o f Black Studies via Ancient Kemetian Culture.”
Paper present at: The State o f Black Studies; Methodology, Pedagogy & Research,
Schomburg for Research in Black Culture, Princeton University & CUNY, New York,
NY. 2003. Available at: http://eblackstudies.org/may2005/.
Carruthers, Iva. “Africanity and the Black Woman.” Black Books Bulletin 6, no. 4
(1980): 15-20,71.
. “War on African Familyhood.” In Sturdy Black Bridges: Visions o f Black

Women in Literature, edited by Roseann P. Bell, Bettye Parker & Beverly Guy-Sheftall,
8-17. Garden City: Anchor Books, 1979.
Carruthers, Jacob H. Review o f The African Origin o f Civilization, by Cheikh Anta Diop,
Black Books Bulletin 3, no. 2 (1975): 63-65.
. Review o f The Cultural Unity o f Black Africa, by Cheikh Anta Diop, Black
Books Bulletin 5, no. 4 (1977): 46-48.
. Essays in Ancient Egyptian Studies. Los Angeles, University o f Sankore Press,

1984.
_ . “Science and Oppression,” in African Psychology in Historical Perspective and

Related Commentary, edited by Daudi Ajani Ya Azibo, 185-192. Trenton: Africa World
Press, 1996.
. Mdw Ntr, Divine Speech: A Historiographical Reflection o f African Deep

Thought From the Time o f The Pharaoh to the Present. London: Kamak House, 1995.
. Intellectual Warfare. Chicago: Third World Press, 1999.
. (Ed.) African World History Project: The Preliminary Challenge. Los Angeles:
ASCAC Foundation, 1997.
. “An African Historiography for the 21st Century,” in African World History
Project: The Preliminary Challenge, edited by Jacob H. Carruthers, 47-72. Los
Angeles: ASCAC Foundation, 1997.
Chandler, Wayne B. Ancient Future: The Teachings and Prophetic Wisdom o f the Seven
Hermetic Laws o f Ancient Egypt. Baltimore: Black Classic Press, 1999.
267
Childe, V. Gordon. Man Makes Himself. New York: The New American Library of
World Literature, Inc., 1951.
. The Prehistory o f European Society. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1958.
Childers, Joseph & Hentz, Gary. The Columbia Dictionary o f Modern Literary and
Cultural Criticism. New York: Columbia University Press, 1995.
Chinweizu. West and the Rest o f Us: White Predators, Black Slavers and the African
Elite. New York: Random House, 1974.
Clark, Cedric X., et. al. “Voodoo or IQ: An Introduction to African Psychology.”
Journal o f Black Psychology 1, no 2 (1975): 9-29.
Clarke, John Henrik. “The Search for Timbuctoo.” The Journal o f Negro Education 33,
no. 2(1964): 125-130.
. “The Black Woman in History: On the Cultural Unity o f Africa.” Black World
24, no. 4 (1975): 12-26.
. “Cheikh Anta Diop and the New Light o f African History.” In A Freedomways
Reader, edited by Ernest Kaiser, 113-121. New York: International Publishers, 1977.
. “The University o f Sankore at Timbuctoo: A Neglected Achievement in Black

Intellectual History.” Western Journal o f Black Studies 1, no. 2 (1977): 142-146.
. “Africana Studies: A Decade o f Change, Challenge and Conflict.” In The Next

Decade: Theoretical and Research Issues in Africana Studies, edited by James E.
Turner, 31-45. Ithaca: Africana Research and Research Center, 1984.
. “The Influence o f Arthur A. Schomburg on My Concept o f Africana Studies.”

Phylon, 49, nos. 1/2 (1992): 4-9.
. “The Cultural Unity o f Negro A frica...: A Reappraisal, Cheikh Anta Diop

Opens Another Door to African History.” Presence Africaine.
. “Why Africana History?” Retrieved September 19, 2005 from

http://www.africawithin.com/clarke/why_africana_history.htm (1987).
Colon. Alan. “Black Studies: Historical Background, Modem Origins and Development
Priorities for the Early Twenty First Century.” Western Journal o f Black Studies 27, no.
3 (2003): 145-156.
Collins, Patricia Hill. “Learning from the Outsider Within: The Sociological
Significance o f Black Feminist Thought.” Social Problems 33, no. 6, (1986): S14-S32.
268
. “The Social Construction o f Black Feminist Thought.” Signs: Journal o f
Women in Culture and Society 14, no. 4 (1989): 745-773.
. Fighting Words: Black Women & the Search fo r Justice. Minnesota:

University o f Minnesota Press, 1998.
Conyers, James L. The Evolution o f African American Studies. Lanham: University

Press o f America, 1995.
. The Problem o f the Twenty-First Century: Black Studies Locating a Niche in the
Public Sphere o f Higher Education. Western Journal o f Black Studies 21, no. 2 (1997):
117-123.
. The Evolution o f Africology: An Afrocentric Appraisal. Journal o f Black

Studies 34, no. 5 (2004): 640-652.
Crawford, Jeffrey. “Cheikh Anta Diop, the ‘Stolen Legacy’, and Afrocentrism.” In
African Philosophy: Selected Readings, edited by Alfred G. Mosley, 128-146.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc, 1995.
Cress Welsing, Frances. The Isis Papers: The Keys to the Colors. Chicago: Third
World Press, 1991.
Crouchett, Lawrence. “Early Black Studies Movements.” In The African American

Studies Reader, edited by Nathaniel Norment, Jr., 192-198. Durham: Caronlina
Cruse, Harold. Rebellion or Revolution. New York: William Morrow & Company, Inc.,
1968.
. “The Integrationist Ethic as a Basis for Scholarly Endeavors,” in Black Studies in

the University, edited by Armstead L. Robinson, Craig C. Foster & Donald H. Ogilvie, 4-
12. New York: Bantam Books, 1969.
. The Crisis o f the Negro Intellectual: A Historical Analysis o f the Failure o f

Black Leadership. New York: William Morrow & Company, Inc., 1984.
da Costa, Newton and French, Steven. “Models, Theories and Structures: Thirty Years
On.” Philosophy o f Science 67 (2000): S116-S127.
Dabney, Thomas L. “The Study o f the Negro.” Journal o f Negro History 19, no. 3
(1934): 266-307.
Dagbovie, Pero Gaglo. “Making Black History Practical and Popular: Carter G.
Woodson, the Proto Black Studies Movement, and the Struggle For Black Liberation.”
Western Journal o f Black Studies 28, no. 2 (2003): 372-383.
269
Dalizu, Egambi F. K. “Black Studies: Reflections on New Colonial Situation in the
University.” Black Academic Review 3, nos. 1/2 (1972): 107-116.
Daniels, Philip T.K. “Black Studies: Field or Discipline” in The African American
Press, 2001.
. “Theory Building in Black Studies.” in The African American Studies Reader,

edited by Nathanial Norment, 372-379. Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2001.
Davis, Angela. “Black Women and the Academy.” Callaloo 17, no. 2(1994): 422-431.
Dawson, Michael. Black Visions: The Roots o f Contemporary African-American

Political Ideologies. Chicago: The University o f Chicago Press, 2001.
deGraft-Johnson, John. African Glory: The Story o f Vanished Negro Civilizations. New
York: Walker, 1954.
. African Traditional Education. Presence Africaine, 8,9,10 (1956): 51-55.
Diop, Babacar. African civilizations between the winds o f East and West. Diogenes 46,
no. 4(1998): 19-28.
Diop, Cheikh Anta. The African Origin o f Civilization: Myth or Reality. Chicago:
Lawrence Hill Books, 1974.
. Interview in Black Books Bulletin. Black Books Bulletin 4, no. 4(1976): 30-37.
. A methodology for the study o f migrations. In African Ethnonyms and

Toponyms, edited by UNESCO, 86-109. Paris: UNESCO, 1984.
. A critical analysis o f the criteria or parameters to define African cultural areas.

In Distinctive characteristics and common features o f African cultural areas south o f the
Sahara, edited by U N E SC O ,. Paris: UNESCO 1985.
. Black Africa: The Economic and Cultural Basis fo r a Federated State. Chicago:
Lawrence Hill Books, 1987a.
. Precolonial Black Africa. New York: Lawrence Hill Books, 1987b.
. The Cultural Unity o f Black Africa: The Domains o f Matriarchy & Patriarchy in
Classical Antiquity. London: Kamak House, 1989.
. Civilization or Barbarism: An Authentic Anthropology. New York: Lawrence

Hill Books, 1991.
270
. Towards the African Renaissance: Essays in African Culture and Development,
1946-1960. London: Kamak House, 1996.
Dixon, Vemon. J. & Lewis, M. R. Black consciousness, societal values, and educational
institutions: a statement o f linkages. Journal o f Conflict Resolution 12, no. 3 (1968):
402-407.
Dixon, Vemon J. “The di-unital approach to ‘Black economics’.” The American

Economic Review 60, no. 2 (1970): 424-429.
. “Two approaches to Black-White relations.” In Beyond Black or White; An

Alternative America, edited by Vemon J. Dixon & Babi G. Foster, 23-66. Boston: Little,
Brown, 1971a.
. “African-Oriented and Euro-American-Oriented Worldviews: Research

Methodologies and Economics.” Review o f Black Political Economy 1, no. 2 (1971b):
119-156.
. “Worldviews and research methodology.” In African Philosophy: Assumption

and Paradigms fo r Research on Black Persons, edited by Lewis King, 51-102. Los
Angeles: Fanon R & D Center, 1976.
. “Some Thoughts on Teaching Predominantly Affective-Oriented Groups.” In

Introducing Race and Gender Into Economics, edited by Robin Bartlett, 177-189. New
York: Routledge, 1997.
Donadoni, Sergia. The Egyptians, (Chicago: The University o f Chicago Press, 1997).
Dove, Nah. “An African-Centered Critique o f Marx’s Logic.” Western Journal o f Black
Studies 19 no. 4, (1995): 260-271.
. “African Womanism: An Afrocentric Theory.” Journal o f Black Studies 28, no.

5 (1998): 515-539.
. “Defining a Mother-Centered Matrix to Analyze the Status o f Women.” Journal

o f Black Studies 33, no. 1 (2002): 3-24.
Easton, Hosea. “A Treatise on the Intellectual Character, and Civil and Political
Condition o f the Colored People in the United States.” In Negro Protest Pamphlets,
edited by Dorothy Porter. New York: Amo Press, 1969.
Eller, Cynthia. The Myth o f Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an Invented Past W on’t Give
Women a Future. New York: Beacon, 2000.
271
Engels, Frederick. The Origin o f the Family, Private Property, and the State. New York:
International Publishers, 1970.
Finch, Charles. Echoes o f the Old Darkland: Themes from the African Eden. Decatur:
Khenti, Inc., 1991.
. “Meeting the Pharoah.” In Great African Thinkers: Cheikh Anta Diop, edited by
Ivan Van Sertima and Larry Obadele Williams, 28-34. New Brunswick: Transaction
Publishers, 1986.
Forsythe, Dennis. “Radical Sociology and Blacks.” In The Death o f White Sociology,
edited by Joyce A. Ladner, 213-233. Baltimore: Black Class Press, 1973.
Frazier, E. Franklin. “The Failure o f Negro Intellectuals.” In The Death o f White

Sociology, edited by Joyce A. Ladner, 52-66. Baltimore: Black Class Press, 1973.
Gayle, Addison. The Black Aesthetic. Doubleday Publishers: Garden City, NY, 1971.
Ghalioungui, Paul. Magic and Medical Science in Ancient Egypt. Hodder and
Stoughton: London, 1963.
Gilderhus, Mark. History and Historians: A Historiographical Introduction. Upper

Saddle River: Pearson Education, 2000.
Glazer, Jack D. & Grover, Robert. A Multidisciplinary Framework for Theory Building.
Library Trends 50, no. 3 (2002): 317-319.
Gordon, Lewis. Existence in Black: An Anthology o f Black Existential Philosophy. New

York: Routledge, 1996.
. “Africana Thought and African Diaspora Studies.” Black Scholar 30, nos. 3/4
(2000): 25-30.
. Africana Existensia: Understanding Africana Existential Thought. New York:

Routledge, 2000.
. Not Only the M aster’s Tools: African-American Studies in Theory and Practice.
Boulder: Paradigm Publishers, 2006.
Gordon, Vivian. “The Coming Age o f Black Studies.” In The African American Studies
Reader, edited by Nathaniel Norment, Jr., 212-220. Durham: Carolina Academic Press,
2001.
Gray, Chris. Conceptions o f History: Cheikh Anta Diop and Theophile Obenga.
London: Kamak House, 1989.
272
Gross, Llewllyn. “Theory Construction in Sociology; a Methodological Inquiry.” In
Symposium on Sociological Theory, edited by Llewllyn Gross, 531-564. Evanston: Row,
Peterson and Company, 1959.
Guy-Sheftall, Beverly. Black Women/Black Studies. Phylon 43, no. 3, (1982): 280-281.
. Words o f Fire: An Anthology ofAfrican-American Feminist Thought. New York:

New Press, 1995.
. “Shifting Contexts: Lessons from Integrating Black, Gender and African

Diaspora Studies,” Women’s Studies Quarterly, nos. 3&4, (1998): 17-24.
Gyekye, Kwame. African Philosophical Thought: The Akan Conceptual Scheme.

Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1995.
. African Cultural Values: An Introduction. Philadelphia: Sankofa Publishing

Company, 1996.
Hall, Perry. “Systematic and Thematic Principles for Black Studies,” The Journal o f
Negro Education 50, no. 3 (1984): 351-358.
. “Introducing African American Studies: Systematic and Thematic Principles,”

Journal o f Black Studies 26, no. 6 (1996): 713-734.
. In the Vineyard: Working in African American Studies. Knoxville: The

University o f Tennessee Press, 2000.
. “Paradigms in Black Studies.” In Out o f the Revolution: The Development o f

Africana Studies, edited by Delores Aldridge and Carlene Young, 25-37. Lanham:
Lexington Books, 2000.
Hare, Nathan. “The Challenge o f a Black Scholar.” In The Death o f White Sociology,
edited by Joyce A. Ladner, 67-78. Baltimore: Black Class Press, 1973.
. “Questions and Answers about Black Studies.” In The African American Studies
Reader, edited by Nathaniel Norment, 13-21. Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2001.
Hawkes, Jacquetta. History o f Mankind: Cultural and Scientific Development Volume

One, Part One, Prehistory. New York: Mentor Books, 1965.
Hayes, Floyd. “Taking Stock: African American Studies at the Edge o f the 21st Century.”
The Western Journal o f Black Studies 18, no. 3, (1994): 153-163.
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Frederich. The Philosophy o f History. New York: Dover
Publications, Inc., 1956.
273
. Reason in History. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1979.
Hempel, Carl. “The Function o f General Laws in History.” The Journal o f Philosophy
39, no. 2 (1942): 35-48.
Henderson, Errol Anthony. Afrocetrism and World Politics: Towards a New Paradigm.
Westport: Praeger, 1995.
Henry, Paget. C aliban’s Reason: Introduction Afro-Caribbean Philosophy. New York:

Routledge, 2000.
Hilliard, Asa G. “Pedagogy in Ancient Kemet.” In Kemet and the African Worldview:
Research, Rescue and Restoration, edited by Maulana Karenga and Jacob Carruthers,
131-50. Los Angeles: University o f Sankore Press, 1986.
Hine, Darlene Clarke “The Black Studies Movement: Afrocentric-Traditionalist-

Feminist Paradigms for the Next Stage.” In The African American Studies Reader, edited
by Nathaniel Norment, 239-247. Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2001.
hooks, bell. Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center. Boston: South End Press, 1984.
Hudson-Weems, Clenora. Africana Womanism: Reclaiming Ourselves. Troy: Bedford

Publishers, 1995.
Irele, Abiola. “Contemporary Thought in French Speaking Africa” Africa and the West:
The Legacies o f Empires, ed. Isaac James Mowoe and Richard Bjomson, 120-144. New
York: Greenwood Press.
Jackson, John. Introduction to Black Civilizations. Secaucus: Citadel, 1970.
Jennings, Regina. “Cheikh Anta Diop, Malcom X and Haki Madhubuti: Claiming and
Containing Continuity in Black Language and Institutions.” Journal o f Black Studies 33,
no. 2 (2002): 126-144.
Jones, Mack H. “Scientific Method, Value Judgements, and the Black Predicament in the
U.S.” The Review o f Black Political Economy, 1 (1976): 7-21.
. “Political Science and the Black Political Experience: Issues in Epistemology

and Relevance.” Ethnic Politics and Civil Liberties (1992): 25-39.
Joseph, Gloria. “Black Feminist Pedagogy and Schooling in White Capitalism America.”
In Words o f Fire: An Anthology o f African American Feminist Thought, edited by
Beverly Guy-Sheftall, 462-472. New York: New Press, 1995.
Kambon, Kobi K. K. The African Personality in America: An African-Centered

Framework. Tallahassee: Nubian Nation Publications, 1992.
274
. “The Africentric Paradigm and African-American Psychological Liberation.” In
African Psychology in Historical Perspective and Related Commentary, edited by Daudi
Ajani Ya Azibo, 57-69. Trenton: Africa World Press, 1996.
. African/Black Psychology in the American Context: An African-Centered

Approach. Tallahassee: Nubian Nation Publications, 1998.
. Cultural Misorientation. Tallahassee: Nubian Nation Publications, 2003.
. “The Cultural Misorientation Construct and the Cultural Misorientation Scale:

An Africentric Measure o f European Cultural Misidentification among Africans in
America.” In Afrocentric Traditions, edited by James L. Conyers, 15-34. New
Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2005.
Kamalu, Chukwunyere. Foundations o f African Thought: A Worldview Grounded in the

African Heritage o f Religion, Philosophy, Science & Art. London: Kamak House, 1990.
. Person, Divinity & Nature: A Modern View o f the Person & The Cosmos in
African Thought. London: Kamak House, 1998.
Kamugisha, Aaron. “Finally in Africa? Egypt, from Diop to Celenko.” Race & Class 45,
no. 1 (2003), 31-60.
Karenga, Maulana. Introduction to Black Studies. Los Angeles: Kawaida Publications,

1982.
. Introduction to Black Studies. Los Angeles: The University o f Sankore Press,

1993. (Updated, 2002).
. “Black Studies: A Critical Reassessment.” In Dispatches from the Ebony

Tower: Intellectuals Confront the African American Experience, edited by Manning
Marable, 162-170. New York: Columbia University Press, 2000.
. “Black Studies and the Problematic o f Paradigm: The Philosophical Dimension.”

In The African American Studies Reader, edited by Nathaniel Norment, 282-294.
Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2001.
Keita, Lancinay. “Two Philosophies o f African History: Hegel and Diop.” Presence
Africaine 91, (1974): 41-49.
. “The African Philosophical Tradition.” In African Philosophy: An Introduction,

edited by Richard Wright, 57-76. Lanham: University Press o f America, 1984.
Keita, Maghan. Race and the Writing o f History: Riddling the Sphinx. New York:
Oxford University Press, 2000.
275
Kemp, Barry J. Ancient Egypt. Routledge: New York, 1989.
Kershaw, Terry. “Afrocentrism and the Afrocentric Method.” The Western Journal o f
BlackStudies 16, no. 3, (1992a): 160-168.
. “Toward a Black Studies Paradigm: An Assessment and Some Directions.”

Journal o f Black Studies 22, no. 4, (1992b): 477-493.
. “The Black Studies Paradigm: The Making o f Scholar Activists.” In

Afrocentricity and the Academy: Essays on Theory and Practice, edited by James L.
Conyers, 27-36. Jefferson: McFarland & Company, Inc., 2003.
Keto, C. Tsehloane. “The Challenge o f the Africa-Centered Paradigm in the

Construction o f African Historical Knowledge.” In Out o f One, Many Africas, edited by
William G. Martin & Micheal O. West, 175-187. Urbana: University o f Illinois Press,
1990.
. An Introduction to the African-Centered Perspective o f History. Chicago:

Research Associates, 1994.
Khatib, Syed Malik (Clark, Cedric). “Black Studies or the Study o f Black People?” In
Black Psychology, edited by Reginald Jones, 48-56. New York: Harper & Row,
Publishers, 1980.
Khaldun, Ibn. The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History. Princeton: Princeton

University Press, 1989.
King, George D. “Black Studies: An Idea in Crisis.” Western Journal o f Black Studies 6,
no. 4 (1982): 241-245.
Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure o f Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University o f Chicago

Press, 1971.
Lachman, R. “The Model in Theory Construction.” In Theories in Contemporary

Psychology, edited by Melvin Marx, 78-88. London: The Macmillan Company, 1963.
Ladner, Joyce. The Death o f White Sociology: Essays in Race and Culture. Baltimore:
Black Classic Press, 1973.
Ladyman, James. Understanding Philosophy o f Science. London: Routledge, 2002.
Larson, D. Major Themes in Sociological Theory. New York: David McKay Company,
Inc., 1973.
276
Lee, Chanel. “Black to the future: Where does African American Studies go from here?”
August 2, 2005. Retrieved August 15, 2005 from
http://www.villagevoice.com/arts/0531 ,educ ation2,66453,12.html.
Lemelle, Sidney J. “The politics o f culture existence: Pan-Africanism, historical

materialism and Afrocentricity.” Race & Class 35, no. 1 (1993): 93-112.
LeMelle, Tilden. “The Status o f Black Studies in the Second Decade: The Ideological
Imperative.” In The African American Studies Reader, edited by Nathaniel Norment,
327-336. Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2001.
Lewin, Arthur. Towards a Grand Theory o f Black Studies: An Attempt to Discern the
Dynamics and the Direction o f the Discipline. Western Journal o f Black Studies 25, no. 2
(2001): 75-81.
Little, William, et. al. “Black Studies and Africana Studies Curriculum Models in the
United States.” In The African American Studies Reader, edited by Nathaniel Norment,
Jr., 691-712. Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2001.
Logan, Rayford. The Betrayal o f the Negro, fro m Rutherford B. Hayes to Woodrow
Wilson. New York: Collier, 1965.
Marable, Manning. Dispatches from the Ebony Tower: Intellectuals Confront the
African American Experience. New York: Columbia University Press, 2000.
. “Introduction.” In Dispatches from the Ebony Tower: Intellectuals Confront the

African American Experience, edited by Manning Marable, 1-28. New York: Columbia
Marx, Melvin. “The General Nature o f Theory Construction.” In Theories in

Contemporary Psychology, edited by Melvin Marx, 4-46. London: The Macmillan
Company, 1963.
Marx, Melvin H. and Hillix, William. Systems and Theories in Psychology. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1963.
Mazama, Ama. The Afrocentric Paradigm. Trenton: Africa World Press, 2002.
Mazrui, Ali. “The Re-invention o f Africa: Edward Said, V. Y. Mudimbe, and Beyond.”
Research in African Literatures 36, no. 3 (2005): 68-82.
McNeill, William H. “History and the Scientific Worldview.” History and Theory 37,
no. 1 (1998): 1-13.
277
McWhorter, Gerald and Bailey, Ronald. “Black Studies Curriculum Development in the
1980s: Its Patterns and History.” In The African American Studies Reader, edited by
Nathaniel Norment, 614-630. Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2001.
Mezu, S. Okechukwu. “Towards a Progressive Pan-Africana Studies and Research

Program.” Black Academic Review 1, no. 2 (1970): 74-80.
Moktar, Gamal. General History o f Africa: Ancient African Civilizations (Abridged

Edition). Berkeley: University o f California Press, 1999.
Monteiro, Anthony. “A Short History o f Propaganda.”
. Analytical Marxism: A Study o f Theory Formation in an Era o f Turbulence.

PhD Dissertation, Temple University, 1995.
Montesquieu. The Spirit o f Laws. Berkley: University o f California Press, 1977.
Moore, Carlos. “Interviews with Cheikh Anta Diop.” In Great African Thinkers: Cheikh
Anta Diop, edited by Ivan Van Sertima, 249-283. New Brunswick: Transaction Books,
1986.
Morley, Neville. Theories, Models and Concepts in Ancient History. London:

Routledge, 2004.
Moses, Wilson Jeremiah. Afrotopia: The Roots o f African American Popular History.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Mudimbe, Valentin Y. The Invention o f Africa: Gnosis, Philosophy, and the Order o f
Knowledge. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988.
. The Idea o f Africa. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994.
Mullins, Nicholas & Mullins, Carolyn. Theories and Theory Groups in Contemporary
American Sociology. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1973.
Munford, Clarence. Production Relations, Class and Black Liberation: A Marxist

Perspective in Afro-American Studies. Amsterdam: B. R. Gruner Publishing Company,
1978.
Muyumba, Francois N. “Sheikh Anta Diop: A Critical View o f Africa in the Twenty-
First Century.” The Great Lakes Research Journal 1, no. 1 (2004): 19-34.
Myers, Linda James. “The Deep Structure o f Culture: The Relevance o f Traditional
African Culture in Contemporary Times.” Journal o f Black Studies 18, no. 1 (1987): 72-
85.
278
. “Expanding the Psychology o f Knowledge Optimally: The Importance of
Worldview Revisited” in Black Psychology, edited by Reginald Jones, 15-32. Berkeley:
Cobb & Henry Publishers, 1991.
. Understanding an Afrocentric World View: Introduction to an Optimal

Psychology. Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 1993.
. “Optimal Theory and the Philosophical and Academic Origins o f Black Studies.”
In The African American Studies Reader, edited by Nathaniel Norment, 295-302.
Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2001.
Naugle, Donald K. Worldview: The History o f a Concept. Grand Rapids: William B.

Eedermans Publishing Co., 2002.
Neel, Ann Marie Fillinger. Theories o f Psychology: A Handbook. Cambridge:

Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc., 1969.
Nobles, Wade. Africanity and the Black Family. Oakland: A Black Family Institute
Publication, 1985.
. “Toward an Empirical and Theoretical Framework for Defining Black Families.”

Journal o f Marriage and the Family 40, no. 4 (1978): 679-688.
Norment, Nathaniel. The African American Studies Reader. Durham: Carolina

Obenga, Theophile. Ancient Egypt & Black Africa: A Student’s Handbook fo r the Study
o f Ancient Egypt in Philosophy, Linguistics & Gender Relations. London: Kamak
House, 1992.
. African Philosophy in World History. Princeton: Sungai Books, 1995.
. On Methodology. College o f Ethnic Studies, San Francisco State University,

2000 .
Okafor, Victor Oguejiofor. “Toward an Africological Pedagogical Approach to African

Civilizations.” Journal o f Black Studies 26, no. 1 (1995): 77-85.
Okantah, Mwatabu. Cheikh Anta Diop: Poem fo r the Living. Philadelphia: Black
History Museum/UMUM/LOH Publishers, 1997.
Ojumu, Philip O. C.A. Diop’s Reconstruction o f the History o f African Philosophy: A

Critique. Presence Africaine, 163/164,(2001): 80-89.
Okanlawon, A. “Towards Pan-Africanism: Africanism-A Sythesis o f the African World-

View,” Black World, (1972): 40-45, 92-97.
279
Okpewho, Isidore. “Cheikh Anta Diop: The Search for a Philosophy o f African Culture.”
Cahiers d ’aetudes Africaines 84, (1981): 587-602.
. Myth in Africa: A Study o f its Aesthetic and Cultural Relevance. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Osei, G. K. African Contribution to Civilization. Baltimore: Black Classic Press, 1966.
. The African Concept o f Life and Death. London: The African Publication
Society, 1981.
Outlaw, Lucious. On Race and Philosophy. New York: Routledge, 1996.
Painter, Nell Irvine. “Black Studies, Black Professors and the Struggles o f Perception.”
Chronicle o f Higher Education 47, no. 16 (2000): B7-B9.
Peters, Erskine. “Afrocentricity: Problems o f Method and Nomenclature.” In The

African American Studies Reader, edited by Nathaniel Norment, 565-584. Durham:
Carolina Academic Press, 2001.
Popper, Karl. The Logic o f Scientific Discovery. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers,
1968.
Rapoport, Anatol. “Various Meanings o f ‘Theory’.” The American Political Science

Review 52, no. 4 (1958): 972-988.
Rashidi, Runoko. Introduction the Study o f African Civilizations. London: Kamak

House, 1992.
Reviere, Ruth. “Toward an Afrocentric Research Methodology.” Journal o f Black

Studies 31, no. 6 (2001): 709-728.
Richards, Dona (aka Marimba Ani) “The Ideology o f European Dominance,” Western
. “European Mythology: The Ideology o f ‘Progress’,” in Contemporary Black

Thought, ed. Molefi Kete Asante, 59-79. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1980.
. “The Demystification o f Objectivity,” Imhotep: An Afrocentric Review, l,n o . 1

(1989).
. “The Implications o f African-American Spirituality.” In African Culture: The

Rhythms o f Unity, edited by Molefi Kete Asante & Kariumu Welsh-Asante, 207-232.
280
Roberts, C. The Logic o f Historical Explanation. University Park: The Pennsylvania
State University Press, 1996.
Robinson, Armstead L., Foster, Craig C. & Ogilvie, Donald H. Black Studies in the
University. New York: Bantam Books, 1969.
Robinson, Cedric. Black Marxism: The Making o f the Black Radical Tradition. Chapel
Hill: The University o f North Carolina Press, 2000.
Rodney, Walter. How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Washington, DC: Howard

Rolison, Garry L. “Black Intellectuals and Black Studies: The Quest for ‘Subjects’ in
Academe” Imhotep: An Afrocentric Review, 3, no. 1 (1991): 1-8.
Rooks, Noliwe. White Money/Black Power: The Surprising History o f African American
Studies and the Crisis o f Race in Higher Education. Boston: Beacon, 2006.
Said, Edward. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books, 1978.
San Francisco Black Student Union. “It is Detrimental to Us as Human Beings to be

Controlled by Racists.” In Black Protest Thought in the Twentieth Century, edited by
August Meier, Elliot Rudwick and Francis L. Broderick, 528-534. Indianapolis: The
Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1971.
Schelegel, Frederick Von. Philosophy o f History. London: George Bell & Sons, 1883.
Schneider, Alison. “Black Studies 101: Introductory Courses Reflect a Field Still
Defining Itself,” Chronicle o f Higher Education 46, no. 37 (2000): A20-A25.
Schwaller de Lubicz, R. A. The Egyptian Miracle: An Introduction to the Wisdom o f the

Temple. New York: Inner Traditions International, 1985.
Scott, J. “Black Science and Nation-Building.” In The Death o f White Sociology, edited
by Joyce A. Ladner, 289-309. Baltimore: Black Classic Press, 1973.
Semaj, Leachim. “Towards a Cultural Science.” In African Psychology in Historical

Perspective and Related Commentary, edited by Daudi Ajani Ya Azibo, 193-202.
Semmes, Clovis E. “Foundations o f an Afrocentric Social Science: Implications for

Curriculum-Building, Theory and Research in Black Studies.” Journal o f Black Studies
12, no. 1 (1981): 3-17.
. “The Sociological Tradition o f E. Franklin Frazier: Implications for Black

Studies.” Journal o f Negro Education 55, no. 4 (1986): 484-494.
281
. Cultural Hegemony and African American Development. Westport: Praeger,
1992.
. “Foundations in Africana Studies: Revisiting Negro Digest/Black World, 1961-

1976.” The Western Journal o f Black Studies 25, no. 4 (2001): 195-201.
Shea, Christopher. “A Black Shade o f Yale: African-American Studies Takes a New

Direction.” Lingua Franca 11, no. 2. (2001): 42-49.
Small, Mario. “Departmental Conditions and the Emergence o f New Disciplines: Two
Cases in the Legitimization o f African-American Studies.” Theory and Society 28,
(1999): 659-707.
Smith, P. The Historian and History. New York: Vintage Books, 1964.
Spady, J. “Negritude, PanBanegritude and the Diopian Philosophy o f African History,” A

Current Bibliography o f African Affairs, 5,11, (1972): 11 -29.
. “The Cultural Unity o f Cheikh Anta Diop 1948-1964,” Black Images: A Critical
Quarterly on Black Arts and Culture, 1,3-4(1972): 14-22.
. “The Changing Perceptions o f C. A. Diop and His Works: The Preeminence o f a

Scientific Spirit.” In Great African Thinkers: Cheikh Anta Diop, edited by Ivan Van
Sertima, pp. 89-101. Transaction Books: New Brunswick.
. “Cheikh Anta Diop and Freddie L. Thomas: Two Philosophical Perspectives on

Pristine Black History,” Journal o f African Civilizations, pp. 15-28.
Spurlock, K. “Toward the Evolution o f a Unitary Discipline: Maximizing the

Interdisciplinary Concept in African/Afro-American Studies.” In The African American
Studies Reader, edited by Nathaniel Norment, Jr., pp. 647-652. Durham: Carolina
Skolimowski, Henryk. “The scientific world view and the illusions o f progress.” Social
Research 41, no. 1 (1974): 56-82.
Smith, W. “Black Studies: A Survey o f Models and Curricula.” In The African

American Studies Reader, edited by Nathaniel Norment, Jr., 631-640. Durham: Carolina
Stewart, James. Review o f Introduction to Black Studies, by Maulana Karenga, Western

. “The Legacy o f W. E. B. Du Bois for Contemporary Black Studies.” Journal o f

Negro Education 53, no. 3, (1984): 296-311.
282
. “Reaching for Higher Ground: Toward an Understanding o f Black/Africana
Studies.” In The African American Studies Reader, edited by Nathaniel Norment, 349-
367. Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2001.
. “Social Science and Systematic Inquiry in Africana Studies: Challenges for the
Twenty-First Century.” In Afrocentric Traditions, edited by James L. Conyers, Jr., 83-
110. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2005.
Sutherland, Marcia. Black Authenticity: A Psychology fo r Liberating People o f African

Descent. Chicago: Third World Press, 1993.
Swanston, Anna. Dr. John Henrik Clarke: His Life, His Words, His Works. Atlantad: I
Am Unlimited Publishing, 2003.
Swindel, Warren C. “A Note on the Administration o f Africana Studies Units in Higher

Education.” Word 1, no. 1(1991): 1-18.
Taylor, Ronald L. “The Study o f Black People: A Survey o f Empirical and Theoretical
Models.” In Black Studies: Theory, M ethod and Cultural Perspectives, edited by
Talmadge Anderson, 11-14. Pullman: Washington State Press, 1990.
T ’Shaka, Oba. Return to the African Mother Principle o f Male and Female Equality.
Oakland: Pan Afrikan Publishers, 1995.
Thelwell, Micheal. “Black Studies: A Political Perspective.” In The African American

Press, 2001.
Thomas, Greg. “Erotics of Aryanism/Histories o f Empire: How ‘White Supremacy’ and

‘Hellomania’ Construct ‘Discourses o f Sexuality’.” CR: The New Centennial Review 3,
no. 3 (2003): 235-255.
Turner, James E. “Africana Studies and Epistemology: A Discourse in the Sociology o f

Knowledge.” In The Next Decade: Theoretical and Research Issues in Africana Studies,
edited by James E. Turner, v-xxv. Ithaca: Africana Research and Research Center, 1984.
& McGann, C. S. “Black Studies as an Integral Tradition in African-American

Intellectual History.” Journal o f Negro Education 49, no. 1,(1980): 52-59.
Ujomu, Philip O.. C. A. Diop’s Reconstruction o f the History o f Philosophy: a critique.

Presence Africaine 163, no. 3, (2001): 80-89.
Van Home, Winston. Africology: Considerations Concerning a Discipline, (nd).
283
Van Sertima, Ivan. Great African Thinkers: Cheikh Anta Diop. New Brunswick:
Transaction Books, 1986.
Verharen, Charles C. “Environment, Culture and Ethics. An African Concept o f Evil.”

Presence Africaine 158, no. 2 (1998): 47-62.
Walker, J. D. “The Misrepresentation o f Diop’s Views.” Journal o f Black Studies 26,

no. 1 (1995): 77-85.
Walters, R. “Toward a Definition o f Black Social Science.” In The Death o f White

Sociology, edited by Joyce A. Ladner, 190-213. Baltimore: Black Class Press, 1973.
Wangara, H. K. “African Perspective on History.” Black World, 13, no. 4 (1974): 53-61.
Wasby, Stephen. Political Science: The Discipline and Its Dimensions: An Introduction.
New York: Scribner, 1970.
Welsh-Asante, Kariumu. “The Aesthetic Conceptualization o f Nzuri.” In The African

Aesthetic: Keepers o f the Traditions, edited by Kariamu Welsch-Asante, 1-20.
Westport: Praeger, 1993.
Werkmeister, W. H. “Theory Construction and the Problem o f Objectivity.” In

Symposium on Sociological Theory, edited by Llewellyn Gross, 483-508. Evanston:
Row, Peterson and Company, 1959.
Williams, Chancellor. The Destruction o f Black Civilization: Great Issues o f a Race

from 4500 B.C. to 2000 A.D. Chicago: Third World Press, 1987.
Williams, Chris. “In Defense of Materialism: A Critique o f Afrocentric Ontology.” Race

& Class 47, no. 1 (2005): 35-48.
Williams, Robert. Negroes with Guns. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1998.
Williams, Wayne R. “Unified Theory in Black Studies: Insights from the Creole
Language Model.” Phylon 49, nos. ‘A (1992): 42-54.
Wilson, Amos. The Falsification o f Afrikan Consciousness: Eurocentric History,

Psychiatry and the Politics o f White Supremacy. New York: Afrikan World
InfoSystems, 1993.
. Afrikan-Centered Consciousness Versus The New World Order: Garveyism in

the Age o f Globalism. New York: Afrikan World InfoSystems, 1999.
Wobogo, Vulendin. “Diop’s Two Cradle Theory and the Origins o f White Racism.”
Black Books Bulletin 4, no. 4 (1976): 20-29, 72.
284
Woodson, Carter G. The Mis-Education o f the Negro. Trenton: Africa World Press,
1990.
Woodyard, J. L. Evolution o f a Discipline: Intellectual Antecedents o f African American

Studies. Journal o f Black Studies 22, no. 2(1991): 239-251.
Wright, Bobby. The Psychopathic Racial Personality and Other Essays. Chicago: Third
World Press, 1984.
Young, Alfred A. and Deskins, Donald R. “Early Traditions o f African-American

Sociological Thought,” Annual Review o f Sociology 27 (2001): 445-477.
Zerai, Assata. Agents o f knowledge and action: selected Africana scholars and their
contributions to the understanding o f race, class and gender intersectionality. Cultural
Dynamics 12, no. 2 (2002): 182-222.
Zinn, Howard. A People’s History o f the United States: 1492-Present. New York:
Harper Perennial, 2003.
285

Note To Users

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Note To Users

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NOTE TO USERS

Page(s) not included in the original manuscript and are

This reproduction is the best copy available.

All rights reserved.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

The Influence o f Cheikh Anta Diop’s

Karanja Keita Carroll

This study presents an examination o f what has been commonly referred to as

assumptions and organization o f knowledge within Africana Studies. This study,

interpretations within Africana psychology, Africana history and Africana philosophy.

The concept o f a multi-area theory was constructed as a discipline-specific and

which are consistent with the organization o f knowledge in Africana Studies.

As a testament to the Creator and my Ancestors, this intellectual project speaks to

their existence and powerful movement o f spirit throughout the universe. In my

encouragement to all o f her grandchildren, grandnieces, grandnephews and extended

understanding, through these years of our existence.

who functioned at different points in my life as fathers and mentors, instilling in me

perseverance, critical thinking skills and the ability to question.

To Montclair State University, especially Sandra Collins, Leslie Wilson, Sharon

discussions and I especially appreciate your guidance on my questions that functioned as

an intellectual mother you have continuously challenged me to take my analysis above

To my Dissertation Committee, I am eternally grateful for your assistance and

encouragement in the completion o f this intellectual project. To Nathaniel Norment, Jr.,

contributing to the conceptualization o f many areas o f this project. I am thankful to

discussion o f the worldview framework and research methodology. Daudi Ajani ya

you are now able to pass on to another generation.

Temple University’s Department o f Afrikan American Studies, with its long

overnights at UPENN’s library or on Springfield Avenue, I will always appreciate and

love you, no matter the circumstances.

scholars, can do.

committee members, editing, critiquing, questioning, giving feedback or just telling me to

of productive work which we can produce together, as a reality o f noncontradiction

at New Paltz, Margaret Wade-Lewis, A. J. Williams-Myers and Zelbert Moore. I

appreciate your willingness to provide me with an opportunity to share my intellectual

Borough o f Manhattan Community College and SUNY New Paltz.

Alexander Crummel, Edward Wilmot Blyden, Drusilla Dunjee Houston, C. Tsehloane

2. REVIEW OF RELEVANT AND RELATED LITERATURE

4. A GENEALOGY OF DIOP’S TWO CRADLE T H E O R Y AFRICANA

5. THE TWO CRADLE T H E O R Y m AFRICANA STUDIES: THEORETICAL

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................... 262

Figure 1. Diop’s Two Cradle Theory....................................................................................... 71

Figure 2. Genealogy o f Writings in Africana Discourse on the

Any scholar and/or student o f Africana (Afrikan American/Afro-American/

Black/Pan-Afrikan) Studies, is quite aware o f the problems currently facing the

Theory can be used within Africana Studies on a variety o f levels, especially

corresponding to the various theory types used within the discipline.

problems facing theory in Africana Studies, it is necessary to understand the discipline’s

II. The Historical and Intellectual Development of Africana Studies

Discussion o f the historical development o f Africana Studies is set between a

within an ancient Afrikan origin.

Azibo is in agreement with this position, and in order to create a holistic

find the historical marker o f Ancient Egypt.

connected to the current manifestation o f Africana Studies in the African diaspora.

which knowledge was used to transmit culture, history and values.12

Africana Studies are essential in our arguments for an Afrikan-centered interpretation o f

history o f Africana Studies.

However, Maulana Karenga’s position, o f a 1960s origin o f Africana Studies,

mainstay within the discipline o f Africana Studies.

articulated, nor highly developed intellectual history of the discipline. Karenga’s

consistently argued regarding the intellectual development o f Africana Studies. And, it is

In order to stymie criticism o f weaknesses outlined by Stewart and others18,

discipline’ aspect should be reconceptualized as historical markers in the history o f Black

Karenga then attempts to discuss a possible pre-discipline history o f Africana