African Union Vs. Pan-Africanism.

I haven't been posting here because I've been over at Blackademics.org discussing the recent AU summit and Pan-Africanism. I want to address the subject here because of a few things that I have experienced during that conversation. The first thing is that I noticed that much of the coverage of the AU Summit was by people who are NOT Pan-Africanists. Simply because one is interested in Africa does not make one a Pan-Africanist. If there are going to be discussions of Pan-Africanism, it would seem appropriate to me to actually find Pan-Africanists to discuss the issue. Now back in Garvey's day the press could easily find him and ask him about Pan-Africanism. Equally they could ask his wife about the same and get an actual Pan-Africanist's position on the subject. Today, in the absence of 'high profile" Pan-Africanists, just about any and everyone with an opinion can be asked about Pan-Africanism and be taken at their word. It's similar to how I've noticed how at some colleges and universities "anyone" who is black is offered the luxury of teaching a "racism" course, as if all black people are qualified to teach the matter in an in depth and critical manner. It cheapens the subject. Similarly talking to people about Pan-Africanism, who only have questions rather than people who have spent a lot of time coming up with answers is pretty much a waste of time.

Pan-Africanism is not an intellectual exercize as it has been reduced to in many universities. Pan-Africanism is a structural working framework for action in regards to the multiple issues facing African people world wide. I spent some time last year at a "Pan-Africanism" conference at a ivy league university that shall remain unnamed, where there was much discussion of African culture, art and some politics but nothing that I would classify as Pan-Africanism. Garveyism, the earliest functional expression of Pan-Africanism, was most profound in it's insistence on action. It was about problem solving and making hard decisions in order to achieve stated goals. Gareyism stressed the point that the African, if he did not "wake up", would fall further and further behind other people and fall into a state of dependency. Garvey famously used the phrase "in 50 years..." This indicated that Garvey was well aware in the 1920's that time was indeed short for the African.

Studying the programme of the UNIA one would note that Garvey was heavy on the need for technical expertise. This is very evident with the Black Star Line Corporation as well as the Black Star Factories and the like. While there were clear execution issues with these ventures, Garvey understood full well that engagement with the modern world was important. Another thing that Garveyism and indeed what is the underlying premise of Pan-Africanism is the end to things such as "tribalism". The trans-Atlantic slave trade had the side effect of creating a group of Africans who were "de-tribalized". The realities of white supremacy as well as the reality of transplantation required that the African in the Americas to become conscious of that which he had in common with each other: being African. Unfortunatly the situation in Africa proper was not amenable to the same issue. Yes, the continental African came to understand that he was looked down upon for being black, but the colonial system made use of the fractionalization of various African groups in order to facilitate control. So while the continental African could unite to overthrow colonial systems, They quickly fell into ethnic power grabs Such as that which we saw in Kenya, Zimbabwe, The Democratic Republic of the Congo and Angola.

Fanon warned us about the failure to create a national consciousness. We can apply this same critique to Pan-Africanism. We as Pan-Africanists must be vigilant to raise the consciouness of black people as Africans first and whatever else, be it religion or ethnic affiliation second, third, fourth, etc. This brings me to the issue of the "failed" African Summit. If you want to find out who is a Pan-Africanist and who is not, simply look for those who use the differences among Africans as an excuse to not do anything at all. And, unfortunately these are usually the same people who will do the complaining when Europeans do something they don't like. You see, the Garveyite doesn't want to know when the oppressor will stop being the oppressor. The Garveyite understands full well that the oppressor will continue to oppress AND will convince certain persons to join them in the oppressing for material gain. Knowing this, we don't waste our time bickering over what the oppressor needs to do, We ask when and what are we going to do to prevent the oppressors from continuing to oppress us.

This the primary reason why many people got mad at Bill Cosby. It is currently not popular to critique black folk unless they are obviously toming for white folk. Bill Cosby decided in his presentation to focus on what WE should be doing to get the oppressor off of our backs and how to avoid the traps set by the oppressor. People got mad at him because he didn't spend enough time speaking on the well known evils of the oppressor. They wanted the standard: use the oppressor's behavior to explain your own speeches that we always get. Thing is, if one is familiar with Garvey's speeched (both Marcus and Amy) you will see stining critiques of black behavior from top to bottom. Self critique is part and parcel of Pan-Africanism. Clearly if we were perfect people we would have everything solved by now. But getting back to the African summit, You'll note a number of questions about forming a Pan-African government many of which are permutations of:

1) There are many cultures within Africa how do you integrate them?
2) What to do with the current "leadership"?
3) What languages will be official?
4) What form of government?

Really not important questions when one considers the alternative. In terms of different peoples: AIDS doesn't care. Nor does China or any multi-national corporation. In fact the more Africans are concerned with their own ethnic identity over and above the common good the better it is for these entities. Corporations love when nations in poor countries split up along ethnic lines. Smaller groups are easier to control and exploit. We should know better from the Atlantic slave trade. Secondly do you really think a hungry child or unemployed man or woman is really all that concerned whether the job or food comes from Nigeria or Chad? Really? is it all THAT important?

In terms of the current leadership it is my opinion that if they were really leaders then Pan-Africanism wouldn't be a discussion it would be a reality. Not necessarily smooth running and all, but it would be set up. It is NOT that hard. As I've stated in other forums, the current presidents would be governors of their particular state (formerly country). They would be doing much like they do already (with hopefully less corruption).

In terms of language support, since we know that much of the continent speaks English and French and the same goes for much of the diaspora I have already suggested that these languages be adopted as official means of communication. They should, in my opinion be used side by side with dominant regional languages in the various states (Kiswahili, Zulu, etc.) Arabic may even need to be included here. Some people have said that this is some kind of internal imperialism. I disagree, cultures and languages come and go. The more we hold on to languges that are essentially dead, the more communication problems we'll face. it is of the utmost importance that one be able to go anywhere in the federated state and be able to communicate and transact business. Until there is an affordable and usable "universal translator" the need for official languages is going to be present. The ego's of those on the "losing end" of the language issue may present a problem. That, to me, is an issue of education. Why would any group wish to harm the whole because of language?

Be careful when one reads critiques of Pan-Africanism that is large on critique and short on solutions. The unfortunate truth is that many black people have been trained to complain. They are trained to see what everyone else is doing to them or doing wrong and to complain about it. They can tell you what they want to see but most cannot even start to discuss how to get from point a to b. Many of the people that opposed and ridiculed Garvey ended up being advocates of Pan-Africanism (Dubois comes to mind). Even the NAACP, members of whom colaborated with the US government to get rid of Garvey has been endorsing "Black business" as a means of "advancement."Yet this same organization ridiculed Garvey for setting up trans national steam ship companies and having the gall to sell stock to the common person.

There are also those that unfortunately see an African State as an imitation of The EU. While this may be true in terms of the current so called leadership, Garveyism and even the ideas of Edward Blyden preceded the EU by many decades. The EU has been formed with the same thought that Garvey had for a United Africa: To protect it's market and its citizens against aggressive competition. If we must compare the proposed African state with the EU, let us note that even though there are differences in opinion over the founding principles and some technicalities, the EU has not been stopped from forming. Meanwhile Africans will sit and bring up all manner of objections and excuses for not even starting.

I am of the opinion that rather than wait for all the "heads of state" to "agree" that a few pioneering nations go ahead and do it. They should get together and form whatever committees are necessary. They should put whatever they need to before their populations. They should form the advance guard of the African super state. open borders, singular passport, aligned currency. New decision making bodies with appropriate representation from each member "state". It may take time but it is NOT THAT HARD. Lets stop dickering around and ego tripping. Our children will thank us.

Technorati Tags: Africa, critique, governance, Leadership, Pan-Africanism