{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01745877788554801, 'fraction_numerical': 0.019398642095053348, 'mean_word_length': 5.142857142857143, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Discipline of Africology at the Crossroads: Toward An Eshuean Response to Intellectual Dilemma

SINCE THE CREATION of departments of African American Studies in the late 1960s and the subsequent emergence of Afrocentricity as a theoretical and critical instrument of analysis in the 1980s, the future of the intellectual activity surrounding the full examination of African ideas and experiences has come under increasing scrutiny (Asante, 1988; 1990; 1999). It is my intention to lay out what I believe to be some of the crucial issues confronting the academic and educational enterprise variously called Black Studies, African American Studies, Africana Studies, and Africology. As an indication of the unsettled nature of the discipline, the issue of how we name ourselves remains unsettled. I have chosen to refer to the area of study as Africology, following the lead of the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee. Others will choose other names, and the only way that this issue will be settled is by disciplinary practice.