This might be a bit too insiderish, but here goes:
At his blog Easily Distracted, Swarthmore College Africanist has a post exploring “What’s Distinctive About Africanist Historiography.” Burke is a thoughtful and serious thinker and his remarks are very much worth considering. I am, however, always wary of “distinctiveness” arguments, which strike me as one step removed from claims of “exceptionalism.” All regional histories are “distinctive” in the same way that they are “unique,” (another overused term). I am just wary of drawing too much from such assertions.
That said, Burke’s four categories strike me as legitimate. (For fuller context I strongly advise you to go to the full post – some of these are presented in their entirety, some are truncated.):
1) “The historiography of Africa is methodologically and/or epistemologically distinctive.”
2) “The particular character of colonialism, globalizing capitalism or modern institutions in African history raises a distinctive range of questions for historians and anthropologists which has some comparative significance for understanding colonialism, globalizing capitalism or modernity in general.”
3) “The marginal or failed position of many African societies within contemporary global systems is a special challenge for many comparative or universal frameworks and requires historical investigation into the roots or causes of this marginality and thus to possible resolutions or addresses to these problems.”
4) “African societies (or some subset of African societies) have some distinctive material, cultural, philosophical character over their longue duree; studying the colonial era is just a way to focus an exploration of the particular character of African societies as they experienced new pressures from external forces and institutions.”