1960s–Present: (The Unfinished Integration, African History Still Treated as an Add-On Rather Than an Integral Part of the Discipline, Courses Available but …

1960s–Present: (The Unfinished Integration, African History Still Treated as an Add-On Rather Than an Integral Part of the Discipline, Courses Available but Rarely Required, Ancient Periods Neglected in Favor of the Past Few Centuries, and the Persistent Question of Whether the Academy Has Truly Changed or Merely Gestured Toward Inclusion): Independence movements across Africa and the civil rights movement in the United States stimulated a new growth of public and scholarly interest in Africa from the late 1950s onward. Scholarship in history, historical linguistics, and archaeology has immensely expanded the body of available information on the African past, and courses in African history are now part of the curriculum at many universities. But Ehret presses the question that polite academic culture prefers to leave unasked: can one say, even yet, that African history is being treated as an integral part of the discipline? In the revitalized field of world history, are developments in Africa woven into the overall story, or are they relegated to the add-ons, the sidebar boxes, the optional chapters that instructors skip when the semester runs short? When African history courses exist at a university, what proportion of undergraduate history majors actually take them? And in those courses, are teachers giving the same depth of attention to the ancient periods that they give to the past few centuries? The answers, Ehret implies, are damning. The discipline has learned to say the right things about African history without actually doing the work of integrating it. Inclusion without integration is decoration, and decoration is not justice.